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.