RSS Feed available. See the link at the bottom of the page.

User Profile

Recent Entries

You have 72730 hits.

Posted By Chalkbrd

As I wrote in the last entry, the NEA put out a newsletter that intended to draw in new members by dispelling some of the things that are being said about them.

The first deception said they do not support abortion, yet then they turned right around and said that they did (but by using a euphemism instead of saying it in those terms).

The second deception follows a similar pattern.  Let me quote from the newsletter:

Deception #2:  NEA Only supports Democrats for Public Office

Truth:  NEA recommends that its members support pro-education candidates without regard to their political affiliation.

If this is true, why is the NEA so against candidates who support school vouchers?  (Take a look at these cartoons about one such candidate.)  School vouchers have been shown to help lower income families to gain a better education and for people to be able to choose schools that support their values.  Yet the NEA is opposed to any such idea.  The NEA is afraid Christians will choose to send their children to Christian schools instead of to schools that are indoctrinating children in the NEA way of thinking.  Or that people will choose schools that do a better job of educating their children and some of their lesser ability members will have to either improve their teaching skills or they will lose their jobs.

And then you have to look at how the NEA has supported things like block scheduling (because it lets their teachers do less work for the same amount of pay) and other band wagons that have proven not to work.  The NEA's idea of "pro-education" is not at all the same as my idea of it.

Take a minute to think through this.  If the NEA is truly helping to get pro-education legislation enacted, why are the US kids so far behind everyone else in the world when it comes to basics like Math and Science?  In fact, since the NEA has come on the scene, America's education become significantly worse.

Perhaps it's time for the NEA to redefine what "pro-education legislation" is and to support candidates that vote for things that have been proven to work, not jumping on a new band wagon that furthers their own agenda.

Posted By Chalkbrd

As many who read this know, I am a teacher.  Because of my strong biblical beliefs, I've not seen eye to eye with the teachers unions, and specifically with the NEA (National Education Association) over the years, and have been a staunch opponent to their propaganda, speaking out against it to present the truth of their euphemisms to any teacher who will listen.

Today I received our annual "trying to persuade you to join the union" newsletter in my mailbox at school and I feel like I must share some of it with you all.

Although it never persuades me, I find it interesting to see their attempts to do so and it can sometimes be entertaining to see what euphemisms they are using to cover up their true agenda.  When I opened up the newsletter, a large red box on page 3 popped out at me (and I'm sure that was their intention).

The title of this section was, "Don't Believe Everything You Hear About the NEA."  After a short couple of paragraphs touting all the "wonderful" things the NEA does, another title in large letters pulled in my eye:  "3 Big Deceptions."  Before I even read the article, I could have guessed what the 3 big "lies" they think people are saying about them, their 3 big secrets they are trying their best to cover up.  But  don't take my word for it.  Let me give you their own words.

Deception #1:  NEA Supports Abortion

Truth:  NEA supports reproductive freedom without government intervention."

Uh...isn't this contradictory?  What do the people who support the NEA think "reproductive freedom" means?  Let's say it like it is.  It means you have the right to choose to have an abortion if you want one.  So, if you support that, how could you not be supporting abortion?  The only way you are not supporting abortion is if you are against allowing women to have them.  Anything else is supportive of abortion.

The NEA has been a big proponent of supporting this issue and has been for years.  I read this same terminology back in 1987 and it hasn't changed at all.  And yet, they still insist they do not support abortion.

How can teachers not see through this euphemism for abortion?  It's a nice way of saying that they are supporting the right of anyone to choose to kill a child through abortion.  They think if they focus enough on the positive things they do, it will be a smoke screen to keep people from seeing the reality of things.  And evidently, it works for a lot of people because they've suckered in over 3.2 million members.  Sad, isn't it?  And remember, these are the people teaching your children.

Part 1 of 3

Posted By Chalkbrd

I'd like to ask the evolutionists how consistently they live with their beliefs.  Think about this.  If evolution is indeed how we came to exist, why would we need hospitals or spend money trying to cure terminal illnesses?  See if you can follow my logic.

If evolution is based on the most adaptable and strongest of the species perpetuating its lineage, then there should be no desire among evolutionists to keep the weak or infirm limping along and contaminating the gene pool.  It would be better for the species to let the weak die so only the strong will continue to have children.

Yet there is something in each of us that says that is not right.  Instead, we strive for cures for those who have terminal illnesses.  We take care of the weak.  We make laws to protect people from bullies and harrassment.

Something in us screams that Hitler and his genetic experiments were an abomination against humanity.  But if an evolutionist actually believes in what evolution teaches, then they should be lobbying for getting rid of the "substandard" in much the same way as Hitler did.

This is why I see a contradiction in what an evolutionist says he believes and how he lives his life.  What they say is that there is nothing special about man other than he is the top of the evolutionary scale so far, but what they live is that mankind has a certain dignity, a quality that is more than merely a few dollars worth of chemicals.

If (macro) evolution is true, why do so many people see mankind as having some indefinable quality that causes us to value life so much and to see death as more than natural part of evolution, but something that seems wrong and unnatural?

Once again, creationism makes a more logical choice for me.


Posted By Chalkbrd

1 Timothy 6:6-10  "But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."

How can this passage ever fit into the teachings of people like Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and Bishop Eddie Long?

Take a minute and look at this quote from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"We're not just a church, we're an international corporation, " Long said. "We're not just a bumbling bunch of preachers who can't talk and all we're doing is baptizing babies. I deal with the White House. I deal with Tony Blair. I deal with presidents around this world. I pastor a multimillion-dollar congregation.

"You've got to put me on a different scale than the little black preacher sitting over there that's supposed to be just getting by because the people are suffering."

Now read back over what Paul said to Timothy.  Do you see any qualifiers in there?  Does it say that if you are someone who deals with the White House you deserve to make more money than the preacher who is faithfully giving out God's word every day, going to the hospital to pray with the sick members of his congregation, rolling up his sleeves and working to clear debris, side by side with those who have lost everything in a tornado?

And in this one quote, you can already see that Long is not biblical in his beliefs (baptizing babies).  And when we compare his statements to the passage in 1 Timothy and look at the lifestyle this man is living, we can see that it doesn't line up to God's truth.

What ever happened to contentment?  To people being content with what they have and not constantly grabbing for more, more money, more things?

These preachers that are claiming that God wants everyone rich have obviously not read this passage.  Well, they probably have and have twisted it around in their own minds and the minds of their followers so it says what they want it to say instead of what it actually does.

Isn't it time to put aside this false teaching of the prosperity gospel and look at the truth of God's word?

Posted By Chalkbrd

Today I just finished reading a book by a popular Christian fiction writer on the subject of depression.  The author seemed to be confused herself on why her character was depressed.  In one place, the reason was because of a hidden sin the character refused to deal with.  But yet in another place, the author tried to push her pro-psychology agenda, making it seem as if the character's depression was surely due to a chemical imbalance.

The psychiatrist figure is nothing more than a way for the character to tell her backstory (the reason for the depression...or is it?) and to give her drugs to quiet the feelings of guilt the Holy Spirit is trying to use to make her change.  (Which is a topic for another blog some day.  Should we ever take medications that squelch the work of the Holy Spirit?)

As I read this book, it dawned on me that in the majority of cases,depressed people certainly do need someone to sit and listen to them, but what does it say about our culture that we have to pay for this?

Isn't taking money for sitting and listening to someone pour their heart out rather like prostituting friendship?  What really is the difference between paying someone to satisfy your sexual desire that God intended to be gratified in a committed marriage relationship and paying someone to satisfy your need for emotional openness that God intended to be gratified within a godly friendship?

When did we decide that we could bare our innermost being to a complete stranger much easier than a brother or sister in Christ?  And where do we see that change in the Bible?

Perhaps the reason depression is reaching epidemic proportions in the Christian community is because Christians are not helping each other as friends, but they are choosing to pay a "professional" to do what their brothers and sisters should do.  They are choosing a friendship prostitute over a godly relationship.

God's been using His children to counsel His children for thousands of years.  Isn't it time we woke up and stopped letting the popular culture determine how we deal with our problems?  Isn't it time to stop using friendship prostitutes and use the real thing instead?


"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."  James 5:16