Rainbow White House: Still A Rogue White House Or Is This Who We Are?

rainbow whitehouse

The picture that went viral (in this case think ‘disease’) of the White House splashed in the colors of the rainbow forces us to answer the following question: Can we look at the results of Obama’s time in office as the natural outcome of someone breaking into the White House control room, locking himself in, and messing with all the knobs until the adults come to stop him, or is this who we are now?

Had this recent event happened five years ago we might have suggested stronger locks on the White House doors. But America gave Obama a second term. Does that mean that this is who we are then? It certainly means that this is who we are officially. And to the extent that we can say that Americans are unable or unwilling to overturn the laws that have separated us from God, then I think we have to begin to reconcile ourselves to the reality that this is who we are.

Consider these questions:

Did America officially expel prayer from her classrooms?

Has she officially, for forty five years, upheld the “rights” of women to have abortions?

Has America embraced evolution in its classrooms, media, and entertainment industry, making it its default view of the origins of the universe?

Has America officially legalized, embraced, accepted, and celebrated homosexuality?

The answer to all of these questions is, “Yes!” And this says nothing of our materialism, our lust and wantonness, and our religious pluralism. It also says nothing of our present stance towards Israel.

There are two simple yet profound spiritual principles at work in America. The first is simply this: if you sow to the Spirit, you reap life everlasting. If you sow to the flesh, you reap corruption.

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.  Galatians 6:7-8, NIV (1984 Edition)

This holds true for nations too!

The second is when you choose not to retain the knowledge of God in your heart, God releases you to become reprobate in your thinking and thus your behavior.

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:28-32, NIV (1984 Edition)

The bottom line is this: We have invited God to leave our schools, celebrated the deaths of millions of babies through abortion, accommodated and promoted atheism by embracing evolution, and now the homosexual juggernaut has achieved “normal” status by decree of the Supreme Court. Genuine Bible-believing Christians know that individuals nor nations can so eloquently reject God and not reap terrible consequences.

Poor America! She had so much light and now is entering into just as much darkness!





12 thoughts on “Rainbow White House: Still A Rogue White House Or Is This Who We Are?

  1. Has America embraced evolution in its classrooms, media, and entertainment industry, making it its default view of the origins of the universe?

    Um, Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of the universe. Where did you get that idea from?

      1. Huh? No its not. Evolution describes the processes by which life proceeds. It has nothing to say about the origin of life, and it most certainly has nothing to do with cosmology.

        Best you get your definitions of things straight, Scott, or you’ll embarrass yourself when someone less gentle than me comes along 😉

        1. You are completely outside your mind John. Your definition of evolution as describing how life proceeds is absolutely incomplete. Of course evolution discusses the beginning of that life! Evolution absolutely adresses the origin of life when discussed completely. Your idiot mentor Dawkins goes so far as to postulate an alien seeding of life on earth. That’s a discussion of origins my friend. The discussion always, always, always moves to cosmology, especially when you feel the need to slam those who believe life is explained from a biblical perspective. You cant postulate a theory of evolution without a discussion of how earth got here and how life could have arisen as a result. I am surprised at you John.

          1. I’m sorry Scott, but you really don’t understand what you’re talking about here. Abiogenesis is not, in any way, dealt with in the Theory of Evolution. And to even suggest cosmology is part of the Theory is hilariously ridiculous.

            Again, I’d suggest you study up on these terms you’re just throwing out, and so clearly don’t understand, because someone less gentle than me will not take your emotions (and what I’ll call, “accidental ignorance”) into consideration and embarrass you terribly.

            1. John, you are missing the point. You assumed I was making a scientific claim concerning evolution. While you want to quibble about technical definitions (the differences between evolution and cosmology as proper fields of study), you miss the point that the question of evolution (particularly because it is the religion of choice of atheists like yourself) NECESSARILY leads to a discussion of origins. The idea that you can tell me about the processes by which life proceeds without speaking of the origins of that life is fallacious. The idea , then, that you can answer those questions of origin without making cosmological claims is, likewise, fallacious. The idea, then, that evolution does not set one on the path to a certain view of the universe is, you guessed it: fallacious. When Carl Sagan says, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe,” he is tying evolution to cosmology. Because evolutionists and atheists (near synonymous) can’t talk about evolution without bashing Christians, refuting creationism, etc., they make evolution an attack on the Christian view of the universe.

              Incidentally, I guess there are other ignorant people out there for you to grapple with on this issue: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/06/28/is-the-origin-of-life-differen/

              Here’s a link that demonstrates that this technicality you are asserting concerning abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is merely another atheist ploy to discount obvious arguments against evolution. http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm

              Just because you can point out the technical academic lines of demarcation where one field of study or scientific discipline ends and another begins, does not discount the interaction that goes on between disciplines and the implications that one disciple’s claims has on another.

              John, as usual, we do not have substantive interactions because your primary approach to debate is to claim intelligence for yourself and ignorance for everyone else. That’s one way to do it, but people ultimately stop listening to people like that. You could not possibly embarrass me, John.

              1. Hi Scott

                I’m not trying to embarrass you, merely trying to save you from being embarrassed down the line by avoiding making such a silly mistake in the future.

                That’s all.

                1. I’m not embarrassed. John: evolution is not simply a “scientific” theory (if it is that at all!). IF it is a scientific theory it is one that has mammoth implications for religion, philosophy, and it of necessity is contingent upon cosmological claims. The people I write for understand what I am talking about. They know that I am not trying to define evolution but that I am referencing the worldview that it inspires.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s