PIOUS GUSH

Christianity has become nothing more than pious gush. This gush is characterized by such statements as, "I believe that the desire to tithe comes from a heart that is committed to Jesus Christ." This definition of tithing is emotional and fuzzy. It is subjective to the core. It is based upon feelings rather than logic and reason. It is a statement made by an antinomian (against law).

Tithing is judicially based. It is based upon an objective standard. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." (Malachi 3:8). To not tithe is to steal from God. The eighth commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal." Those who do not tithe are stealing from God. Can a thief be a Christian?

I can hear the argument that this was Old Testament law for Israel, to which I would respond that God is immutable. His law has not changed. Besides all that, the Church has replaced the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people (Galatians 6:16 and Matthew 21:43).

Do not respond to this letter with emotion. Back up what you say with scripture and in context. Saying that tithing is a matter of the heart is not scripturally based. It makes tithing optional and becomes a tradition of man rather than what it is based in law.

ORWELLIAN DOUBLESPEAK

Mayor Jaynes has learned the language of doublespeak. Out of one side of his mouth he says that he is not opposed to home schooling and then out of the other he says that home schooling takes money away from the public school system. Which is it, Mayor Jaynes?
It is not to hard to understand his double talk. He is openly uncongenial towards home schooling. Why else would he seek to disallow a home school mom from using a public facility i.e. the Jonesborough Public library for an event?

Mayor Jaynes said that he was misunderstood but with the same breath he asked library officials to reconsider having future programs on home schooling. This is telling the library not to have anymore events that promote home schooling. This is Mayor Jaynes position. He is informing the library of what they can and cannot promote. There is no misunderstanding about it.

Mayor Jaynes says that he is not opposed to home schooling or private schooling. He may not be opposed but he is not in favor either because he goes on to say that for each child not in the school system, "it’s $7,000 (we don’t get)." What does this say? It says that Mayor Jaynes is opposed to home schooling and private schooling. His actions speak louder than his words and I refuse to accept his doublespeak.

SHOULD WOMEN GO TO WAR?

The Bible is clear with regard to roles of men and women. God created them male and female. This is the law of distinction. Men and women have similarities and obvious differences. One obvious distinguishing characteristic is that men are physically stronger than women. God designed it this way. Adam Clarke wrote, "God fitted man by the robust construction of his body to live a public life, to contend with difficulties, and to be capable of great exertions. The structure of woman’s body plainly proves that she was never designed for those exertions required in public life."

Numbers 1:2-3 reads, "Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by polls; from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel..." Clearly, God has spoken that only males are to go to war. What self-respecting man would want his wife to go to war? What father, who loves his daughter, would want her to go to war? God has given the male the responsibility and the ability to protect the physically weaker sex.

A woman at home is protected from those who would take advantage of her physical weakness. Psalm 113:9 reads, "He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the Lord." A woman’s role is to be bring forth life and not to take it in war. To overstate the obvious, men do not get pregnant and have children, women do. Without children being reproduced, there is no future generation.

A MURDERER MURDERING A MURDERER

The Paul Hill case was a case of a murderer murdering a murderer. Paul Hill deserved the death penalty, as do all murderers. The death penalty is the sole providence of state government as Romans 13 makes clear, not any individual, unless done in self-defense (Ex. 22:3). Paul Hill is in hell along with the abortion doctor he murdered and his escort because he refused to repent of his deeds. The Bible is clear in regard to where murderers spend eternity Galatians 5:19-21.

Gary North wrote, "What outraged the pro-abortionist was that Hill had adopted their strategy of executing the judicially unconvicted. He had put an abortionist in his sites, just as they put millions of unborn American children in theirs. For them, this was turf-invasion. They do not tolerate turf invasion." In other words, abortionists execute judicially innocent babies. They have a license from the government to administer the death penalty without the benefit of trial.

Paul Hill had been excommunicated from his church and had quit the ministry before he committed these murders. In other words, he acted on his own authority. Christians do not condone his actions. He got what he deserved. This in no way exonerates the abortionist and women seeking abortions. You may get away with it now, but remember God has not forgotten and He will hold you accountable. Do what Paul should have done, Repent of your murder.

IRRATIONAL THINKING

All of non-Christian thinking at heart is irrational. A case in point is Amy Williams’ letter. She states that anti-death people are interested in oppression rather than the rights of unborn children. She cannot see that pro-death advocates oppress unborn children. They are more interested in fulfilling their own selfish desires than the life of others. How many abortions has she had? How many children has she given birth to and successfully raised? Is she an expert in child rearing or child killing?

She says that if we were interested in stopping in abortion, we would pass out birth control. This is irrational because birth control is the cause of abortion as it promotes sexual promiscuity and it is not 100% effective. Abstinence is 100% effective. Even she would have to agree that you can only get pregnant by having sex. Waiting until marriage is wise.

How irrational is she? She ought to thank her mother for not aborting her. If her mother had, she would not even be able to support abortion. She believes in the death penalty for the innocent, while Christians believe in it for the guilty. We at least give the accused a trial whereas she and those like her do not even do the same. Is this rational?

As for those so called churches who support abortion. They are synagogues of Satan. I am a pastor and the Bible really says that abortion is murder and carries the death penalty. How could an organization that supports murder of innocent babies be deemed positive? Is this rational? Underneath all their rhetoric lies selfishness, childishness, irresponsibility and immaturity. They are murderers and they are irrational.

INSENSITIVITY TRAINING

We live in a world where people try to make it hell on earth. This is the politically correct crowd. They believe in their warped minds that they are progressive and on the upward way. This is an incorrect assessment of their position. I know that I am politically incorrect. I am not trying to please everyone as they are.. This is a demonic task. This is the equivalent of being on a treadmill without any way off.

They are not really trying to please everyone. They are only trying to satisfy those of like mind. This means those who are opposed to Christianity. They fly the flag of tolerance to everything that is wicked and evil and is ultimately opposed to all that is good and holy. Those of this ilk are heterosexual-phobic. The politically correct crowd loves everything queer and ungodly. They are in favor of condoms but not in favor of quarantining those who have the AIDS virus. They are the opposite of everything that works in reality.

They are utopians. They are the original Big Brothers of George Orwell’s 1984. They believe that everyone should be free to think like they do. They do not tolerate any deviance from their opinions. They speak what is commonly known as double speak. A normal person will lose their mind trying to reason with these unreasonable and dogmatic people. They see everyone that deviates from their thinking as dangerous and subversive. They want to stamp out and silence these people. They do it through a technique called separation of church and state. While there is a true separation i.e. each has a different function, the politically correct crowd uses it as a silencing technique. In other words, they do not like opposition because they cannot effectively compete in the arena of ideas.

They are the true censors. The very ones who cry against censorship are the ones who want to censor all forms of dissent. They hate competition with a passion. They hate Walmart with all their heart. They do not like the idea that competition brings lower prices. They hate decentralization with not part, but all their heart. They want to absolutely control all aspects of our lives. Sadly, the lemming masses are only too willing to follow their lead. They actually believe that someone in our government can actually make a difference and change things from the way that they are.

The politically correct crowd are into one thing and that is indoctrination. All converts to this religion are brainwashed. Their way of pushing their theology down our throats is through the established church in America, the public school system. Then they encourage us to get further delusional teaching in the lower (they call it higher) educational system. So that no one can misunderstand me, I have a degree in Economics and also in Accounting. In other words, I have been college educated and therefore, I know from where I speak. A college education, with a few exceptions, is nothing more than a brainwashing experience extra ordinaire. It is foisted upon those who are at their most impressionable i.e. idealistic state.

These are those who actually believe that they can change the world. This is a monumental and futile task that they have been assigned. When they leave the ivory towers of utopia, then they must conform to the real world. The real world is not a politically correct world. This is a world where not everyone has been indoctrinated in double speak. This is a world where other people have the truth. Take for instance plumbing. Even politically correct people do not want sewage backed up into their homes. All plumbers are limited to the law of physics. These are laws that they did not establish. They do, however, realize that they exist and to be successful, they must conform to them or suffer the consequences.

The politically correct crowd wish to indoctrinate us all through a technique known as sensitivity training. This is a code word for brainwashing into that women and homosexuals do not like the fact that men are really men. They seek to reorient us into a world where men lose their identity as men. Anyone who has been around men for any length of time realize that men love to tease. The touchy do not like to be teased. These are women and homosexuals. The work world is full of insensitive men. All that I can say to these sensitive types is get used to it. You have officially entered the world of reality.

I have no respect for woman who performs a man’s job. If she is trying to be man, she better get used to the way that men handle their work. If she does not like it, it is time for her to find her life’s calling. One of the reasons that I like vending is because there are so few women involved. This means that a man can actually get his job done without worrying about everybody’s feelings being hurt. I have been fired from jobs and I understand that this has to do with business.

Men have been granted by God, judgment, where women are more guided by their feelings. This does not mean that women are inferior. It simply means that they have a different function in life than men. Physically this ought to be obvious. Anyone that does not realize that there are differences between men and women has not been paying attention. Each has different motivations for what they do.

The modern world tells us that the roles of men and women are interchangeable. This is utter nonsense. The sensitivity crowd wants us to make women to be men and men to be women. This is why homosexuality has come out of the closet. Of course, all this does not work in reality. Politically correct thinking is suicide thought. It leads to death in the final analysis. Of course, where else could it drive itself when it started at the point of death?

I am a man and I am not going to become sensitive because a bunch of women want me to. In other words, I am going to be a man. Men have been given the responsibility by God to be the leaders. This is why they have been given greater judgment than women. Women are more interested in how they are relating to others rather than does this really make sense. The bottom line is if women want to work in a man’s world, they are going to have to learn to not to take everything personally. Some things operate because of the numbers, not the personalities involved.

27 YEARS OF PAIN

People in the United States are insane. The vast majority should be locked up in mental institutions because they are incapable of sane thought. This is clear when it comes to the death penalty. Those who are opposed to the death penalty are for criminal’s rights over the victim’s rights every time. It took the State of Florida 27 years to put to death a murderer who wasted another’s life in a moment of time. Did this victim feel any pain from this murder? This is disregarded in our present justice system. Nonsense is what prevails.

Think about this stupidity right out in the open. They call Government executions legalized murder and the State should not be granted this right. However, they show they what idiots they are by not realizing that those who murder others have set themselves up as a separate governmental entity determining who is worthy to live and to die. In other words, it is appropriate for these individuals to murder whomever they choose, but the Government does not have the same right.

These are the same individuals who believe that the Government has the right to interfere in every facet of our lives, but when it comes to justice. These individuals are hypocrites. They espouse one thing and do another. True justice demands that the punishment be commensurate with the crime. Since God created this world, then His law will prevail in all such instances.
What is God’s punishment for murderers? Death by stoning. God wants murderers to feel the same pain that they inflicted upon their victims. Does being stoned to death incur pain? The answer is an emphatic, yes. There is no such thing as a painless death. Only a fool believes this and their names are legion who do.

True justice says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life. If any individual, murders another, regardless of the means, then the punishment is that they forfeit their life without endless appeals. Anybody who does not stand behind this is not a Christian in the Biblical sense.

NO COMPASSION FOR THE WEAK AND DEFENSELESS

Introduction

Compassion is a Christian characteristic. Without it, we would be heartless. Nothing would bother our conscience and we would be capable of the most vilest offenses against our neighbors. The Lord Jesus Christ had the following to say concerning compassion in Matthew 9:36, "But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd." Here compassion means to have pity and sympathy. It has the idea of putting oneself in another’s position. Without this trait, cruelty will be the logical conclusion.

In our day and age, the received faith is Darwinian evolution. This faith is characterized by its impersonal nature. It is atheistic to the core. If there is no God, then there is no right or wrong and man can get by with the worse atrocities known to man. Darwinian evolution is summed up in the idea of survival of the fittest. There is no place for the weak and defenseless. They are expendable and disposable. Unsuspecting Christians do not realize that they are supporting Darwinian evolution, when they claim abortion to save the life of the mother. Obviously, the unborn baby is unable to defend itself against grown adults. This supposed abortion exception is nothing more than survival of the fittest veiled in a high sounding moral ground. It does nothing to defend the weak and defenseless.

One thing that galls me is a man that will hit and beat a woman. As I preach it, the man should take me on! I am more his size and would give him a better go for his money. It is the act of a coward to pick on and beat up someone who cannot adequately defend themselves. God’s law was designed with the weak and defenseless in mind. It is an equalizer against those who would seek to take advantage of the less fortunate. It is the direct opposite of the survival of the fittest. In fact, it could be termed the survival of the weakest. This is God’s world and life can only be taken upon His terms, not upon man’s.

Application

On September 23, 2004, the Florida State Supreme Court struck down a law protecting a disabled woman named Terri Schiavo. Her adulterous husband has been attempting for years to see her die by starvation. What crime had this woman committed to deserve the death penalty? Just like abortion, the innocent are put to death without a trial. It came as no surprise that the Supreme Court unanimously decided against life. They are steeped in Darwinian evolution and the eugenics of Margaret Sanger and NAZI Germany. I am thankful that for such individuals, the lake of fire is awaiting them. They are getting away with nothing. God will see that justice prevails and these individuals suffer throughout all eternity for their lack of compassion on those less fortunate than themselves.

God’s law is clear in this matter. Exodus 22:22-24 reads, "Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. 23If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; 24And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." Afflicting is the opposite of consideration and compassion. A synonym for afflict is harm. Obviously, a widow or orphan is weak and defenseless. God’s law affords them special protection. If any oppress them and they cry out to the Lord, the Lord will ensure that vengeance is carried out on the offending party. God will not show favoritism to any, not even Supreme Court Justices. There is only one Supreme Court.

The individual in question had been brain damaged but was able to breathe on our own. She was the equivalent of someone who is severely mentally retarded. Her adulterous husband simply did not want to take care of her. She was a nuisance to him. He wanted to be rid of her. His actions have spoken much louder than his words. He is living with another woman and has had two bastards with her. He could care less about a woman whom he vowed to love in sickness and health. He is a liar and untrustworthy to be her guardian. He is only concerned with himself. He is selfish and irresponsible.

We are only getting what we deserve, however. The church has almost completely done away with proclaiming God’s law. How do they then define compassion? By what standard? James did not have the New Testament as we do today, when he wrote in James 1:27, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." I wonder where James got such an idea? Did he just make it up out of his own mind? Did he just happen to believe that God’s law is still applicable in New Testament times? It is clear to the intellectually honest that James was restating Exodus 22:22-24 in the New Testament. What a concept.

The prophet Isaiah applies this covenant lawsuit against Israel in Isaiah 1:17, "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." Judge the fatherless here means to plead and defend the cause of the orphan. We are to take up the cause of the weak and defenseless and to defend them because they are unable to do it themselves. This is compassion and consideration, synonyms for love. Love can only be defined by God’s law. Leviticus 19:18 says, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." Now you cannot use the argument that there was no love in the Old Testament because this verse comes from there.

The Lord Jesus obviously thought there was love in the Old Testament law because He summarizes the greatest commandments in Matthew 22:36-40, "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Here the Lord Jesus sums up love. Love is applying God’s law to everyday situations. One of those situations is defending the weak and defenseless such as Terri Schiavo’s case.

Everyone on the other side is very clearly showing their callousness. How many of these justices have even bothered to go visit this woman to see what her real condition? Her life and rights mean little to men who had their minds made up even before they heard this case. This is because all people are guided by their presuppositions. These men’s presuppositions are Darwinian evolution. This allows them to show just how insensitive men can be.

Paul wrote of such in Ephesians 4:17-19, "This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." The Amplified Bible sums up Darwinian evolution in verse 19 clearly, "In their spiritual apathy they have become callous and past feeling and reckless and have abandoned themselves (a prey) to unbridled sensuality, eager and greedy to indulge in every form of impurity (that their depraved desires may suggest and demand)." Here it is right out in the open. These Supreme Court Justices have no compassion or sympathy for the weak and defenseless. They are cruel and unmerciful.

Conclusion

It must be always be kept in mind that beliefs have consequences. People act upon their beliefs. These Supreme Court Justices are atheists. They are Darwinian evolutionists come out of the closet. They are in broad daylight. All their rhetoric is just noise designed to deflect their atheism. They are arguing over separation of powers, not over whether this innocent woman deserves the death penalty by starvation. As always, sinners miss the point. This is because all sinners are stupid.

They do not fully realize the consequences of their actions and even if you tried to tell them, they would ignore you. They have set themselves up as God. They determine what is right and wrong, not God’s law. One thing is clear, when sinners are applying their version of reality, you are going to die. Proverbs 8:36 sums up the entire matter, "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." By their decision, the Florida State Supreme Court Justices to a man affirm their religious faith; death.

BASELESS RHETORIC

Introduction

Some things in life are worth fighting for. There is a time to speak out and a time to refrain. We must choose our battles wisely. We need to fight ones that are winnable. We are living in a day and age where the church is paralyzed by so much false doctrine. Even though, they would tell you that they are orthodox, their fruit does not bear it out. Truth is never divided against itself. It is always consistent and non-contradictory. Contradiction only comes in the way of interpretation. All of life is based upon interpretation. It all depends upon our reference point. We need to be wise in our application of law. We all apply law. It depends upon which law we apply. For the true Christian, only God’s law can be applicable. Anything else is a false way. Question, "Why would God go to such extreme detail in describing His law and then want us to install a different civil law made up of finite sinful man’s opinions?" It does not make sense. It is in a word the height of irrationality.

Unless we begin with an Absolute God who is both ultimate unity and plurality, we begin wrong and since all reasoning is circular, we will end up in no man’s land. Van Til called it living in a void. It is something to avoid being in a void. The only alternative to an Absolute God is unlikes begetting likes or evolution. God’s law says that likes beget likes. What many in Christianity want to do is to mix seeds that is mix God’s word and evolutionary thought. What this produces every time is a hybrid which is sterile as any mule. They say that God has changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. This is an evolutionary presupposition. The Bible is clear in this regard as Psalm 102:27 states, "But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." If God is the same, how could He change? By definition, He cannot and still be God. It is clear that atheistic teaching of the atheistic schools has had its damning effect.

Because of atheistic teaching, people cannot think. They are never trained to do so. They have been effectively brainwashed to accept everything and believe that they can change nothing. It is time for the church to begin to believe the truth as it is in Jesus and do away with this evolutionary nonsense that is so prevalent in the church of our day. We have to begin with the doctrine of the Trinity and temporal creation. As was said before, the only other alternative is an uncreated eternal universe. In other words, matter becomes eternal and co-equal with God, if a God exists. This, of course, when taken to its logical conclusion, ends with God being subservient to matter and matter being God. This was the conclusion of Aristotle.

Application

In a recent article in the Johnson City Press, the following headline appeared, "ACLU, Planned Parenthood challenge abortion measure." How surprising to say the least. Here are some quotes from that article, "The ACLU and Planned Parenthood sued Monday to block a Florida ballot measure that would pave the way for a law requiring parents to be told when their minor daughters seek abortions. The lawsuit argues that the ballot summary for the proposed constitutional amendment is misleading — leading voters to think they’re preserving rights when, in fact, the measure takes them away...The measure was designed to allow state lawmakers to pass a law requiring that parents be told when their minor daughters seek abortions. Lawmakers who want to pass such a law have to change the constitution first because last summer the state Supreme Court ruled that a 1999 parental notice law violated the state constitution’s privacy provision. "I think what the Legislature is doing...is to jeopardize the health and the safety and sometimes the lives of young women on the altar of anti-abortion politics, " ACLU Executive Director Howard Simon told reporters Monday..." The issue in a nutshell is "Do parents have a right to know if their minor children are having an abortion?"

This proposed Florida law is a plain common sense provision right out in the open. What do the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have against common sense? Anyone who knows the history of these two organizations know that Margaret Sanger and Roger Baldwin were close friends and were involved together in many socialist causes together. The answer is simple. Where will Planned Parenthood’s clients come from? Money is the key here. Follow the money. Planned Parenthood will not be in business if abstinence until marriage becomes in vogue. They must push sexual promiscuity especially among the young and vulnerable. In other words, they need fresh meat. Can you say "next?"

To say that these two organizations are hypocrites is the understatement of the century. They have no interest in the health, safety, and lives of young women. This is all high sounding rhetoric to disguise their true intent of slaughtering innocent babies for the sake of greed. First, they have to ensure that these young women get pregnant so that they can butcher the offspring. There is much money to be gained by this murdering process. Having an abortion is not a harmless procedure. A woman could potentially die from it. More and more is being learned about the long term effects of abortion and they are not flattering to this horrid industry.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU say that rights are being taken away. They are right but not in the way that they say. What about the parent’s rights? Obviously, these twin degenerates coupled with the court systems do not believe the parents have any rights. In other words, the state has prior claim over minor children. The parents are not allowed by state law to have any say in their children’s life. They are only to feed and shelter them and keep their mouth shut. The hypocrisy comes because for a school nurse to administer aspirin to the same minor girl requires the parent’s permission. Not to murder an innocent baby though. It is not on the same magnitude as aspirin.

Anyone who knows anything about minors knows that they are not allowed to make contracts, vote, purchase cigarettes or alcohol and a myriad of other things. This is done because of the principle of diminished capacity. In other words, they do not have the requisite ability to make the right choices. However, when it comes to an abortion, they magically have the mental capability to make the right decision. How convenient! Anyone with a fragment of thinking ability knows that these young girls are afraid of what might happen now that they are pregnant. They are under stress and will not think clearly. In other words, they are easily pressured into getting an abortion by the atheistic schools and especially their willing accomplices in murder, Planned Parenthood. Here let us take that unwanted burden from you. It is just a blob of tissue anyway, they say.

Let us think this through for a minute of why the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are combining to deny parents their rights. If most parents found out, some would be hesitant about allowing their daughter to have an abortion. They may even not believe it is a blob of tissue and know that it is a baby and they would be murdering their grandchild. Better a bastard than a dead baby. They may also allow their daughter to have the baby and put it up for adoption. They may require the other party involved to marry their daughter and take care of his new and growing family. All of this would mean that Planned Parenthood would not get any money out of the deal. After all this is what they are after in the first place. Parents are a definite barrier to the abortion industry. This is why they are consistently denied their rights by the courts who will protect open season on unborn children at all costs. We have hunting season for animals, why not for children?

Thirty four years have passed since Roe v. Wade declared the death penalty without the benefit of a trial for unborn children. As a side note, the media is notorious for calling a baby a fetus. Why are they not consistent? If they have a baby they do not say, "Oh honey the fetus just kicked," or when the baby is born, "What a beautiful boy fetus." Make no doubt about it these hypocrites oppose the death penalty for the guilty, but for an innocent baby, their cry is choice. This is Darwinian evolution right out in the open. Only the strong survive. Survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle. What about the choice of the baby? It is obvious just by being in the womb that a baby’s choice is to be born. Those who believe in choice do not really believe in choice. They deny the choice to the baby. It is all about selfishness, irresponsibility, hypocrisy and greed.

Conclusion

What is the logical conclusion of abortion? The death penalty for the innocent without the benefit of a trial. How hypocritical are those that support abortion? If their mothers aborted them, they would not even be here to support abortion. They ought to thank their mother that she did not abort them! Will they though? No, because they are hypocrites. They refuse to face the truth but want to live in a fantasy world of their own making. They, however, still live in God’s world controlled by God’s law. Until Christians begin to demand the death penalty for the guilty in regard to abortion, we will see the number of dead babies continue to climb. You cannot compromise with evil. It must be stopped.

MURDERERER WANTS DEATH PENALTY OUT

I read the newspaper and am exasperated daily by what I read. If people really knew the truth, obviously they would make different choices. Satan is the author of confusion. He spreads his fiendish deceptions through his people in the media. Anyone that does not believe that all people are biased demonstrate their naivety. One thing that you should absolutely drill into your mind is there is no such thing as neutrality. The Lord Jesus Christ said so in Matthew 12:30, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Here it is plainly spoken. If you are not with Him, then by definition, you are against Him, no matter how loudly you may protest.

Another important principle to learn is do not listen to what people say but watch what they do. The Lord Jesus Christ said so in Matthew 7:20, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Their actions demonstrate objectively what someone really and truly believes. Words and arguments are used as smokescreens to deceive the gullible. The wise see what an individual does because they recognize that the spirit of man is inflexible and acts in accordance with the beliefs of that individual. Once again, the Lord said as much in Matthew 12:34, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Whatever is in one’s heart will come out of their mouth. The reason most people cannot hear what someone else is saying is because their mouth is always running, like a festering sore. If they could but shut up long enough, they could easily ascertain the beliefs of those they come in contact with.

There are two voices in the earth just as there were in the garden of Eden. We have the authoritative word of God and the voice of the tempter. Neither of these voices can change what they are. In other words, both are immutable. One is unchangeable in a ultimate sense. The other in a derivative sense. God is ultimately unchangeable as Malachi 3:6 says, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Satan is the same in a creature sense as Jeremiah 13:23 reads, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." The devil cannot change who he is, neither is it possible for him to be changed from what he is. His voice does not change from being the deceiver that he is. This must be kept uppermost in our minds.

The Lord Jesus Christ accurately depicted him in John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." Do not believe for one moment he can tell the truth. He majors in myths, half-truths and other manners of deception. He is totally devoid of truth. So why listen to him? Yet, the unsuspecting are easily taken in by his wiles.

The Christian has an advantage over the devil as John 16:13 so plainly points out, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." The Spirit of truth reveals truth to our hearts and we have a love for the truth. Truth overcomes error each and every time. This means the Christian must be saturated with the word of truth, the Bible.

This is the message of John 8:31-32, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Only truth can truly free an individual. A lie will bring one into bondage. It is amazing how the natural man calls bondage freedom and true freedom bondage. He is like his father, he cannot think straight. His thinking is as crooked as the snake that crawls on its belly.

The biggest lie in the Bible is found in Genesis 3:4, where the devil says, "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." What he meant by this statement is that there are no consequences to your actions. He knew this was a lie. In fact, to tell a lie, one has to presuppose the truth and to presuppose the truth, one has to know it is truth. In other words, where you begin, you end, as all reasoning is circular. Daily in the newspaper, one is confronted with this same lie. Go ahead and sin to your hearts content, there are no consequences. We know this to be contrary to the truth of Galatians 6:7, "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." In other words, we live in a cause and effect world. There are consequences to every action that we make.

A half truth that is spread repeatedly is that "God hates sin but loves sinners." Does God love the abortion doctor? Does God love the devil? Does God love the homosexual? The above quote makes God to be schizophrenic. Let us see if this statement holds up in a court of law. Go to the judge and say to him, "Judge I know that you hate my crime but I know that you love me." Question, What gets judged the act or the actor? What gets thrown in jail, the act or actor? How can you separate the act (sin) from the actor (sinner)? What gets thrown in the lake of fire, the sin or the sinner? If God loves sinners, why does He have a lake of fire? How does one explain verses like Psalm 5:4-5, "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. 5The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity and Psalm 7:11, "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day," if God loves sinners? Notice what Psalm 146:8 says, "The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous."

We are now able to correct the statement to "God hates sin and sinners and He loves righteousness and the righteous." Man cannot be divided. He is either a sinner or righteous. There can be no neutrality. Then in what sense does God so love the world? Through covenant. All covenants need a mediator. This is the message of 1 Timothy 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." Christ is the provision to bring sinful man to a holy God so that God can bestow His love upon the repentant sinner. One cannot build an entire doctrine out of John 3:16 but must encompass the whole of the Bible to ascertain the truth. Otherwise, one will easily be led into half truths and myths that will leave them paralyzed to effectively counteract the poison of the devil.

An interesting headline from today’s Johnson City Press is "Rudolph wants death penalty out." Eric Rudolph who is charged with abortion clinic bombings that have killed people thinks that the most he should receive is life in prison. He believes the federal death penalty is unconstitutional, arbitrary, cruel and unusual.

It is amazing that someone can murder others and receive a punishment of life in prison. This denies the punishment fitting the crime. This plainly denies Deuteronomy 19:20-21, "And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Also, Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus 24:20 say the same thing. Life for life which means that if someone murders someone else, then it is life for life. There is no other penalty possible.

I agree with Rudolph that abortion (death penalty for the innocent) is murder but I disagree that I am to take matters into my own hands. Personal revenge is prohibited in Leviticus 19:18, "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." This is something that Eric Rudolph did not do but set himself up as above the law. Romans 13:4 gives government the power of the sword, "For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Rudolph decided that he was God and then determined who would live and die.

I have no compassion for Eric Rudolph should he be found guilty of the charges of murder. He should have worked to change the law regarding abortion rather than become the law himself. He took matters into his own hands. God does not and will not bless his actions. If guilty, he deserves nothing but the death penalty. The death penalty is for the guilty. There is no other restitution a murderer can make but with his life. He does not deserve sympathy or mercy (which life in prison is). How much mercy did he show to his victims? What should be judged, the act or the actor?

FAMILY PLANNING

There was a wise man who once said there is nothing new under the sun. My dad and mom used to say to me it’s a different dress, but it’s the same old mess. All of the arguments to support a particular position are rearranged so that they look different, but at their root they are the same old worn out arguments. Ask them to come up with something different and they fail at every turn.

It seems that what works best is never a part of the solution to a given problem. It is thrown out as unworkable. It is never proposed in public policy because it is God’s idea and not man’s. An editorial from the Kansas City Star complains about President Bush’s policy which does not allow foreign aid to go for contraception. The main reason is that no tax dollars are allowed to be expended for abortions.

The Kansas City Star editorial title is to End politics and teach family planning. What this editorial’s main point is that President Bush is causing the deaths of thousands of women and babies in foreign lands by not providing contraceptives to them. The way that the President is doing this is by not providing taxpayer funds from going to the United Nations Population Fund.

The editorial writer presupposes that an increasing population in foreign lands is a problem. The guise is used of thousands of women and babies dying every year to try and make his point. What the writer is saying is that the President’s policies are inhumane and that he is a compassionate individual who is interested in the welfare of these women and babies in foreign countries.

If only these women could get hold of contraceptives provided by U.S. taxpayers money, then they and their babies would not die. The women would not die because of poor maternal health and the babies would be prevented being born, so the alleged problem would immediately disappear and you and me could rest easy at night knowing that we were compassionate in our duty by preventing the birth of these children.

What the editorial writer did not consider in this article (because it does not fit into his agenda nor is he capable of considering it) is there is an alternative to contraceptives. The writer wants to teach family planning. Whose responsibility is it to teach family planning? Is it the U.S. Government’s responsibility? Is it the United Nation’s Population Fund?

What is a family and what is family planning? The Bible says that we are to be fruitful and multiply which means to have children. This, of course, has to be fulfilled within the proper context that God has established. Thus, a family begins with marriage of a man and a woman. From this union, they may or may not have children. The decision to have children is an individual decision, not a governmental one.

Ultimately, this editorial’s underlying rationale is to take away the freedom of reproducing of the poor. This was Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood) position. It is called eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding. China’s reported one-child policy is an example of eugenics. This is a loss of freedom for the individual as the government decides who will and who will not have children.

Within marriage and since men do not get pregnant and are able to work without restraint, the man can get a job and provide for his new family. This allows the new mother to be able to take care of this new baby unrestrained. For this type of arrangement, how much taxpayer’s money is expended? In fact, taxpayer money is increased by taxes withheld from the man’s paycheck. So far we are in a net gain situation.

This is the best family planning model available. It has been working for six thousand years and will continue to work effectively throughout the rest of history. One proposal the editorial writer will never mention as a workable policy is teaching abstinence until marriage.

Whose responsibility is it to teach abstinence? The answer is it is a threefold effort. First, the family has the responsibility of teaching abstinence and enforcing it. I have always said that parents are the best form of birth control. Second, the church must proclaim with one voice that its abstinence until marriage in its teaching. Finally, the civil government is to pass laws that favor marriage and punish fornication.

This threefold approach will encourage the true family planning model. Providing contraceptives to women in foreign lands is teaching them that they do not have to follow the model. Promiscuity is encouraged with the use of contraceptives. The editorial writer wants us to look at his presumed compassion for women and babies but the intent and the end results are two different things.

The advocated proposal of providing of our taxpayer money to the United Nations Population Fund will end up exacerbating the problem rather than solving it. The reason for this is simple. Instead of these women in foreign countries, learning to control themselves, they are taught that if they take a pill that there will be no consequences to their actions. You can fool man but God will not be mocked.

GAS PRICES

I am more than confident that you are painfully aware of the rising gas prices. I believe that the vast majority of people do not understand why. If you listen to people’s explanations, it demonstrates that they were educated in the government schools and learned nothing about basic economics. People blame President Bush for the high gas prices. The media loves this one. Notice, however, since January when the Democrats began to control Congress, the prices has steadily increased. Where I am at, gas has gone up 91 cents a gallon, from a low of $1.94 to $2.85.

Or you get an e-mail asking you to boycott Exxon-Mobil to get the price to decrease or do not buy gas for a day. This is utter nonsense right out in the open not to mention it will never work. Our economy is a market economy. Therefore, it is subject to the laws of supply and demand. The only reason that prices are rising is because demand is outstripping supply. The price is used to ration this limited supply so that everyone can get what they need.

There are two ways to see the price of gas decrease. The one that will be suggested by the atheists will be to decrease consumption. They propose to do this by using the government, just like good socialists. They can do this by increasing gas taxes, increasing already burdensome regulations, and the attempt to shift to alternate fuels. Of course, these individuals also believe in the myth of neutrality. In other words, they believe that there will be no ramifications to their policies.

Can you say recession and possible depression? With a decrease in gas consumption will come two things. It will decrease the amount of economic activity. This will force businesses to cut back on their highest expense, labor. When people are out of work, guess what they do? They cut back on spending which causes a further downward spiral. In case you have been delusional for most of your life, the American economy is fueled by gasoline. Also tied with it is our freedom. It allows us to be mobile. We can go where we want when we want. Of course, the godless hate our freedom. They seek to bring us under their control.

The second way is to increase the supply of gasoline. This is the one that will work. I propose that we drill for oil in the Arctic wilderness. Now do not tell me about the caribou and this pristine wilderness. When was the last time you booked your vacation to go there? This would increase the amount of oil available to be refined. Lift all restrictions on drilling through out the United States and especially our gulf coasts.

Being a preacher, I know that I have God on my side, in this regard. Genesis 1:26-28, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." God has given man dominion over His creation. This means that we need to be finding more oil and no atheists can stand in our way.

Pollution is an inescapable concept. Because man is not God, there will always be inefficiencies in any process that he devises. This does not mean that he is to just stop living. He should try to control pollution, within reason, but it is demonic to believe that he can totally eliminate it. Even atheists have bowel movements. Do they believe that they can these can be eliminated? Some atheists have even suggested using only one piece of toilet paper. Sorry, dummy but I am going to use enough to get the job done, if you know what I mean. Their solutions are just like them, moronic.

We need further, to build refineries. Our atheists friends have not allowed one to be built in this country in a long time. I remember John Kerry, when he ran for President, saying that we need to have higher paying jobs. This blockhead opposes building refineries and drilling for oil domestically. Building refineries, operating refineries, and drilling and pumping oil are high paying jobs. So we see that the atheists are all blow and no go.

It is time to dispel a myth. All we hear from atheists is about the profits of Big Oil. Truth is that the oil companies are making approximately .09 cents a gallon (Rush Limbaugh Newsletter). The government makes more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies, without expending one ounce of energy or finances. This is not something the godless want you to know. They put everything at the feet of the oil companies, all the while they stay in the shadows, like their master, the devil.

I for one refuse to cut my consumption. I refuse to allow the government to tell me what to do, in this regard. This is an economic decision, not a political one. The sooner that the government exits this area of the market, the better it will be for all of us financially. You and I know what is best for us when it comes to the use of gasoline. I say allow the oil companies to increase the supply. It has been ordained of God.

HAMSTRUNG BY AN AMENDMENT

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case that says lethal injection of a condemned murderer is cruel and unusual punishment. In the state of Tennessee, a Federal Judge has declared lethal injection to be unconstitutional. What is so amazing about all this is how they have been doing these executions by this method since 1976 and 41 years later it is now unconstitutional?

I suppose that if the Supreme Court declares lethal injection unconstitutional they will also have to throw out those cases where this method of execution was used. How is it to be redressed in regard to the executed?

With regard to the Federal Judge that declared the Tennessee law unconstitutional, he is biased against capital punishment. What does it matter whether or not a convicted murderer feels any pain when he dies? The end result is he is dead and cannot report back whether or not he suffered anything. We do not care for his welfare. He has forfeited his right to life when he took someone else’s life from them.

What is forgotten in all of this legal wrangling is the original victim or victims of murder. All murderers are cowards. This whole affair of using the judicial process to delay their executions proves this. They have no regard for anyone else’s life other than their own. They are selfish in the extreme.

Let us go back to the original victim. Did they suffer and feel any pain while they were being murdered? Suppose that they survived an initial attack by several days and then died. Were they suffering pain during this time period? On top of this, these murderers gave the death penalty to the innocent. The government is to give the death penalty to the guilty.

God’s method of capital punishment is death by stoning. Does being stoned cause any pain to the convicted criminal? Obviously, God cares little about the comfort of the murderer. He actually wants them to feel pain. He wants them to know that they deserve this violence and it is also designed as a deterrent to keep others from doing the same thing because being stoned to death will be the result.

An example is found at Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

Evil is to be done away with. The men are to be the ones that carry out the actual punishment. Those who do like things will get the same treatment. There is no appeal to a Supreme Court that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Stones would hurt much worse and the pain would be longer than with lethal injection. So our government has more concern for the welfare of murderers than God does. This shows how far from the Bible this country is.

Justice is being hamstrung by this lethal injection argument and what is being used is the humanist document, the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. God has given the appropriate punishment for each crime in the Bible. All government’s punishments are to conform to this pattern, not to man’s failed attempt at justice.

A case law found at Deuteronomy 19:16-21, "If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 17Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

God’s punishments are appropriate to the crime. The Federal Judge that declared the lethal injection unconstitutional in Tennessee is showing pity to the murderer. He is doing what God has forbidden. The Bible is clear that the punishment for murder is the death penalty. This is the concept of life for a life. This punishment fits the crime perfectly. It matters little the method as long as the death of the murderer is carried out.

What is being argued about here is a method and not about the substance of what the murderer has done. Rehearse over and over again about what the murderer has done. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines "cruel" as, "Disposed to give pain to others, in body or mind; willing or pleased to torment, vex or afflict; inhuman; destitute of pity, compassion or kindness; fierce; ferocious; savage; barbarous; hardhearted." This definition is the epitome of a murderer. If anyone is guilty of cruel and unusual punishment, it is the murderer.

Why was the eighth amendment put in the Constitution in the first place? I believe that if you answer this question, you will find that it was to overcome Biblical punishments that were in force at that time in history. Fallen man hates God and His law and His punishments. Fallen man is more concerned with the comfort of convicted murderers rather than for their victims. This amendment has made justice lame.

MORALITY TURNED UPSIDE DOWN

Morality no longer plays an important role in our society. Because of secular psychology, no one is responsible for their actions. Of course, this goes back to the Garden of Eden when Adam blamed the woman and the woman blamed the serpent. It is fallen man’s nature to blame someone else for one’s own actions. These people act as if they were robots and programmed to do what they did.

Or they claim that it is out of character. It just happens that this time they got caught. How many other times did they do it and not get caught? Usually, there has been a pattern formed prior to the actual act. Whether it was in the thought or in both thought and deed, people do not just one day act out something that they have not been stewing about for a period of time.

You can hear the secularist claiming that you cannot legislate morality. Then what gets legislated and why have a legislature? What they mean by this is they do not want Christian morality only secular morality, which is really immorality. On the death penalty issue, they will say that the government does not have the right to take the life of a convicted murderer. The murderer has the right to take life, but the government does not. The murderer gives death and gets sentenced to life. Does this make sense?

Yet at the same time, they believe in the death penalty, not for the guilty, but for the innocent via abortion and euthanasia. The guilty must be protected at all costs and the innocent lose their rights under this moral system. These are the same individuals who call for gun control and act as if the gun killed people. Guns have never killed anyone by themselves. People kill other people using guns. This is typical of secularists who cannot tell the difference between a cause and an effect. They will seek legislation against the effect and wonder why murders continue to escalate. They will blame it on gun owners rather than upon criminals.

The most blatant of morality being turned upside down is in the Mary Winkler case. She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the killing of her husband Matthew Winkler, who was a Church of Christ minister. She had originally been charged with first degree murder.

Her defense in this case was predictable. She claimed to have suffered as an abused spouse. There was no way of verifying her story. Matthew Winkler was put on trial instead of Mary Winkler. He was not alive to defend himself against her accusations. If she was being abused by him, why did she not go to the authorities and take out charges against him? Her story would have been believable then.

Even if Matthew Winkler abused her, she did not have the right to murder him in his sleep. She did not give him the opportunity for self-defense which tells us about the character of Mary Winkler. Mary Winkler became a vigilante. She had options in dealing with this situation but she chose to take matters into her own hands. She claimed that the gun went off accidently. If this is so, then why did she flee to the gulf coast of Alabama with her three daughters? Why did she not call the police and say I accidently shot my husband? Her actions make her story questionable.

Juries are unpredictable. How many women get the death penalty when they commit murder as opposed to men? There is a double standard here. Women are not held to the same standard as a man. They can kill their own children with impunity. They will be declared insane. This is almost automatic and very predictable.

Mary Winkler’s defense was that she was a victim. She was presented in this way rather than the true victim, Matthew Winkler. This case has drawn national attention because of the individuals involved, a pastor and a pastor’s wife. Her story appears in national magazines as if she was justified in what she did. This is designed to give her credibility when she has none.

What is the most outrageous thing about this sordid affair is her appearing on the Oprah Winfrey show. I am not advocating that she cannot appear on this show. I do not have the power to stop her from appearing. It is Oprah Winfrey’s show and she can have on whom she desires. However, I can speak against the circumstances involved. When someone does something publicly, they are open to public criticism.

Let me say up front: it is never right for a man to hit or physically abuse a woman and it is never right for a woman to do the same to a man.

Mary Winkler is going to discuss Battered Women’s Syndrome on the show. This is psycho babel. Question, does shooting your husband in the back while he is sleeping qualify as Battered Man’s Syndrome? Why is this only a women’s issue? Do women never abuse their spouses? The Battered Women’s Syndrome is borne out of feminism, which sees men as oppressors.

It is claimed that those who suffer from this syndrome have low self esteem, whatever that is, and believe that the abuse is their own fault. You will find in the vast majority of these cases that this syndrome will be based upon self reporting. Self reporting is one of the least accurate ways of gaining information because it is subjective and not objective. Psychology relies heavily upon subjectivism rather than objective statistics.

Mary Winkler has now become the poster child for Battered Women’s Syndrome. She hopes to "advise the public of the dangers of not recognizing and addressing the symptoms associated with BWS in hopes of averting further tragedies." (AP). Question, averting further tragedies for whom? For herself or for supposed abusive husbands who are asleep and get shot in the back? What credibility does a convicted felon have as an advisor? Mary Winkler has demonstrated no remorse for her actions, which further damages her believability as a self reported victim.

I do predict that she will gain an audience among the feminists who hate men anyway. Some of us are morally outraged by her actions and believe that justice has been perverted. I, unlike her, do not need to take matters into my own hands. God will judge her for her actions.

ANOTHER UNNECCESSARY STUDY

Just when you thought that studies had hit an all time useless low, another one comes along and out does it. It is amazing that people actually spend their time studying the most inane things and actually get paid to do it. Most of the time these studies are carried out at taxpayer’s expense because no one in the profit seeking area would risk their money on something so utterly devoid of anything useful.

Presuppositions have consequences. Where someone starts is also where they will end. If your premises are wrong, your conclusion will follow suit. Those who believe that the world exists by random chance will be led on all kinds of wild goose chases and then call their research profound.

Profound for who? The newspaper article’s title is APE vs. TODDLER- "Study indicates child, 2, possesses better learning skills than counterparts." Well if that is not a revelation, I will put in with you. This could have been told to these researchers free of charge. There is nothing earth shattering here. Had these researcher’s presuppositions been correct from the beginning there would have been no need for their ridiculous study.

What is astounding is the article writer actually reports it as though it is important. In my local newspaper, it appears on the front page of all places. This demonstrates how poor journalism really is. This is another attempt to foist evolution upon the public. Even though evolution has never been proved, it is reported as if it is absolute fact. This comes from people who advocate that there are no absolutes, just the absolute of evolution.

What makes this study so mindless is that it attempts to compare the learning habits of a two year old human and an ape. The presupposition here is that a toddler is no different than an animal. Humans are different than animals because we are not animals. We were created in God’s image and we are to have dominion over God’s creation which includes the apes.

We are in no way related to the apes. We did not evolve from them. Question, if we did evolve from them, how come we do not still see apes turning into humans? No we see the law of reproduction as stated in the first chapter of Genesis of likes begetting likes. Humans reproduce humans. Apes reproduce apes. Let’s try and get this elementary point across to our researchers.
The head researcher, Esther Herrmann concluded that "human children are not overall more intelligent than other primates, but instead have specialized skills of social cognition." What does this mean and what relevance does it have to anything? This is pure drivel. Human children are not primates. This is her classification and it is wrong.

How many people do you know that you talk to about your being a primate? I have never in my almost 50 years ever talked about being an ape. I wonder why that is? I know why because it is stupid to even think about something so far from reality.

Esther Herrmann is an evolutionary anthropologist, therefore it is easy to see where she is going to go with any study she conducts. She accepts as an absolute fact the principles of evolution. I wonder if she used the evolutionary principle of random chance in her studies or if she carried them out according to orderly principles?

If apes are so smart, where is their published body of literature? If they are so intelligent, why have they not constructed homes to live in rather than living primitively in the jungles for so many centuries? Why have we not see them become civilized if they are as intelligent as human children? Why have apes not developed a sophisticated language system? Is all this because they are incapable of performing such feats?

Do apes possess intelligence? Yes, they do, as do all the animals. God created them with intelligence to perform the tasks that are inherent in each of them. The reason that apes have been doing what they have doing for centuries and will continue to do, is because this is the way that God created them. They are hardwired and are not capable of any change. They do not need to. They do all that is and ever will be required of an ape.

Maybe I need to hire some apes to help me around the house. Do you think that I will succeed in having them mow my lawn? Think how cheap I can get by on a giving them a few bananas. I have yet to see an ape do any task that I would find useful. They may make a good pet but I think I will hire a young man to mow my lawn. At least it would get done.

This article also talked about a well-known expert in primate cognition named Dr. Frans de Waal. I wonder how marketable primate cognition is? Who really cares? He works at Emory University’s Yerkes National Primate Research Center. This means that he is taxpayer funded and not subject to the market. This kind of research has no market value. It is not even a penny stock, it is so useless.

It does not matter what I think about their research. All that matters to these people is that they are hailed as brilliant by their peers. How many people are going to sit down and read their research report? There are far more important things going on the world than to have to be subjected to this type of supposed knowledge.

The crux of their study is to try and shed light on the evolution of human cognition. I could save them a lot of time. Man when he was created, was a rational thinking being from the beginning. There was no evolution of human cognition. This is a myth.

So what did our taxpayer dollars give us from this study? Absolutely nothing. A two year old is undeveloped in so many regards. For one, they lack the ability to focus. How can this further our knowledge about the way that children learn by watching apes? A two year old does not stay a two year old. They grow up and their capacity will far outpace any ape.

It is about time to strip these nonsensical studies of any taxpayer support. There is nothing in them that has any value other than continuing to perpetuate the myth of evolution. How many more fruitless studies must we endure?

IS OBESITY THE CONCERN OF THE GOVERNMENT?

Whose responsibility is it to solve problems? Most people in our day look to the government to take the lead in solving all of life’s problems. This is because the money expended is not personal to those advocating government involvement. They must think that government needs to be bigger.

There was a recent article in the newspaper about obesity rates going up in many states. The data was gathered from a survey of height and weight conducted by state health departments by telephone. Question, what was asked in this survey? How tall are you and how much do you weigh? My response to that would have been none of your business. That is personal information, not for public consumption.

Apparently some people must have answered these personal questions and from this those calculating the rates were able to see that the numbers were up for 2004-2006 from 2003-2005. How accurate are the calculated obesity rates? It is at best a very poor estimated guess. Of course, these are the things that government policy thrive upon.

These obesity rates are being called a public health crisis. Because of this, there are those who are wanting the government to take a larger role in preventing obesity. This means more government funds allocated to obesity. The ultimate goal backing the call for government involvement is socialized medicine. The thought is the government must take to policing people’s eating habits upon itself. A new department will have to be instituted called the Federal Food Police (FFP).

This police force will be put in place to monitor obese people from eating too much. The government is to now take away the responsibility of obese people from eating too much. The government is to step in and take the role of a parent because these people are incapable of controlling themselves.

Government intervention for obesity is unnecessary. Our weight is our responsibility. Who best to control our eating habits than ourselves and at no cost to the taxpayer.

Is obesity a health problem? The answer is affirmative. When someone is obese it taxes their heart. The heart must pump harder because of the extra weight. This means that it will shorten its useful life. Diabetes and other diseases are prevalent among the obese. When they seek treatment for their ailments, it does drive up health costs.

Does something need to be done to combat obesity? The answer is again, yes. Weight loss is a matter of simple math. If you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. The key to losing weight is to take in less calories. Obesity can also be linked with being inactive. Physical exercise is a must for anyone desiring to lose weight.

As I have gotten older, my weight has increased to a level that I could no longer accept. I exercise regularly but I realized that I had to cut my calorie consumption, as well. I have lost 16 pounds over the last three months. I want to lose 7 to 12 more pounds. The key here is to lose weight gradually. This helps to keep the weight off for good.

There are many physical activities that someone can do. I prefer running and weight lifting. I have had many people tell me that they cannot run for various reasons. I tell them that walking is good exercise. As with all exercise programs, begin small and work your way up. Exercise does a myriad of things for us. It improves our mental as well as physical health. After exercising, you will feel much happier and more alive.

Obesity and lack of exercise go hand in hand. One will cause the other. Many people’s employment is not related to physical labor. Therefore, they are sedentary and this will cause weight gain. This can be remedied by exercise.

Let us be quite honest and frank. Obesity is also caused by a lack of discipline or self-control. They do not regulate their food intake. If they see something, to eat it they eat it. Besides learning to do push ups, they should learn to do push outs. Okay now, push out from the table. Do not take that extra piece of pie. Eat more nutritious food. Do not take that extra scoop of ice cream with chocolate topping and nuts. The key here is learning to be moderate in eating.

Let’s face it, eating is an emotional experience. The obese live to eat and not eat to live. People eat too much for emotional reasons rather than health. They find comfort in food. It makes them feel better about themselves for a short period. The emotional aspect of food is what will have to be broken if obesity rates are to plummet.

There has been more of an acceptance of obesity in our day. This is because there has been a change in theology. The Bible teaches self-control and moderation. The world teaches indulgence and instant gratification. These two systems are at odds. If obesity rates are increasing, then we see who is winning the battle at this point.

Since there are health risks associated with obesity, the obese will have to pay higher health insurance premiums. Insurance is calculated on probabilities. The probability of obese people developing a health problem is very high. It is not a matter of if, but when.

Obesity rates are supposed to be higher in states that are considered to be the poorest. This is would be attributable to those buying cheaper food products that are boxed and those with high fat contents. Also, some of these people may not be health conscious. In other words, they do not understand cause and effect. They do not see a correlation between what you eat and your physical health. They may believe that going to a doctor makes you well and taking some medicine is what makes you healthy.

Medical professionals could play a key role for the obese. The problem here though is the medical profession, in general, does not teach prevention. To an extent, their livelihood depends upon treating sick people. Healthy people do not need a physician. There is not an incentive here for them to teach prevention.

If there is an obesity crisis, its solution is for individuals to take responsibility for themselves. This is not a function of government. Encourage yourself to take steps in reducing your weight if you need to.

DO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS HAVE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ?

When discussing this issue, it must be understood that I am not referring to emergency situations where immediate treatment is of the upmost importance. I am referring to non-emergency situations. A medical professional should know when to use judgment and discretion.

Editorial staffs at times try to gin up Letters to the Editor by proposing certain questions

regarding current events. One such question that has been proposed by a newspaper is along the lines of the above title. The original question was not framed as the above title but the above title is what the issue is essentially about.

The title question can only be answered in two ways, yes or no. Depending upon which answer is given, the results will be as different as yes and no. Usually, people are not consistent enough with a simple yes reasoning or no reasoning. There may be crossovers and thus some inconsistency. When someone answers this question, they will give justifications for their answer. That justification will be based upon a standard. That standard will either be objective or subjective.

We all know that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States grants us the right of freedom of religion. Those who would answer the question in the negative would want freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. There is a vast difference in those two little words of and from. One would say that medical professionals have the right of freedom of religion. The question then becomes, "Where do they have the right to freedom of religion?"

Those in the negative would say that religion is a personal matter. Question, "When a person goes out in public, do they take their religious beliefs with them or are they considered to be non-persons in the public square?"

For those who answer in the negative, are they not imposing their religious beliefs on medical professionals? Are they telling them what they can and what they cannot do and how they should believe? I am not saying that those who answer the question in the affirmative are not biased. They are but lets not play this hypocritical game that those who answer negatively are not biased. By answering the question either in the affirmative or negative means an automatic bias and with each bias a different standard of right and wrong will be employed.

My standard begins with all rights are religious rights. Those in the negative will say that there is a difference in rights. Some are this and some are that depending upon the situation or what is known as situation ethics. Their standard is a subjective one.

Are there not alternate providers who will fill any prescription or perform any medical treatment on anyone? Why force those who do not share the same values as others to perform what is against their conscience? I am sure that those who answer in the negative will scream the loudest when they feel a medical professional would not want to fill a prescription for birth control pills.

What right do patients have to tell medical professionals how to run their business? Is not this an attempt to place their moral values on others?

Those who answer in the negative would say that these patients would be harmed by not treating them or filling a prescription and they will put on the cloak of piety and quote the Hippocratic oath of first do no harm. You would think that they also would be against abortion as this does harm to an innocent baby but no, they will affirm that a woman has a right to choose. Isn’t it hypocritical to affirm a right to pro-choice women and deny a right to a religious medical professional who is affirming their right of being pro-choice in regard to treatment and dispensing medicine?

What this amounts to is two rival religious systems being in conflict with one another. This comes down to Christianity versus secular humanism. Each says that they are the truth, the way, and the life. In a world of no neutrality, it will be a war to the end. Secular humanist deny Christians the ability to discriminate on moral grounds while they are free discriminate against Christians on moral grounds by trying to deny them their rights to make decisions based on moral principles.

While a Christian would affirm the right of these people to seek alternative providers for either treatment or prescription filling, the secular humanist would force these people to go against their conscience. One is tolerant and the other is coercive.

How can you separate what you believe from yourself? Show me one person that is capable of accomplishing this feat. To do that would be to say that we can separate an actor from his actions. When someone goes to a court of law what gets punished the act or the actor?

Discrimination is an inescapable concept. When applying for a job, there are usually many applicants. An employer, generally, discriminates on the basis of ability. The most qualified gets the position. Is this not discrimination?

Medical professionals are not allowed to make moral decisions according to the dictates of their conscience but in forcing them to go against their conscience, they are still having to make a moral decision. In this instance, they are not allowed to make Christian moral decisions, just secular moral ones.

It is a deceptive trick on the part of secularists to add an adjective to rights. The reason for this is plain; it is to be able to discriminate predominately against the faith of Christians. They can have rights as long as they are not religious rights in the public square.

What bothers the secular humanist the most is that Christians are aware of what they are trying to do and they do not like being exposed. They are hollering loudly how Christians are as dangerous as radical Islam. Really, I do not know of any Christians who are going around bombing innocent people and carrying out acts of terror, do you?

When someone cannot win in the arena of ideas, they will seek to get government enforcement of their beliefs. Secular humanists who forever cry for tolerance are the most intolerant when it comes to rights for Christians. They seek to express their views through coercion and force. They will say that these medical professionals have no right to refuse legal treatment or medication to a patient. This would mean, for example, forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense birth control pills and give abortions in opposition to their stated beliefs. Where is the tolerance that we are forever being preached to about in this situation?

This comes from the crowd who call Christians hypocrites and yet fail to check their own mirrors to see their own hypocrisy. Do medical professionals have religious rights? You knew my answer before I even started. My answer was in the way I framed the question. Am I biased? Yes, and so are the secular humanists. I admit mine. Will they admit that they are?