Category Archives: Conversation

Any Progress Made?

I had a short conversation with Tony Miano on one of his youtube videos. For the context of this conversation, Miano was ticketed while preaching at an abortion clinic. He was later tried and found guilty.

Here’s the conversation I had with him. (If you have trouble reading it, you can click on the picture to enlarge it).

Not only does Miano believe there are good cops somewhere, but he believes this cop who trampled his free speech rights in the defense of an abortionist is a good cop who made a mistake. That would be tantamount to a regular, upstanding citizen robbing a liquor store, and saying, “Whoops, I made a mistake. I never really thought through how robbing a liquor store is wrong.” No one would believe that you could accidentally rob a liquor store, or that someone who robbed a liquor store really is an upstanding citizen and not a thief. Knowing that robbing a liquor store is wrong, requires only a kindergarten-level knowledge of morality.

Knowing that protecting an abortionist is wrong is also kindergarten-level morality. For Miano to say this guy was a good cop who made a mistake reveals a huge shortcoming in Miano’s level of discernment.

I quoted Romans 13 to him, which every Christian, everywhere has heard a dozen times as they’re told to blindly obey and honor the wicked, antichrist state. Unfortunately, they seem to never read the last half of that passage which gives the magistrates one job, and one job only–to punish evil. And unfortunately, those who make it that far, still rarely grasp that it is God who defines good and evil (not Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Therefore, what God says is evil, the magistrate is to punish. What should be grasped by everyone who thinks they’ve progressed beyond Christianity 101 is that someone like an abortionist is to be punished by the magistrate.

Abortionists are not punished at all, anywhere in the United States. They are protected under man’s “law” and sometimes even protected to the point that the magistrate breaks the law to protect them as has been done to Miano. Any cop/judge/attorney/juror/prison guard  who protects an abortionist is evil. This is very basic discernment that Christians are supposed to be capable of (Hebrews 5:14, 1 Cor. 2:15), but as is demonstrated by Miano is not happening among most American Christians. There are no good cops, because they’re on the wrong team–the evil team.

The job of the U.S. government as they have defined it, is to protect abortionists so they can peacefully carry out their business of ripping babies apart. Romans 13:4 says their job is to punish abortionists. It should be easy for Christians to agree on this.

Is it possible for there to be good Nazis? Maybe not the guys pulling the triggers or shoving Jews into cattle cars, but what about the Nazi clerk doing a desk job? I wish German Christians had been trained to have a level of discernment capable of being able to tell whether they should work for the Nazis or work against the Nazis. It’s easy for us to point fingers, because we, as Americans, fought the Nazis, and we can easily say anyone who worked for the Nazis was evil.

But I’m saying the U.S. government is every bit as evil as the Nazis, and most people somehow don’t see it. Miano is evidence of that. He claims to be a teacher, but is incapable of simple discernment. Choose this day whether you will serve the antichrist U.S. government or the Lord. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Property Tax is Theft

So there are at least two tax hikes on the ballot for Canon City. One is a property tax increase for the school district…for the children. I’ve posed this objection several times, and no one has answered yet, because there is no rational answer. Here’s the objection, and the response of someone who is normally reasonable, logical and successful in life.

His response is that voting gives the government the ability to steal. I don’t know whether voting turns stealing into not stealing, or just means that government can steal. But what a silly answer. Clearly this is a religious view for him. He thinks there is some sort of magic that takes place at an election that causes property tax to be acceptable.

Pastors need to be talking about this from the pulpit. There is stupidity in America, because pastors are not doing their job. They’re not preaching against covetousness and theft, or explaining that the government is accountable to the law of God.

The second tax hike is a lodging tax, and someone went around and put up an obscene number of bandit signs around town. The slogan on the signs says, “The tax someone else pays.” I hope there is a pastor in this town that points out the obvious violation of the golden rule being promoted on those signs to every man, woman and child in this town, but I’m not holding my breath.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

This Conversation Is Well-Worth The Time

I will just copy and paste the whole thing:

Bojidar Marinov Joel’s point is the schizophrenia of the GOP establishment who for the last 50 years have developed in their “conservative” constituency the statist idolatry of cop-worshipping. The same establishment rejects Trump. But now their uniformed heroes endorse Trump. So the GOP establishment has to explain how they and their “finest” uniformed thugs have different ideas about Trump.

But I think the schizophrenia started much earlier, and it is in the suicidal Republican pro-police position of the last 20 years. In the mid-90s, Republicans were against the militarization of police and were generally against the police state. Since then they have changed their position to worship any cop anywhere, while at the same time the police unions have remained firmly in the grip of the Democrat Party. The FOP itself has contributed 100% to Democrat causes for the last 20 years – and yet, Republicans continue worshipping police.

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory The FOP endorsed McCain in 2008. What are you talking about and where do you get that figure of 100% as it relates to contribution to Democratic Causes?

Local lodges, who have more of a chance to influence elections, vary in their endorsement of candidates. Our local lodge has consistently endorsed Republican candidates for as long as I have been a member. We contribute to causes that are are of a Republican concern and also a Democratic concern and causes that are bi-partisan.

Can you enlighten me on where you are getting your information? Would you like to recant or qualify your previous assertion concerning 100% contributions?

Your statement about uniformed thugs is highly offensive and broad. What is your chief reason for describing someone in law enforcement in those terms?…/2008/interestg08/fop090508pr.html

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, today announced the organization’s endorsement of Senator John S. McCain III for the office of President. “The FOP carefully considered the records and the responses of both candidates and, in our evaluation, Senator McCain will…

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov McCain is a practical liberal, that’s why the uniformed thugs supported him. Police is a heavily unionized gang; and we know which party is supported by the unions in this country.

Right here some numbers, although not exhaustive. One can clearly see which party profits from the FOP’s contributions:

When you follow the small portions that go to Republican politicians, they all turn out to be just like McCain: RINOs, liberals with an R.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov One had just to see which party jumped to the defense of Darren Wilson when he murdered Michael Brown: A Socialist Democrat organized his fund-raising campain (contributions mainly from conservatives, because someone has to be the idiot), the prosecutoSee More

Hide 11 Replies
Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Did you really just claim that Darren Wilson “murdered” Michael Brown? In what could easily be studied as the best textbook example of a justified use of deadly force by a police officer you make the accusation of “murder”? Was this ever meant to be a rational discussion or just emotional bloviation?

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov You are a little too quick to judge, without knowing the case.

I have explained it why from a Biblical perspective it is a murder. Read it and then, if you have any Biblical argument against what I wrote, tell me what it is. If you don’t have a Biblical argument, or if you don’t want to read it, I don’t give a dam about your brainwashed opinion.…/brown-garner-and…/

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Thank you for sending me your article. I appreciate the fact you at least care about arguing from a biblical perspective. I don’t really appreciate your last sentence as you appear to disregard other biblical commands of respect and gentleness to others. Maybe you would agree? Due to the time now, I will read it tomorrow and respond when I can.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov My last sentence was conditional. You will have to worry about it only when you meet the conditions. If you meet the conditions, then you will deserve every bit of the rest of the sentence.

My sentence being conditional, it is much more respectful andSee More

Like · Reply · 1 · 23 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro My last sentence was a question. I appreciate the fact you answered it by pointing to an article you spent a considerable amount of time writing. So, actually my sentence was conditional and you, for an unfortunate reason, continued your aggressive tone and now added name calling to your list. In a rather surprising display of hypocrisy, you ironically made yourself guilty of your own cited scripture regarding hypocrisy. Interestingly enough, it appears to be similar to your use of scripture in your article. Although, you make good points in some places, you go off script in emotional tangents and attempt to extrapolate passages to explain away intricate details of case studies vs case studies–as if they can be directly compared. Both are taken out of their proper context and therefore you incorrectly reach conclusions that are not actually biblically justified. In regards to Darren Wilson, you dismiss actual facts of the case and ignore faulty testimonies of un-reliable witnesses. You do this all based on the presupposition that you do not recognize the authority of law enforcement officers. While I welcome the discussion of the role of PD officers in society today such a discussion is nothing but perverse to inject theory in dealing with a case study when a persons life was taken by an official, on duty, sworn, law abiding, legal law enforcement employee. In other words, limit the context of the case study to the case study so your bias opinion that apparently spans far beyond the limits of the situation doesn’t cloud your judgement when analyzing if a DW was innocent or not. Have intellectual discussions of that magnitude elsewhere, not during a case study dealing with deadly force. Just putting aside biblical law for a moment, I guess I need to remind you we don’t live in a biblically theocratic society today. So, in other words we are not set up to follow a strict biblical jurisprudence even if you believe Mosaic law is binding to governments today. As Christians we work to bring all things under King Jesus, but we also deal with present day realities of societies. I am assuming you are not currently calling for the capitol punishment of all potential offenders in accordance with Levitical law? If you are, then were is the court? If you are not, then why not?
There is much more to say, but at this point I’d rather limit the discussion in an attempt to remain focused on setting the foundation. Maybe we can return to the specifics of DW and MB at some point? Thank you for reading.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov So, your only real argument is that we do not live in a Biblically theocratic society today. Therefore, Darren Wilson did not commit murder.

Which means, abortion is not murder either. We do not live in a Biblically theocratic society today.

You did not go to the Bible to see if the Bible even allows for police. You just took the modern pagan state and made it your standard. You are a practical pagan, not a Christian, if the modern culture is your ethical/judicial standard above the Bible.

Like I said above, I don’t give a dam about your brainwashed opinion.

Like · Reply · 2 · 12 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Regarding abortion, that is a classic non-sequitur argument. My point was one of jurisprudence on jurisdiction. Since Mosaic Law is not being enforced in our society we cannot pretend to try another person by legal structures that are not in place. To See More

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov “To follow your argument to it’s logical conclusion than everything a police officer does is illegitimately unjustified and thus they are therefore always guilty of all wrongdoing, because there very existence is wrong.”

I take it you didn’t even read my article. Another good reason to ignore your babbling.

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Actually, I did read it. Despite the length, I used up many precious minutes of the day to do so. I can admit it’s possible I missed something, but I don’t think so. You made it clear their existence was where you began your objection. I extrapolated it further. I did make an attempt to understand your arguments, but one does not have to read your own commentary to evaluate an issue biblically. Your lack of response to my last appears telling.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov If you said you read it, and yet you wrote the sentence above, you lied in one of the two sentences. Goodbye.

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez A conservative/Christian (in that order) man on FB was criticizing those “Marxists who oppose police…”

I answered with a question, “Can we have Marxism without police? We know we can have freedom and a high regard for rights without police–eg, early America; Ancient Israel; Europe prior to Enlightenment–but can we actually have Marxism without police?”


Bill Phillips

Write a reply…
Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory Your own link proves you are misleading when you say 100%. This link also only discusses the National FOP PAC, not the contributions from local lodges or their individual PACs. When you paint with a broad brush you better be able to back it up.

Will you recant or qualify your previous statement?

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov 😀 Recant? Because it is not 100% but 90%? And because the 10% that goes to Republicans goes to die-hard liberals like McCain? Are you kiddin’ me?

Let’s see, I went to the local lodges to see. (And this time I am not going to show you the website, you find it yourself, being the smart stern you are.)

Over the last 20 years, the largest donors among local FOP lodges:

Baltimore City FOP Lodge 3: Democrats $155,235, Republican 18,335.

Chicago Lodge 7: Democrats $337,500, Republican $181,137 (Almost no giving to Republicans in the last 10 years, most of these R-contributions are from before 2000.)

And the same thing everywhere: Florida State Lodge, Capital City Lodge 9 (absolutely no contributions to Republicans whatsoever for the last 20 years), Indiana State Lodge, Lodge 123, Lodge 5, Illinois FOP of Police Labor Council, Maryland FOP, Nashville FOP Lodge 5, Ohio State FOP (most of Ohio’s funds “undesignated” but when followed individually, most go to liberal PACs, close to $1 million), Prince George’s County Lodge 89 (quite a lot of money for Democrats for such a small place), etc. All these donate predominantly to Democrats. If you are giving me the example of a small insignificant local lodge which has contributed $2,000 over the last 20 years, this is nothing.

Of the big givers among the lodges, only Pennsylvania State Lodge has Republicans and Democrats on a balance, and it is not sure how many of these Republicans are really conservative.

It is very clear that police everywhere is a Democrat whore, and does nothing else but work for the socialist agenda of enslaving America. Police is unconstitutional, it is a standing army, and it was created specifically to advance socialist agenda.

Police must be abolished.

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov “Your statement about uniformed thugs is highly offensive and broad. What is your chief reason for describing someone in law enforcement in those terms?”

Truth is always offensive. Look at crime statistics, and look which category of crime is the only category on the rise. It is police killings. Look at the money stolen each year by cops – more than all the thieves together. Look at the sexual crimes committed by cops. Look at the cases where a cop commits a crime and all the other cops just sit there and watch.

Yes, “uniformed thugs” is the correct word. And If there was one honest cell in you, you would have first considered whether it is true or not, not whether it has hurt you tender feelings or not.

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory I am at a loss for why you or Joel are referring to police officers in this manner. I don’t understand your motivation. In full disclosure, I am grieving the loss of a friend who died honorably in the line of duty. I am trying as much as the Holy Spirit will enable me to speak to you and Joel in a manner in which dialogue can happen and a view point that I have can be expressed in a godly manner.

My friend, and as of his death, local FOP President Kenny Moats died honorably in the line of duty 8-25-16. He responded with another officer to a domestic disturbance in which family members were being threatened with a gun from another family member. Officer Moats as well as another responding officer placed themselves in-between the offending party and the unarmed victim, the offender’s Father. My friend, Kenny Moats, was struck and killed from a single gunshot in an area not protected by his vest. He died as a result of this injury in a matter of minutes. He leaves behind a wife and three kids.

I find it incredibly offensive to see Christians engage in conversations about police officers in which the police are painted with such a broad brush without regard to men like my friend and the countless others that lay their life down in the service to others. They know bravery at a level that you and Joel will never comprehend. They walk into danger that is life threatening in an effort to save someone they have never met and have no relationship with. It is heartbreaking to me to see no charity whatsoever in your comments towards officers who stand in the gap between evil and those whom evil would prey on.

In an effort to address a problem you see at a macro level, you engage in conversation that lumps in individuals like my friend. You have offered no qualifiers to your statements. When your statements are proven false, then you decide to research and try to justify your claims. Your column concerning Wilson and Ferguson is laughable to those who understand the use of force in policing. You do not address the facts as it relates to relevant case law (TN vs Garner and Graham vs Conner) which is the standard set forth by by precedent that these officers are to be trained on and in which to enforce the law. If you want to make a case concerning police action, you need to be addressing police actions relative to case law and how established case law conflicts with Biblical principles.

I don’t understand the purpose of addressing officers in the manner in which you do. To refer to them as whores??? How would you minister to my community now sir? What message of hope would you be able to deliver that allows them to see the mercy and grace of Christ in a time of suffering like we are experiencing as well as the wrath of God that will be poured out on the offender if he doesn’t’ repent or be credited to Christ’s sacrifice should the offender repent?

If anything, God has revealed to me through this thread how polarizing generalizations can be. I am amazed at your callousness and the position you have placed yourself in that prohibits you from being a witness to any gospel truth to this community (law enforcement).

Dean May
Dean May When I see you express similar grief at evil violence and death perpetrated against innocent civilians you might have a shred of credibility.

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Laramy Gregory, I just read your comments above and also have similar thoughts as you. In case you missed it I was just in a brief exchange with Bojidar Marinov about a similar topic. I stomached his insults towards me in an effort to work toward the cSee More

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory Greg Renfro , I really appreciate your comments. I had decided to not to respond to this thread anymore but I wanted to pop back in and thank you for providing something worthy towards a conversation to help me understand what I perceive in these comments.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Thank you Laramy!
Like · Reply · 1 · 6 hrs

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Laramy, for what it’s worth someone just sent me this article dealing with Marinov in a more detailed way. I think you will find this interesting:…/just-facts-maam.html

92 1 1 Bojidar Marinov has a little fun with me here, wishing that I would become more of a…

Bill Phillips

Write a reply…
Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov You are thinking like a woman, not like a man. You are using a personal experience to make conclusions which should not be made based on personal experience but on ethical/judicial principles.

An individual cop can die like a hero, no one argues againSee More

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov And listen to the sessions of the Freedom Conference I did a couple of months ago:…/

Aaron Jackson
Aaron Jackson Still better than the alternative

Bill Phillips

Write a reply…
Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov To the contrary, professional police is about the worst possible alternative out there. That’s why the Founding Fathers never envisioned police, never had any police, spoke strongly against standing armies, and their society was one of very low crime. It’s the emergence of police as an executive institution that created crime.

Laramy Gregory
Laramy Gregory When my friend was murdered I prayed that God would use his death to spread the Gospel. I saw our community, led largely by believers, come together and demonstrate the hands and feet of Christ in it’s ministry to the family of my friend and our communSee More

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez The individual men in uniform, we love and minister to.

The institution itself is anti-Christian and must be exposed as such.See More

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez Can you see the flaw in your logic here?

The question you need to address is: do we find justification for a tax (extortion) funded, standing army or pro-active street patrollers empowered to violate (negative) individual rights under the pretense of “preventive” crime, or “serving and protecting”? neither of which are permitted by a Christian theory of law enforcement.

Bill Phillips
Write a reply…
Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov Calling good evil and evil good is not sharing the Gospel. When we don’t tell the truth about police, this is not sharing the Gospel.

The truth is always a “stumbling block” to those who love lies.

LeRoy Whitman
LeRoy Whitman That’s a “heads I win, tails you lose statement” that is not reasoning, and not filled with hope. We do not depend on all civil leaders being upright (look at history), but on the Kingdom growing in society while such leaders hold a line. The “reasoning” behind such a statement falls back to the emotion-led judgment that media has been baiting.

Greg Hoadley
Greg Hoadley Perhaps I’m not a statistics elitist and I just don’t like Trump. And police unions are political after all.

Devon Austin Generally
Devon Austin Generally When Republicans love public sector unions……

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro Did you really just claim that Darren Wilson “murdered” Michael Brown? In what could easily be studied as the best textbook example of a justified use of deadly force by a police officer you make the accusation of “murder”? Was this ever meant to be a rational discussion or just emotional bloviation?

Bojidar Marinov
Bojidar Marinov You are a little too quick to judge, without knowing the case.

I have explained it why from a Biblical perspective it is a murder. Read it and then, if you have any Biblical argument against what I wrote, tell me what it is. If you don’t have a Biblical argument, or if you don’t want to read it, I don’t give a dam about your brainwashed opinion.See More

LeRoy Whitman
LeRoy Whitman Conservatives have lost in the civil government arena by thinking an “orthodoxy” is needed like in a pastoral candidate. Whereas civil leaders who are upright need to find common ground to build a coalition so they can advance righteous civil goals (whSee More

Greg Renfro
Greg Renfro You wrote: “You did not go to the Bible to see if the Bible even allows for police,” implying I haven’t refuted your article arguing a version of that claim. My extrapolation maybe inaccurate, but you didn’t correct it, you simply accused me of lying, which is actually completely false. My goodness, one would think a person who appears so committed to following God’s Law, or what they claim it to be, would be far more careful on their own personal conduct and words since you appear to have violated several scriptural commands just on a facebook forum with a fellow believer you have never met. I mean, c’mon Bojidar, I seriously respected your article despite taking issue with some of your points. I also respect Joel McDurmon as I am literally reading two of his books now and I am trying to understand Theonomic thought more in depth. I am trying evaluate it based on scripture and not on it’s pundits personal conduct. And that is why I even continue typing, because if it was the later it would have already been tossed. Granted, I do not know you personally, and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But seriously, think about it.

Nicholas Perez
Nicholas Perez Greg, just to get you thinking about this topic from our perspective, how does this meme strike you?

Does your heart flinch at the thought of a citizen pulling out his pistol and executing an officer on the spot rather than allowing himself to be assaulted or kidnapped?

The question of the existence of police aside for a moment (which is the real question, to be sure, but in the current situation we want to think as Biblically as we can), do you believe that police have more “rights” than everyday citizens? If an unmarked car approached my vehicle and a citizen got out and asked me to put my hands behind my back with his hand on his gun, I would be justified in killing him, right? Would I be justified in killing a police officer making a warrantless, unjustified arrest (i.e., kidnapping)?

One of the huge issues here is, are police held to the same legal standard as citizens? Should they be? If you say no, you are not only at odds with God’s Word, but with our Founding Fathers, who would have shot a police officer dead for violating their rights.

Nicholas Perez's photo.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Is This Just a Knee Jerk Reaction, Or Are They This Stupid?

You wouldn’t think that cops would blatantly defend bad cops, or be against the idea that black people should receive impartial justice. I hope that’s not what this is.

My acquaintance on Facebook is a cop, and he posted a link to this spammy, clickbait, article. (I posted a comment on that article, but it was deleted, which is really lame.) I don’t know whether he actually read the article or not. I don’t know whether the commenters read it or not. Maybe they see a Hollywood liberal post something, and they immediately jump to a conclusion without reading it carefully. I hope that is what it is. Because if they understood and read what he wrote, what they say about it is shameful and revealing.


First of all, I think police should be completely defunded and ABOLISHED. I want that because that is what Scripture teaches. But is that what liberals want? Liberals are socialists and statists. How can Obamacare or whatever socialist dream be forced on anyone without government agents with guns?

If my Facebook buddy thinks he’s the target of defunding, does he realize that he’s admitting to being a bad cop?

But it turns out that when you read the article. it directly quotes Ruffalo’s tweets, and it doesn’t say anything about wanting to abolish police. His tweets say:

Defund bad cops and police departments. Tell Obama: We need an executive order!

I stand with the Movement For Black Lives in the fight for peace and justice for Black people. Will you?

It says defund BAD cops. What kind of brainless, cop-worshiping idiot wants to continue funding bad cops? Well, I showed you the original poster. He’s one. There are others.


Laying off bad cops causes one to roll her eyes. Are cops supposed to be tenured people who can’t be fired for doing a bad job? One guy sees the inconsistency of Democrats wanting to ban guns while being protected by armed bodyguards and apparently thinks that applies to every possible situation. He’s so stupid he must be a cop. But wait. There are others who want to defend bad cops.


I really hope these people didn’t read the article or the guy’s tweets and fell for the clickbait article title. I wrote the second to last comment and no one has responded. I hope they will.

I agree that Ruffalo is probably some nutjob leftist. And if he is, there is plenty to pick on him for. But we all need to be more careful when we criticize someone that it doesn’t lead us to do stupid stuff, like protect bad cops from being fired, or defend the liberal position that police should be receiving federal grants, or God forbid that all police departments should be receiving federal grants no matter how good or bad they are. Who is the liberal in this scenario, Ruffalo or the commenters? Who’s for strong unions with untouchable government workers?

We all have traditions that can blind us and cause us to not understand what other people are saying. As unpleasant as it might be, our concern for truth as Christians must cause us to spend time understanding what our “enemies” believe so that we can argue against what they’re really saying, and not against a straw man.

I sincerely hope the commenters here are just making up a strawman to knock down (that’s sinful enough). I hope they’re not actually defending bad cops and departments and hoping for more federal grants for their personal PD. That would make them the nutjob leftists.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Get In the Battle!

I love the answer to this question in a conversation on Facebook.
Q: My wife works full time, and I work two jobs. We make enough to pay the bills. Do you think that homeschooling is still possible in a situation like that?

I’m not advocating for public schooling. Just want your opinion.

A: Yes.

There are many local organizations that help parents with low incomes homeschool. If there are no organizations. Get your church to back you. This is a war. It takes sweat and blood. Your children’s lives are on the line. Risk everything.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Cop Worshiper Arguments

When you criticize the police, and especially when you have a great argument, a true sign that someone is a cop worshiper is when they retort, “Well, I hope you never need to call the police again. If there aren’t any cops, you should just call a crackhead.”

Here’s a great response to that from a random dude on Facebook. “The crackhead has this going for him: He has a better knowledge and network on the streets, and will be fairly prosecuted for all violent crimes against you.”





I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Might Makes Right, Right?

Might does not make right. The only possible source for moral authority for government comes from it acknowledging and submitting to Christ as King and Lord. But as this country has rejected Christ, its only claim to authority comes from the barrel of a gun–from threatening violence against those who don’t obey.

Sadly, even reformed Christians are taking part in this. Below is a conversation on a Facebook group of reformed Christians. I wonder what it’s like to enforce the unjust, unconstitutional laws of a nation under God’s judgment.  The following comes from a friendly conversation where a guy asked the group what tool people use most often at their job. A lot of people named various tools and testing equipment or computers. A lot of pastors said they use the Bible most. Out of a couple hundred responses I saw two cops say they used their gun most.


Here’s the rest of that conversation.


The founding fathers declared their independence because the standing army the king placed in the colonies. But we just put up with people like Andrew being willing to kill those who might run a stop sign, smoke in a public place or not pay their taxes.


I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Warped Cop Worshiper

When your religion is statism and cops are the priests, apparently it can make you see things that aren’t there. Here’s a conversation I had on Twitter.


“Morality is Freedom” says that Tamir Rice approached the police. I have no idea how he came to that conclusion. As far as I can tell it is just a complete perversion of the facts. The cops raced up to him, driving on the grass, and killed the kid in under 3 seconds. I don’t see how anyone can reasonably perceive that a pedestrian has done any significant approaching in 3 seconds to a car that has just raced up to him.

Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Wouldn’t love dictate that the cop, even at the risk of his own life, at least try to diffuse the situation?  Is officer safety really the chief concern? Wasn’t Jesus saying that my own well-being isn’t my chief concern?

Apparently officer safety is the chief concern, to the point that we no longer care what the Bible says about murder. The Bible teaches that humans are created in God’s image and there are very specific limits to when killing isn’t murder.

But Americans don’t care about all that. We’d rather a child be murdered, than an officer have to risk his life. Since that’s the case, wouldn’t police be even safer if they didn’t have to expose themselves at all? Shouldn’t they have just run the kid over? Maybe someone will invent special bumpers that will more effectively kill people on the first attempt at running over, so as not to give them a chance to fire on police even after having been run over by a less-lethal bumper.

In case you missed it all, here’s the video of the incident. The murder takes place beginning at the 8:26 mark.


I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

The Only Argument Against Theonomy Falls


These guys have presented the only real argument against theonomy I’ve seen, and I’ve been thinking about it. It’s not a very good argument for three reasons.

1. They appeal to lex talionis (the principle that the proper punishment for a crime is an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.

Lex talionis is theonomic. It’s taken from the Old Testament civil law in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. And God has defined specifically what fits that description throughout the civil law. If you reject theonomy, by what standard is lex talionis just?

2. These guys said that if someone voluntarily agrees to submit to theonomy (or whatever system of law), then the punishments are then just for that individual. I asked whether someone who voluntarily joined a homeowner’s association that called for the death penalty for painting their house the wrong color, would the death penalty then be just for someone who picked the wrong color? They never answered the question. This shows an inconsistency in their system of thought.

3. They said that the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9) dictates that the only capital crime is murder. I asked what the Noahic covenant dictates as to the punishment for kindapping, rape, theft, etc.? They never were able to respond except that at the end they claimed lex talionis is valid and would provide the proper punishment for these things.

Their arguments are more complex than most people’s silence and inability to respond to theonomy, but their system is still arbitrary. If you reject theonomy, there’s no longer a basis to judge any law, and you can no longer say theonomic laws are unjust.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.

Flushing Out False Doctrine

I’m no longer a Premillennialist (the most common end-times view of American Christians). It is a pessimistic view, teaching that ultimately Christians are going to be defeated in history. However, Jesus will return and make things right and secure the victory. But, as time goes on, it would teach that Christians are going to lose more and more battles. I think proper premillennialism would say that we should continue fighting the battles valiantly. But if you think you’re most likely to lose a battle, it would certainly be tempting to not fight. John MacArthur has even said that trying to improve society is like polishing brass on a sinking ship.

Below is a quick conversation on a Youtube video. You can see that Awakened Won is dead certain that the end is near, and he’s very pessimistic, to the point of dismissing the previous commenter’s suggestion out of hand.


How is he so certain that the birth pangs have begun? By watching and reading the news, and focusing on America’s viewpoint. That isn’t the way to properly interpret the Bible.

I think scrimmy6969’s suggestion is cool. At least he’s making a concrete suggestion, and something is way better than Awakened One’s nothing.

I have known Christians who share Awakened One’s outlook, and one of the things they say is, “We should just preach the gospel.” Generally, the people who do that aren’t actually preaching the gospel, but you can also ask them if all they do is preach the gospel. Do they have a church softball team or pot luck dinner? The gospel is God’s power unto salvation and it leads us to try to correct injustices we see, as much as just to proclaim a message. I think it would be hard to proclaim the message of the gospel without it actually leading to taking action as well.

Here’s the video on which the conversation took place. My thinking on Alex Jones is that he does quite a bit of speculating, and he’s right some of the time and he’s wrong some of the time. I really like the impassioned speech he gave towards the end of the video.

Whether postmillennialism is true or not is something I’m still studying, but I’m sold on the idea that I’m here to build a godly legacy for my sons, grandsons and generations to come. Part of my job is to build an inheritance for them to be influential members of the community. If Christ wants to come back and interrupt that, it’s up to Him.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. To continue the discussion, check out Twitter or Facebook.