Recently, I saw a network reporter interview the attorney for Jacob Blake and neither one mentioned anything negative about Blake who is recuperating in the hospital after being shot seven times. The video shows him resisting arrest; there was a knife in his vehicle; he had been charged of entering the home of a teenager and sexually molesting her but none of that was mentioned. Don’t you think a real reporter would have thought the public should hear that part of the story? But no, the motive was to accuse police with shooting a young black man who, according to friends and family, was destined to receive the Nobel Prize. Such reporting does not reveal the truth; it simply tells the story that leftists want the public to hear—then have them retaliate and join the mob for “justice.”

The days are long gone when journalists could be counted on to tell the whole truth. Some younger people can’t remember those days. And this downward slide toward mediocrity is getting swifter each year. It seems an honest reporter appears on the national scene as often as a chaste prostitute.

Many courageous reporters lost their lives revealing the truth about crime, political corruption, etc. Maybe today the absence of courage, not lack of character and convictions, is the reason for not telling the whole truth.

Americans believe “that 62% of the news they consume on TV, in newspapers, and on the radio…is biased,” according to a survey from the Knight Foundation and Gallup. Americans don’t hate the media for what they write; they hate them for what they don’t write. And for twisting the facts to meet their leftist narrative promoting racism, rebellion, and revolution.

General William T. Sherman, who had many problems, also hated the press more than a 150 years ago. The reports of his march from Atlanta to Savannah burning everything he could not carry were true. He wrote, “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.”

Senator Barry Goldwater, not as violent as Sherman, during his presidential bid in 1964 said, “I won’t say that the papers misquote me, but I sometimes wonder where Christianity would be today if some of these reporters were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.” Of course, politicians have complained about the media for more than 2,000 years. Most with good cause.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

A good example of this twisting of the facts is seen in the shooting of Blacks by police officers. Every celebrated shooting of a black man has been the ostensible cause of protests and rioting; without exception, the black “victim” has been a thug or was resisting arrest. Yet, the media and liberals play the same old record over and over because they think it moves non-thinkers to the left.

That is dishonest, despicable, and dangerous. It is dangerous because they are playing with peoples’ minds. Often, they are weak minds or minds that seldom think and it continues the violence with more people killed and injured and more property being destroyed.

Only one example is sufficient to support the above—the Michael Brown shooting. The media continues to dishonestly portray Michael as a victim who was surrendering to police with his hands upheld and saying, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” That did not happen and those who continue the falsehood are dishonest racists who are fomenting additional violence for which they will not be held accountable.

Some actually suggest that police officers leave home each day looking for a young Black they can kill! That is a good example of minds not being used. Yet, Conservatives are blamed for the racial tensions! Gutless public officials must take some of the blame but the lack of truth from the media is the main reason for the racists’ and conspirators’ incredible success.

The irresponsible media dwell on spurious numbers to convince the moron voters that there is a war on Blacks; however, the most recent available FBI crime numbers reveal that “black male teenagers were nine times more likely to commit murder than were their white counterparts. That’s right, nine times, and the gap in these urban areas is undoubtedly even larger.”

Now, if Black teens are nine times more likely to commit murder then it is reasonable that there would be nine times more Blacks teens in prison. Therefore, the reason for black teen incarceration, immorality, abortion, drugs, rebellion, and deaths, etc., is not with the police but with parents.

Let me be clear as possible for the slowest person: if young Blacks (as with all groups) were taught to obey police officers, they would live longer. Sure, there are some bully cops but they must be obeyed then torn down in a court of law. But usually, the Black in question is himself, a felon.

The media are cheerleaders for the Democrat Party so they usually twist any news to make it unfavorable to Trump, knowing it will be pleasing to all liberals.

Trump did not praise white supremacists at the Charlottesville rally; however, that is believed (or is reported) by the dishonest media.

The New York Times reported that Bret Kavanaugh had a new sexual misconduct accusation while a student at Yale University. No, there was no new allegation.

Time magazine reported that the bust of MLK was removed from the oval office; but it was a lie.

I know of no exception that all major media declared as a fact that the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia. Now we know it didn’t happen.
Honest reporters will change their minds when they discover the evidence demands it. Allen Weinstein began researching the Alger Hiss case to prove his innocence, but the evidence did not support that result so he wrote Perjury to prove Hiss’ guilt making every liberal in America grit their teeth, stomp their foot, and hold their breath until they turned blue.

Well, they were already blue.

Honest people will tell the truth even if it affects their salary, status, or security.

The degeneration in the quality of the media has been developing for more than a hundred years as John Swinton’s experience shows. John was a former chief editorial writer for the New York Times, and he made some true but shocking statements on the condition of America’s media at the New York Press Club.

“There is no such thing, …in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it….If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone….The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread….We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

John said that at the New York Press Club.

In 1880.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

Many parts of the world were obsessed with the two deaths and as the 20th anniversary approaches, Europe is sweep up in a bizarre mania. “Diana-mania” is spreading from Britain (and advancing in America) to all of Europe as the death anniversary looms. I have written about both women in columns and in my yet to be published memoirs: Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Regrets! The information below comes from those sources.

Within days of Diana’s death, I had one of my best opportunities to present the Gospel while appearing on a British talk show dealing with Princess Diana and Teresa. Immediately following Diana’s death August 31, 1997, a Pentecostal church in London went public with her final destination and it wasn’t Heaven! The show’s producer asked me to discuss her death and asked if Diana went to Hell because she had been visiting nightclubs and bars the night of her death. When I was asked that question during the show, I hesitated a little since this was an extremely hot topic and so close to her death. I said, “Well, no one can be sure what happens in the final seconds of a person’s life. Who knows what sermons a person has heard or what a parent or preacher has taught them that might flash through the dying person’s mind at the last minute. So I can’t know for sure.” My answer was a little soft, and sure, but safe.

After softening up the audience all over Great Britain and the host who was also a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, I steadied myself and said, “Deathbed conversions are highly unlikely since there is only one such experience in the Bible and Christ is the One who won the dying thief hanging beside him, promising him that he would be with Him that day in Paradise.” I ended by saying, “I would not give much chance of Diana’s last minute conversion to Christ. Princess Diana is probably in Hell tonight.” There was a loud gasp from the audience.

I thought my appearance was over but the host said, “Well, what about Mother Teresa?” who had died six days after Diana’s death. I cringed. We had not discussed Teresa’s death in pre-show preparation. Teresa was a Catholic icon who spent her life in the ghettos of India. She was known as the “Saint of the Gutters” and it is one thing to suggest that an adulterous, boozing, former princess was in Hell but something else to suggest that one of the most kind, sacrificing, inauspicious do-gooders of history might not be in Heaven! Of course, no one can be sure about anyone except himself.

The talk show host continued, “Does that mean Mother Teresa is not in Heaven?” I gulped, thought for a second, and said, “Well, I can’t know any person’s heart but if Teresa trusted the Roman Catholic Church, or baptism, or her good and admirable works to get her to Heaven, she is not there.” The show’s host gasped! I felt like a skunk at a ladies’ tea party.

I told the host, “Good people don’t necessarily go to Heaven and bad people don’t necessarily go to Hell.” She was astounded and said, “Would you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I made it very clear that people go to Heaven after placing personal faith in the shed blood of Christ.

I was on a roll so I continued, “In fact, there are people in Hell tonight who, while on this earth, lived a better life than some people in Heaven.” She was shocked again and said, “Will you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I explained that some people are genuine Christians but are very nominal in their daily living while there were non-Christians who are more noble, kind, decent, and benevolent but have never experienced the New Birth by trusting Christ as Savior.

What a show! I reached more people in that one hour than D. L. Moody did in his London crusade–but without his results! In addition to making the plan of salvation very clear, even stark, I tried to emphasize that real salvation results in the change of the morals, mores, manners, and motives of the convert.

There is no doubt that evangelical and fundamental Christians can learn something from Teresa who ministered to the unwanted, unloved, and uncared for and Diana who appeared to be a loving mother. No one should be more concerned for the poor, disadvantaged, hurting, sick, hungry people of the world than Christians. I think we could be more involved than we are; although many of us give to world missions, feed the hungry, provide clean water, medical missions, go to mission fields, etc., but we could probably do much more without sacrificing the essential message that only Christ saves.

Moreover, the Social Gospelers have confused personal responsibility with the churches’ responsibility. A church must never get her eyes off the main goal of taking the Gospel to the world and then training for Christian service those who believe it, while having outreaches for the poor. However, as individuals we should also support outreaches to the poor and needy but we must use discretion since many secular organizations are not worthy of support. My wife and I have supported those individuals we know who deserve support, help for flood victims, earthquake relief, providing portable generators for native churches in Central America, and efforts to bring clean water to desperate African villages. Such activities are not the major job of churches.

Teresa did not appear sophisticated; however, she or her handlers were very astute in using the media for her own end—raising money for her cause. She had connections with rich, famous people who funded her charity according to Christopher Hitchens in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Some of those “sugar daddies” were disreputable, unscrupulous people such as former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (who plundered Haiti), Charles Keating, and other scoundrels such as Communist Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha who ruled for 40 years. Hoxha was married and although homosexuality was illegal in Albania, he is commonly believed to have had perverted relations most of his adult life. It is said that he used to take handsome Albanian soldiers to bed with him and then have them shot the next morning.

One egregious example is Teresa’s relationship with Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L shame. Keating gave more than a million dollars to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud for bilking 23,000 investors out of their money, she wrote Judge Ito telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. Teresa advised the judge to “do what Jesus would do.” I’m not sure what Jesus would have done, but the judge gave Keating ten years for fraud. Keating served four-and-a half years in prison.

Following the trial, Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was stolen from hard working people and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, “After all, that is what Jesus would have done.” The good nun never answered his letter nor returned the stolen money. After all, it was for the “poor.”

Teresa was also involved with Princess Diana who sought consolation when she was divorced. Teresa said that the divorce was unfortunate but was probably a good thing! However, Teresa took the opposite position when Ireland was debating what to do about their prohibition of divorce and remarriage. It seems the nun was an opportunist, especially when it fit her agenda. Her agenda was to raise money for her charity by schmoozing up to rich and famous people. She raised a fortune but never built a hospital, or hospice, or home for children in India but did build convents in more than 150 countries! There has never been an accounting of the fortune she raised.

CNN reported on Teresa’s charity declaring, “It’s true there’s no transparency–and very little information available–on the group’s bookkeeping. CNN‘s request to interview the current head of the organization was declined.”

But sainthood continued on the fast track and Teresa is now a beloved Roman Catholic saint.

Is a secular sainthood in the works for Princess Diana?

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Fake news has been in the news lately for good reason–there is so much of it out there. The media moguls think they are the rightful gatekeepers of what the great unwashed populace need to know. Richard Salant, former President of CBS News stated the same working philosophy by stating, “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” That kind of arrogance would gag a maggot.

This warped view of the news was expressed by Richard M. Cohan, Senior Producer of CBS political news who said, “We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.” (Emphasis added.) Our agenda! I thought journalists were agenda-free.

Such arrogance is exceeded only by its asininity. However, the news fakers are winning the battle for the minds, if not the souls, of America. The false prophets of fake news are incredibly successful. George Bernard Shaw warned us to “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” Accordingly, President Reagan wisely said, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

Truth is irrelevant to most people. While truth will set us free, it often stings at times; so the masses are more comfortable with fake news and false prophets.

It is easier to believe a lie you’ve heard a thousand times than to believe the truth you’ve heard only once. In this column, you will read some truths that will cause you to question my honesty, competence, or my motives. However, while most of the following is shocking, it is all true and all honest people love truth. Honest people hug truth to their bosoms–not error, even popular error. Of course, they first confirm that it is, in fact, the truth.

We all espouse unknown error and honest people will correct their thinking when evidence is provided them. John Maynard Keynes made a very prescient statement when he said, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” Great question from a usually confused man. I ask that question of those who read this column regarding the following fake news.

Alfred Kinsey is thought to have been a great, dedicated scientist whose work at Indiana University dealing with human sexuality was classic. However, that is fake news. He was an expert in bugs, not bodies; wasps, not women; moths, not men. Time magazine concluded an article declaring, “Kinsey…has done for sex what Columbus did for geography.” Not hardly! Columbus knew where he wanted to go but didn’t know how to get there; however, he provided mankind with facts about the unknown world. Kinsey knew where he wanted to go and he got there: he wanted to convince sane people that any kind of sex is acceptable, at any age. He succeeded with deliberately flawed and fraudulent information intended to mislead.

Kinsey was weird as a child and it continued into adulthood. As a young man, he initially forced drinking straws, pipe cleaners, pencils, and finally toothbrushes into his urethra to punish himself for having homosexual feelings! He continued doing that with toothbrushes for the rest of his life. Then, he circumcised himself without anesthesia! That is the sex expert people rave about. America has been snookered with false news about sex!

Kinsey’s two books have been quoted by textbook authors as undisputed truth and generations have accepted his mistakes, myths, and madness as scholarship. But Kinsey’s work was not only flawed, and false, but a fraud. His two books on human sexuality are fraught with error, insufficient research, flawed research, even corrupt research. He was in fact, a prominent, pathetic, pedophilic professor who taught that children are sexual from their birth and are “unharmed by sex with adults.”

The above information is supported by The Lancet, vol. 337, 3/2/91, p. 547: “In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports … Kinsey et al … questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of ‘normal’ sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles–or so it must be hoped. Kinsey…. has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.” But his co-workers did not explain; they only stonewalled.

Please understand that the British medical journal Lancet is charging that Kinsey chose prisoners and sex offenders to study human sexuality and he presented his work as representing normal people! Kinsey proved a basic law: false data produces false results.

Lazy writers quote him without question and his work is still accepted by a generation that likes his fake conclusions: any kind of sex is acceptable, appropriate, and not abnormal. He showed his depravity when he said, “The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform.” His fake results laid a solid foundation for the Playboy Philosophy. What a shock: the messengers, the message, and the methodology were flawed resulting in twisted, tainted, and troubled generations.

Kinsey’s “scientific research” purported to prove that even infant children were sexual beings capable of having pleasurable sexual experiences with adults! And those adults would be able to lead them into fulfilling sexual activity! Kinsey is now known to have been a sexual pervert and child abuser. He and his staff orally and manually stimulated to orgasm hundreds of children from age two months to fifteen years! He called it research but honest people call it child abuse and false information.

Dr. Judith A. Reisman is the heroin who courageously exploded the facts about the two Kinsey Reports (1948 and 1953) that uninformed people tout as ground-breaking when they were fake news of the worst sort.

Nelson Mandela was a former president of South Africa, member of the Communist African National Congress, and hero to most people but he was arrested and spent 27 years in a South African prison not as a civil rights fighter but for sabotage (and other crimes). When arrested he had on his person an article in his own handwriting, “Why I am a Good Communist.”

The white government offered him his freedom many times if he would renounce terror and violence but he refused and continued his prison sentence and enhanced his reputation as a weird kind of martyr. But white liberals are fearful of the truth and continue to produce fake news perpetuating the false information that Mandela was a highly principled man for all people to emulate. That is fake information intended to mislead.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had courage but little character. He made a contribution to the civil rights cause but few newsmakers are willing to tell the truth about his philandering, his plagiarism, and his prevarication. The young college students, some who died, were the real heroes of the civil rights movement while many of the leaders were more interested in a “buck and a broad” than in anyone’s civil rights. As the veteran activist Michael Harrington delicately phrased it, the movement was “not at all a sour-faced, pietistic” endeavor. “Everybody was out getting laid. Or trying to.”

The London Daily Mail (Aug. 30, 2013) reported, “Leading one of the most astonishing double lives in history, King was not just the Bible-thumping champion of the rights of man, but also an inveterate womaniser who cheated on his wife throughout their marriage.” So, slowly the media are willing to tell the truth about King even as they promote his contributions to the civil rights movement. In fact, the Daily Mail article paralleled much of my eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! available at amazon.com.

King slept with some of his church members as reported by the Daily Mail: “Sleeping with female members was the norm rather than the exception and King himself admitted that he didn’t know a single black preacher who was chaste.” That was a slander to the black preachers I know who are godly, committed preachers or maybe it says something about the preachers with whom King was associated.

One more bit of fake news that will test the character of readers who are committed to truth. In dealing with this subject, I take the chance of losing friends while I hand my critics a chain saw and climb out on a limb: It is fake news that six millions Jews were slaughtered in Hitler’s concentration camps! Now, the skinheads and Jew haters will probably run with this to the extreme and all Holocaust Deniers will be encouraged in their extremist views. Hitler was a rabid hater and be wary of those who try to explain, excuse, and exonerate him from his bloodbath of Europe. But, those interested in truth need not fear to admit that the original six million deaths was an overstatement by the Soviet Union. No principled person should be fearful of truth. Whatever the number killed, Hitler was still a monster.

The Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center have conceded that the 4 million figure inscribed on a memorial plaque at Auschwitz was a gross exaggeration. It was removed and the authorities changed the total to 1.1 million deaths “of all causes.” Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the familiar four million figure [at Auschwitz] is a deliberate myth.

The Daily Telegraph for July 17, 1990 reported, “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million”; and the Washington Times of July 17, 1990 declared, “Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million” No informed, honest person speaks or writes of six million Jews killed in Nazi camps.

One reason false prophets have been so successful with their fake news is because of a failing church. Pastors have simply failed to teach people to think for themselves, do their own research, commit to truth whatever the cost, and be willing to take a stand if they stand alone. In other words, modern church members are usually non-readers, non-thinkers, and non-doers. Moreover, many pastors feel less threatened when members don’t think.
Some of the information in this column has been offensive to some readers but it is better to disturbed by the truth than deceived by error.

What will you do with the truth? When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do?

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Some recent critics are good people with whom I disagree and others are dumb as a box of rocks. Recently I have been criticized by good people about what is acceptable in defense of the faith and my position on origins.

One of the many conservative websites that have published my columns has informed me that they refused to publish some columns because of my “harsh tone.” They declared that we “don’t want to lower ourselves to the level of Trump with name calling and anger.” They asked that I “bring down the tone and take out the name calling.” I have no recriminations with them for their criticism; although I disagree with them after serious consideration.

After all, circumstances call for unusual actions. Even Christ used such terms as hypocrites, fools, murderer, liar, and whited sepulchres. The Apostle Paul declared, thou child of the Devil, sinners, carnal, liars, heretics, evil beasts, and slow bellies. The Apostle John used false prophet, deceiver, antichrist; Luke used barbarians, false prophet; and Jude used filthy dreamers and brute beasts, etc. Some name-calling is done to ridicule people. As shown above, much name-calling is done to challenge and rebuke or to warn others.

I am convinced that we are in a war, a serious war on many fronts; and winning wars requires many people with various skills. We need cooks, intelligence agents, strategists, pilots, infantrymen, and special forces that operate behind enemy lines. I’m a soldier in this battle for creationism, countering atheism, abortion, public education, Islam, etc. That conservative website has every right to take the position they have taken. They are doing a great job in this battle but I am responsible for what I am called and equipped to do. We can each do our own thing in our own way in this war.

It must be stated that I am never dishonest, devious, or disingenuous but I am direct. I am never vulgar. In the article that prompted the criticism, I used such words as sanctimonious hypocrites for liberals. Well, of course they are sanctimonious hypocrites; and to soften the words puts me at risk of having so much tact that I lose my attack. I also wrote, “Liberals demand that vile perverts be permitted to teach in schools but vocal Christian teachers should be gagged!” Well, that’s a little strong, but it is absolutely accurate. Both vile and perverts are good Anglo-Saxton words that have been used and respected for centuries. Those words are resented today–especially by vile perverts!

I called liberals windbag liberals and I think that is very good description of them. I went on to call liberals Bozos of the Busybody Roundtable and accused them of being lifetime members of the League of the Willfully Blind. Now, they are not card-carrying members of such groups but like the Communists, they stopped carrying cards long ago.

I closed with “Sanctimonious liberals are divisive, dopy, and dangerous people and they are the enemy to good government and common sense.” That’s a little strong but I stand by it.

I was told by some in my battle with evolutionists that I could “catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”; however, I am not trying to catch flies but kill skunks. Evolutionists are destroying untold numbers of innocent youth. That makes me alarmed, agitated, and angry. It is sad, serious, and scurrilous to harm children.

My column dealing with evolution was published on many websites, Canada Free Press being one, and they received some incoming flack for it. I seldom read comments and never answer them unless they are sent to me. I have noticed for more than 40 years that when my critics can’t refute me they attack me. When I am called a bigot or hater, I sit back and smile knowing I have won the debate. After all, if my opponents had an answer they would use it. Are they too dumb to know this or do they think we are too dumb to know it?

One critic wrote to the Canada Free Press what he thought was a terrific answer to my column; however, he did not answer my column. He took some shots but he fired blanks. He did not even try respond to the column! He wrote about a “HUGE conspiracy” but I never said or implied a conspiracy as the driving force of evolution. Evolution is simply the result of unbelievers trying to justify their unbelief and rejection of God. He then suggested that I was obviously wrong since the “mainstream national church councils” support science and evolution. Therefore, I must be in conflict with “their versions of Christianity.” Finally, there he got it right. I have been a critic of mainline denominations for more than 40 years because of their heresy and leftist leanings and if anyone will stand still long enough I can provide reams of information to support my opposition.

My critic sarcastically suggested that I submit my evolutionary research to Oslo “to collect my Nobel Prize.” This critic doesn’t know that one does not recommend himself for the Nobel Prize and Oslo does not award the Nobel Prize for Literature! Sweden does! Oslo only awards the Peace Prize.

Then he said that he would let all the universities and peer review journals know that I know more about evolution than they do. Now, that suggestion may be worthwhile. Finally, he promised to inform the Supreme Court that their rulings are invalid and that I have “overturned all those rulings.” Another good idea. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott and other Blacks were not citizens and had no right to sue. The Court also ruled that abortion rights were in the Constitution and that same-sex marriage was acceptable although we know it is condemned by God.

I will not deal with my critic’s grammatical errors since he probably hasn’t finished high school yet.

Another critic from Canada Free Press suggested my evolution column was a “pile of BS” meaning, I suppose, Brilliant Suggestions. He said that “Species do not pop out” from nowhere but then he must not be familiar with the Schindewolf-Goldschmidt-Gould “hopeful monster” theory where a dinosaur egg hatches a bird, “the first bird in the whole world.” I will forgive my critic for not having any idea what I am referring to but suffice it to say that a few world-famous scientists supported that silly theory including Stephen Jay Gould! Other scientists are still laughing at their desperation.

By the way, the above quoted book The Wonderful Egg, with the silly egg story, is recommended by American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Council on Education, and the Association for Childhood Education International! Now, I suppose I should say that those educators and scientists are only misguided souls but they are inept, incompetent, irresponsible, and even immoral (meaning debauched, decadent, depraved, dishonest, dissipated, and dissolute) zealots. Here, I suppose I am a little excessive in name-calling but it’s difficult to know when to stop.

He went on to say that evolutionists “do not believe everything came from nothing.” In The God Haters and my new Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? (to be published in a few weeks by Barbwire Books) I easily documented many major scientists who take that position. This guy doesn’t even know what the people he is defending actually teach! That is super dumb.

However, my critic was right and I was wrong! I said that the media were the most overpaid people west of Hollywood when it should have been “east” of Hollywood. I should have caught that and my editor should have and I would fire her but she works cheap and is my beloved wife.

My editor keeps me from being more pugnacious but I don’t want anyone to wonder what I am saying or what my position is. I am in a war and will someday give an account to my Commander-in-Chief as to how I waged that war. I will sit down to discuss, deliberate, and debate calmly and kindly any subject (of which I am knowledgeable) with anyone; but if it is an abortionist who wants to kill babies or evolutionists who corrupt young minds, or new atheists who want to take from me the right to tell children (mine and others) that Hell is real and Christ is the only way of salvation then I will be in my war mode. Others can take whatever approach they want but then I don’t give an account for them.

Only myself, for which I thank God!

Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website on the evolutionary controversy when state school districts were considering a balanced presentation of origins. I wrote the article, and then rewrote it to conform to their space guidelines, but it never showed up on their website. I was told that it was “too militant,” and the readers couldn’t comprehend it! Isn’t that interesting? I pointed out that famous evolutionists have called Creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” “stupid,” “liars,” “not to be trusted in any way,” “ignorant,” “insane,” and a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” Yet, I’m too militant!

Yes, I am militant, mad, but not malicious; after all, this a war, but the problem is that I put the evolutionists on the spot! And, of course, the media elite are, for the most part, evolutionists, so I am attacking them when I attack evolution. They don’t have answers so they suck their thumbs and whine about creationists being militant and unfair! Their accusing a Creationist of being unfair is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

I pointed out that ABC News could have asked me to “tone it down” a bit since they don’t like militancy unless it is from screaming feminists, radical Blacks or homosexual activists. The fact is, as I told my ABC contact, the network is guilty of suppression, if not official censorship! Bigotry! Intolerance! Gasp! Is it possible for ABC to be guilty of such atrocious sins?

About the same time I had my differences with ABC, a letter from a university professor was published in USA Today that had to be dealt with in the interest of fairness, reasonableness, and balance. But the “nation’s newspaper” was not interested in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. They refused to publish my reply. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is interesting that USA Today paid me for eight years to write columns for them on various subjects but they refused to publish this pro-creation, anti-evolution piece for free! I’m not sure there is a connection but have you noticed that since I refused to write anymore for them, the paper has become almost like one of the weekly give-aways? (OK, just a little self-serving, but an interesting observation.)

Creationists are often called “Bible-thumpers” but I seldom thump my Bible. Well, now and then a few thumps, but not really hard ones. What ABC and USA Today don’t want is to put evolutionists on the spot. The paper did publish an excellent column but it did not deal with the scientific reasons to reject evolution. It could not do so in less than 600 words, but they can say, “Hey, we published a rebuttal to the evolutionist.” That is devious, deceptive, and dishonest; but it is standard operating procedure for the secular media.

The professor’s letter in USA Today seemed to reveal that he had not read anything on the subject of creation/evolution in the last 25 years! The average layman is not expected to be aware of the scientific literature, but it is outrageous for a college professor, who takes it upon himself to speak to the issue, to be so uninformed.

The professor relied on hyperbole to convince the uninformed that his philosophy/religion (not science since it doesn’t meet the definition of science) of evolution is a fact. He compared evolution to gravity, which exposed his desperation. Then he said that evolution is not controversial among mainstream scientists and “among most of the general population.” John must be living in a cave!

Why should creationism be taught in schools? Because that’s the way man arrived on the planet! Creationists believe a sovereign God created everything out of nothing, while most evolutionists and atheists believe nothing created everything out of nothing! Or, nothing became something and something became everything! I choose to believe, “In the beginning, God created….” I choose to believe that because Scripture and science support that fact.

Some facts: The People for the American Way admitted that most Americans want both evolution and creationism taught in public schools. Huffington Post reported that only 15% of Americans believe that man arrived on this planet through evolution without God having any part of the process. The remaining 85% believed in creationism or God-directed evolution. A recent poll asked, “Since the universe has organization, I think there is a Creator who designed it.” More than 72% of Americans agreed!

According to USA Today, scientist Eugenie Scott was appalled that some of our presidential candidates also believe in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. I debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show where she admitted that God could have created the universe!

Well, that was a huge concession for an avid evolutionist, and most evolutionists will not willingly go to the origins issue. They have to be pushed there. They want to jump over “billions of years” to Darwin’s mythical “warm, little pond.” Well, I’m ready wade in that pond of which there is not a shred of evidence but I first want to know where the pond came from! Where did the earth come from? What about the universe? Evolutionists stampede away from that issue as if their hair was on fire!

The media think they are sophisticated even scholarly in promoting evolution; however, they are only proving what most people have known for years: they are incompetent, irresponsible, inept, imbalanced, and insincere.

Additionally, they are the most overpaid people east of Hollywood.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Eichenwald would be a little less offensive, obnoxious, overbearing, and outlandish and almost likable if he showed even a small dose of humility. Alas, he does not. He is at war with me and my kind. Worse, he is at war with God.

He charges that there were “no universally accepted manuscripts that set out what it meant to be a Christian,” a statement that is embarrassingly false. From the early days of the church they recognized their manuscripts as the New Testament that we have today. The churches did not vote on it but generally accepted the use of manuscripts that make up our present canon. But Kurt is an unbeliever using his influence to try to dig out the foundations of the Christian church. He attacks the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, declares that Paul did not write I Timothy, and II Peter is a forgery, “an opinion almost universally shared by biblical scholars today.” No, that is only true of most unbelieving scholars.

Kurt declares that Constantine determined what books made it into the New Testament at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; however there is no historical support for such a charge, a charge made by many with an axe to grind. I have all the extant writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene church leaders and none support that popular fiction.

One of Eichenwald’s sycophants wrote, “Nearly everyone who’s studied the matter agrees the canonical gospels were written no earlier than the early 70s CE (i.e. Mark) making it impossible for them to have been written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.” Not so. Remember, Matthew and John?

One of the main reasons for confidence for the New Testament being completed before 70 A.D. (except the Revelation) is that no New Testament writer refers to the destruction of Jerusalem (and hundreds of villages burned to ashes) and the Temple in 70 A.D. That was one of the most horrific, shocking events in history with the destruction of the famous city and at least a million, one hundred thousand people killed. Plus, the most famous place of worship in the world was destroyed, yet not a word mentioned by the Bible authors! Sure, it is the argument from silence, but it is a silence that is deafening.

Kurt declares that the incident in John 7 and 8 of the woman taken in adultery “simply never happened.” However, Jerome reported on this passage after 400 A.D. and he declares that the Latin and Greek manuscripts did contain the disputed passage, so some manuscripts recorded it and some did not. That is not unusual. Believers believe that God kept His promise and preserved His words.

Many manuscript experts tell us that the passage does not belong there but if that is true why do most modern translations use it? Modern translators know that removing the disputed story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in the Bible market. They use the passage because of cowardice and cash. They knowingly use a passage that practically all their experts agree should not be in the Bible! Modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their convictions), they should do the principled thing. Most liberals can’t spell principle but they can spell principal–money!

Conversely, scholars focused on preservation, find the passage in the oldest trusted manuscripts and believe it belongs there. Since God promised to preserve His Words, I believe He did just that. The manuscript issue is about “words.” Jesus said in Mark 13:31, “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” And Jeremiah 23:30 says, “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbor.”

Kurt then takes his knife and cuts the last 12 verses from Mark 19. He says they were wrongly added much later by an interpolator; however, Dr. C. I. Scofield tells us, “The passage is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.” Hippolytus in the years from 170-236 A.D. had these passages in his works. Also Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 A.D., used these verses in his writings. Since a preacher that close to the Disciples quoted those verses, don’t you think he would have objected if he read corrupt verses in Mark? Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna). Polycarp had been a Christian for eighty-six years, was martyred in 156 A.D., and was a disciple of John the Apostle. No, the last twelve verses belong in Mark as the Bible shows. Bible haters are wrong.

Furthermore, it would be very strange for Mark to end his Gospel of good news without mentioning any of Christ’s post resurrection appearances or His ascension; and to close his book with “for they were afraid” is unimaginable. The Good News of the Gospel is to expel our fears!

Daniel B. Wallace is a New Testament professor at Dallas and during a debate with unbeliever Bart Ehrman, Wallace reported that a first century fragment of Mark had been found in Egypt. The same as our common Mark! The traditional ending of Mark is the true ending.

Eichenwald attacks I John 5:7 telling us that the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture and that verse is an interpolation–added by a fanatical scribe wanting to add the Trinity to the teaching of Scripture. However, this verse is in the oldest manuscripts going back to Vaudois or “Waldensians” in northern Italy who were visited by missionaries from Antioch in the 120s. They translated the Bible into Old Latin in 157 and would not change a letter of their manuscript. There is little doubt that the manuscript used was at least a first generation copy of the original, if not the original, and the Waldensian translation was passed down from generation to generation until the Reformation. When Erasmus added I John 5:7 to his third edition of the Greek New Testament it appeared in the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible.

Moreover, leading early church leaders such as Tertullian wrote “which three are one” in 200 AD and Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.” Sounds as if they were quoting I John 5:7.

Kurt makes the silly assertion that “The New Testament doesn’t proclaim homosexuality the most heinous of all sins. No, every sin is equal in its significance to God.” He wrote that statement to deflect from sodomy, known today as homosexuality or by those unconcerned with accuracy as “being gay.” Kurt declares that homosexuality is no worse sin than lying, greed, and other sins thereby making perversion, pride, prejudice, and prayerlessness the same in God’s eyes! What insanity! He did not get that from Scripture even with his ability to twist Bible verses like a pretzel. Another thought: while this is no defense of pride, you won’t get AIDS from pride.

Yes, sin is sin as far as eternity is concerned; however, there are present life consequences that are deadly. Non thinkers say that one might as well commit adultery as to think about committing it but that is stupid. Thinking about adultery does not impact others while physical adultery divides families, devastates children, and may destroy health.

The pitiful prose of Eichenwald easily demonstrates a writer who is desperate to prove the impossible. His writing screams desperation: “I have to find some of those Bible contradictions, after all I have to crank out 8,539 words for Newsweek.” He even says the Bible forbids debates so Congress is disobeying God! Christians can’t wear pearls or gold. Public prayer is wrong. He equates criticism of government to resistance to government. The writer evidently knows nothing about proper research, especially biblical research: Who wrote it? When was it written? To whom was it written? What were the circumstances? There are many more examples of his egregious perversion of Scripture.

Eichenwald declares that his missive was not an attack upon the Bible or Christians but it is exactly that. A poor attack to be sure but an attack without any doubt. And to think they killed a bunch of trees to print such tripe!

An honest, liberal journalist should be willing to look at all sides of an issue. Kurt refused to do so as do most radical leftists.

But then, it’s in their genes!

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Wiping the foam from his lips he wrote his first paragraph depicting evangelical Christians as nuts, jerks, and flakes comparing us to the Westboro Baptists in Kansas. From this inauspicious beginning it is obvious that he is dishonest or totally uninformed; either reason would be justification for yanking his journalist credentials.

Eichenwald’s untrue, unfair, unkind characterization of Christians would be like my suggesting that all journalists are wild, woozy, and wicked people who get to work at 10:00, have a three hour lunch break consisting of three shots of cheap gin, stagger back to the office to work a couple hours then buy a quart of wine from the local grocery and go home where they cause havoc in the neighborhood, beat their wives and knock their children around until bed time. Now, I’m sure that is true of a few journalists but it is irresponsible to suggest that is true of most of them. Kurt was irresponsible.

He spends much ink dealing with snake handling as if that is normal in real Christianity! Some leftists are dumb as a box of rocks or are so short of arguments that they depict Christians as carrying a sack of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday.

Eichenwald makes a very silly statement when he declares that “evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an “impediment to reaching God.” He took that position because of a naïve misinterpretation of Matthew 19:29 where Christ spoke about forsaking father, mother, brother, and sister for His sake and their inheritance of eternal life. Of course even Christian neophytes are aware that the Bible clearly commands us to love and support family and to honor father and mother.

Kurt further shows his immaturity or dishonesty when he charges that all female Christians in political life should quit (or remain hypocrites!) because of 1 Timothy 2:12 that commands a woman not to teach and have authority over a man. This is a much discussed verse and theologians in various denominational groups take various interpretations but everyone knows it specifically deals with women in the local church. Kurt doesn’t know that.

There is no way Eichenwald could have done any research without knowing about I Timothy 2:12 yet he was way out in left field and gave no indication of objectivity. Of course, true objectivity is as hard to find in Newsweek and all liberal media as white dinosaurs in Kentucky.

Eichenwald is out of his league in this article. In paragraph after paragraph I cringed in embarrassment for him and Newsweek. He was like a 12-year old kid making an appearance at the Major League Training Camp in Florida with a desire to play in the big leagues. The kid would be told to come back in a few years. I’m afraid it would be many years before Eichenwald could qualify for the Theological Big League. Mainly because Kurt seems to be blind (or keeps his eyes shut) therefore can’t read the Bible he accuses us of not reading!

He continues to prove his lack of knowledge (or honesty) when he charges that fundamentalists “twist phrases and modify translations” to prove some of our “biases and beliefs.” The fact is most fundamentalists may be guilty of a little twisting (always wrong) now and then but we never “modify translations.” We would rather be caught naked in subzero weather on Fifth Avenue  during rush hour than mess with the King James Bible. We take it as it is–inspired, inerrant, and infallible.

Kurt then charges that Christians believe “Mosaic law from the Old Testament directs American government.” Gasp, does he mean that we believe that our basic judicial system is based on the original Ten Commandants? If so, then everyone knows that is true: From Israel, to Rome, to England to America. You know, don’t bare false witness, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery.

He further charges us with Bible illiteracy but with his litany of mistakes, mishmash, and misrepresentation, that is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath. Our “illiteracy” allegedly causes parents to “banish children from their homes.” No doubt this refers to parents who require children to live decently, get a job, not fornicate, not use vile language and no pornography if they want to live at home. How dare they!

Because of our alleged “Biblical illiteracy” he charges that we believe that climate change (remember when it used to be global warming?) is impossible because of God’s promise to Noah! Hey, only an uninformed fool would use such an argument when there is no evidence of man-made climate change. Of course, the climate changes every day!

His also charges us with “imped[ing] science” and undermining “intellectual advancement” which, of course, refers to the creation/evolution controversy. He and others will discuss how evolution happened but not if it happened. Such people talk about being open minded but their minds are as closed as a miser’s wallet.

His diatribe is based on “scores of theologians and scholars” but he did not interview or quote one evangelical, let alone a fundamentalist, but three–count them, one, two, three leftists. And he only names one–Bart Ehrman, an apostate New Testament professor at the University of North Carolina. Bart grew up a fundamentalist, went to Moody (after me), then to Princeton where he lost whatever faith he had. Kurt calls him a “groundbreaking Biblical scholar” when he is really an apostate. I could have chosen a kinder term but I’m committed to honesty and accuracy.

Dr. Michael Kruger, an expert in early Christianity wrote of Eichenwald’s “jaw-dropping ignorance of the facts about the Bible.” Kruger declared that Eichenwald’s article “is short on the facts, it has little understanding of interpretive principles, it assumes that it knows more about theology than it really does, and it pours out scorn and contempt on the average believer.” Right!

Dr. Daniel Wallace, commented on Eichenwald’s “numerous factual errors and misleading statements, his lack of concern for any semblance of objectivity, his apparent disdain for and lack of interaction with genuine evangelical scholarship, and his uber-confidence about more than a few suspect viewpoints.” Wallace is Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary.

Eichenwald charges that none of us have ever read a reliable Bible–that we have translations of translations of translations of bad translations that have been altered hundreds of times. The fact is that we have over 6,000 good Greek manuscripts going back as far as the second century! When Kurt writes about corrupt manuscripts he gives the impression that he knows what is corrupt and what is not corrupt. Neither he nor anyone else has read the original autographs. Kurt is a charlatan.

Kurt shows his shallowness with his antiquated charges: there are two (or even four) creation stories; Christ’s geologies are contradictory; the events around His birth are in conflict; the resurrection stories are in conflict; Moses did not write Deuteronomy; Noah taking two or seven kinds of animals on the ark and the number of days the water was upon the earth; the question of David killing Goliath and many others.

Kurt tells us that unicorns did not exist even though the Bible mentions them ten times. It is really humorous to hear liberals deal with this subject. They seem to be clueless about the extinction of species since the beginning of time and all evolutionists agree with that. Unicorns could have existed and like the dodo bird disappeared long ago. Furthermore, a whole herd of unicorns could be found tomorrow grazing on a Peruvian mountainside!

Eichenwald may not believe much of the Bible but like all humanists, hedonists, and homosexuals he believes Jesus when He said, “Don’t judge” in Matt. 7:1. However, we are not to judge unfairly or without judging ourselves first. In fact, we are commanded to judge righteous judgment in John 7:24. Kurt is very careless with the context of his criticism.

Wonder if Eichenwald, in all fairness, will do a hatchet job on the Koran as he has the Bible. No, because he is a coward. He knows Christians are taught to turn the other cheek while Koranic Muslims are taught to behead critics.

(Next column: “Newsweek’s Hatchet Job on the Bible!”)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

God warned us to not put any evil thing before our eyes. Wonder what He meant? Could it possibly mean that genuine Christians should be very discriminating as to the books they read, and the movies and television shows they watch? Of course, it is unnecessary to deal with pornography because no sane person, let alone Christian, would be so unprincipled. Would they?

When real Christians (but then that’s the only kind there are) get a revelation of personal sin, they first recognize that sin, then experience remorse which should be followed with repentance. After repentance, they will refuse to walk that same path. That will happen unless they have rebelled so long that they have a conscience seared as with a hot iron. The day may come when even preachers try to justify filthy speech, dirty stories, avarice, and fornication. Wait a minute, I think we are already there!

I exhausted a huge amount of time watching filth, suggestiveness, and ridicule of Christians and biblical values. Following are the shows I watched and my evaluation of them and while I am only a simple, out-of-touch Christian, I do have a right to research, recommend, and even do a little ranting especially when children are involved.

Make no mistake, the popular shows I will mention should, in my humble opinion, be watched by no one–unless vileness, violence, and vulgarity are now viable and valuable options. The few shows I do recommend should be scrutinized since I may have missed some egregious shows. It should be noted that I only watched a portion of most shows.

“Modern Family” is an incredible mixture of weirdoes doing all kinds of things as if they are normal.

“Two and a half men” contains one very vulgar sex joke after another, penis jokes, lesbianism, and toilet humor. I don’t think even nominal church people, with the decency of a warthog could watch that show all the way through. I was not able to watch it very long.

The “Crazy Ones” consists of constant sex jokes. The boss and his assistant sleep with the same whore; his daughter catches him and “it’s no big deal since they are all adults” then, the whore gets a third lover at the end of the show.

“Criminal Minds” is very explicit with mangled and tortured bodies shown in detail. Violent wounds are clearly depicted. I would be appalled if I thought my grandchildren were permitted to see something so shocking and graphic.

“Hawaii Five-O” is a far cry from the original show that aired in the 70s and 80s. It has interesting plots, attractive stars, but is explicit and violent. Both male stars are sleeping with their girlfriends and it is presented as normal and acceptable activity.

“NCIS Los Angeles” is very violent, graphic and suggestive.

“NCIS Las Vegas” is very violent and graphic. Bedroom scenes with stars are common.

“Two Waitresses” uses crude four letter words, genital humor, vulgarities, and makes fun of prostitution and death.

“Mom” ridicules mothers, advocates gay sex, and is very crude.

“The Good Wife” is an attorney/political show but they don’t do much courtroom work because they spend so much time bed-hopping. Even though it is well written and suspenseful, it is ruthless and parades quick sex anywhere.

“The Millers” is vulgar, sexual, and is scattered with flatulence jokes and masturbation jokes, and is very crude. It is not only crude, vulgar, sex laden but dull. I’ve had more interest and excitement in watching fish swimming in an aquarium or paint dry.

All of the above shows should be unplugged and while I don’t want the government to have authority to do any censoring, the viewers should do so. Christians should respond by turning off their sets or changing to something wholesome and we should respond with our checkbook: Don’t support their sponsors.

Someone says, “But surely there were some shows that were worth watching by even a prude like you!” Yes, a few but with caution. After all, the plots continue to develop. When it gets where it is shameful, stop watching.

The “Blue Bloods” has “heart,” and is not politically correct. They promote principled issues and I didn’t see any sex scenes; the large police family (Catholic) has prayer at dinner; young cop/son has new female partner and they will probably end up in bed. I hope I am wrong. It is one of the few shows that I could watch without feeling uncomfortable. Oops, a recent show proved that this show may be going the way all of them go. The young cop went to bed with his girlfriend that he was not even serious about. I expect his partner will be a future bedmate.

“Elementary” is a very good detective show that is very interesting; it is well written; however, a recent show had some sexual content.

“Mentalist” is very interesting and has some sex. It is well written.

“Person of Interest” is very interesting and has no swearing. It portrays a strong sense of justice even to the point of breaking unjust laws to achieve justice. It is very violent.

Another “NCIS” is very well done, has interesting characters and the star is very likable, also it is not overtly sexual.

Even non-Christians should consider most television shows as dangerous as a rattlesnake in a nursery and should trash their television or watch it very selectively. They will do that unless they are unconcerned about their children being exposed to squalid, shameful, shameless, and sordid programs.

John Chrysostom, the “Golden Mouth” (born about 345 A.D.) denounced the theater in his day as an exhibition of lewd women, and as a school of profanity, seduction, and intrigue. He threatened the rich with Hell for entertaining guests with dancing girls! I wonder what John would say about the most popular television shows that most Christians watch every night?

Just wondering.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

You really hit bottom when you suggested that fundamental Baptists, as a group, have “pride (and lust from the pride) has created a culture of sexual abuse, anxiety disorders, and a bunch of bible-beating no-knowers because they can’t understand what they are reading because pastors like you are filling their heads with nonsense and man-made doctrines.” You suggested I was a Bible beater or Bible thumper. Here, I must confess that I have, well, it’s difficult to admit but I have thumped my Bible a few times. Not often and not really hard, but I’m guilty. But what does that have to do with truth? Note that you did not offer any examples of “nonsense” or “man-made doctrines.”

You suggested that fundamental Baptists have a systemic problem of sexual abuse, etc., but surely you can’t be that uneducated, unfair, and unreasonable. But, then, maybe so. There is no question that we have our share of adulterers, pedophiles, thieves, and arrogant nuts in our group, but do you want to go tit for tat? I can do so if you want. I have publicly “called out” some of those offending preachers who were friends of mine! Have you ever done that with some of your New Evangelical friends who went astray?

New Evangelicals who only read Christianity Today border on heresy or at least a loosey goosey doctrine (and lifestyle), and they have their share of preachers with zipper trouble. I could start with the former head of the NAE and go on and on. If you were honest, you would admit that all groups have similar problems. Most of the problems would be solved if those men trusted Christ as Savior. They often preach a salvation to others that they have not themselves experienced. It is a tragedy that men, who call others to drink from the water of life, have never drunk themselves and have, instead, muddied the well.

You said that you have “gotten off [my] list a few times.” How many times? Once, twice, thrice, how many? I think maybe you are a little disingenuous if not dishonest. You mentioned that I should have a way for people to get off my list, and you are right. I have that option for my large Preachers List, but I thought that media sources such as yours would want to know the opinions of fundamental journalists like myself. I guess I was wrong. Evidently, you don’t want to hear truth from any source that might challenge your loosey-goosey theological position.

However, your diatribe was somewhat successful in that I will add an option for removal from the mailing list for my columns. There, you see, Fundamentalists can be corrected and move on up to a higher level. But, of course, we will never be able to reach the heights of leading New Evangelicals. But there is a price you will have to pay: You will no longer be privy to my lofty musings, religious ruminating, and soaring flights of purple prose, or my arguments, assumptions, afterthoughts, and appraisals of daily affairs. Too bad.

Moreover, you will not be permitted to read my already-finished columns dealing with Billy Graham (6), Nelson Mandela (4), the church-health care issue (2), Muslim columns (3), higher education series (4), Stupid Statements by Stupid People, Grandmother Sleeps with 900 Men, and my correction of a black liberal columnist for Cox Newspapers (4). I am saddened at your loss. You are really a loser.

As I think about your loss, I realize that you can access those columns by going to my blog! You can do it late at night when no one will ever know how you are playing with fire by reading the works of a Fundamentalist! Just punch in at the top of your computer screen the following: http://donboys.cstnews.com. Those are the magic letters that will open an incredible door of facts, faith, fun, and fellowship for you and no one will know about it! I don’t expect you to change your thinking but you will have some interesting nights of teeth gnashing and grinding.

You had the gall to write, “I tried my best to limit my response in a Godly and loving way but it is hard when you keep sending me such foolishness. I don’t believe it would have mattered if I said it softly and tenderly to you. It is called a harsh rebuke for a reason.” No, a “Godly and loving way” would have been for you to give me credit, as a Christian, for being sincere in writing a column that might help some uninformed people and to also point out error. Then you would have pointed out my mistakes, one by one, so that I would be forced to admit a sloppy job of research. Then you would have challenged me to face the fact of my honest mistakes, repent of those mistakes of carelessness, then print a retraction for libeling innocent men. Then, you and I would be friends for a lifetime. You chose not to do so because you could not do so.

But you did not do the Christian thing and try to help me. You did not point out my “foolishness.” You sent me a “harsh rebuke” because you looked into the mirror and saw a hypocrite who refuses to face the truth and do something about it. You are like many New Evangelicals who are guilt-ridden for repudiating their Fundamentalist background, education, and parents, while delighting in pointing out the warts, blemishes, and scars on fundamentalism.

You closed by asking if I am “really helping the Kingdom of God? Do you really think this strengthens people to ‘love’?” The issue goes back to, “Did I tell the truth?” If I did, then Christianity Today and Chuck Colson looking at the issue honestly would be forced to admit their error regarding King and admit the truth of my position. You see, the historical record is important. What people, especially Christians, believe is important. To permit people to believe that King was a dedicated Christian worthy of emulation would be dishonest, and could be detrimental and disastrous.

Sir Winston Churchill said, “Once in a while a man will stumble over the truth. But most will quickly jump up, brush himself off and hurry on as though he had seen nothing.” You didn’t even brush yourself off.

[Boys new eBook, Martin Luther King Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! Is now available for $3.99 at Amazon.com.]

An evangelical leader of a news website used his hatchet on my blonde scalp, not sure if he wanted to scalp me or decapitate me. Evidently he couldn’t handle the truth just like Christianity Today and Chuck Colson! Too bad, but I removed him from my master list and because of his diatribe, I have developed a way that will hopefully guarantee that he will not get back on.

I thought news websites would want to receive timely and controversial columns but evidently not so. However, I will answer his diatribe since he needs to read it; but he doesn’t have the guts or courage to reply in a sane, sensible, and scriptural way. Everyone knows you can’t defend the indefensible–-

You said that you could quote Scripture to answer me but please note that you did not. Then you intimated that I would not accept your answer unless it came from the KJV; however, you are wrong, but then, I suppose that happens often to you. Yes, I believe the KJV is inerrant, infallible, as well as inspired. (Remember when all Bible believers believed and used those terms?) That does not mean that I would not use many passages in other versions, especially since many verses are almost the same as the KJV. You probably don’t know, but many years ago many evangelists often preached a sermon from the Catholic Bible or the Jehovah Witness Bible, etc., and many people were saved from that preaching. Yes, there are some KJV people who would not do that but it was common in the past. So, you made a wrong assumption about me.

You sarcastically wrote, “I can never figure out just which version of the KJV you guys deem actually from God” suggesting a major difference in the revisions, but obviously you are uninformed. There were revisions done in 1629, 1638, 1762, and in 1769 that were, for the most part, correcting printing errors, using different fonts, updating spelling, and some modernizing of words that were obsolete. KJV haters often imply that there were major differences in the various early revisions, but that is untrue.

You characterized my column with a movie quote: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!” Now, I assume from that quote, that you did not like what I wrote. Too bad, you were not honest and competent enough to point out where I was wrong. But then you did not because you could not. If you could, you would or at least you should. Any moron knows that.

I haven’t been to a movie since 1951, so I had to research what movie you were quoting. Not being very fluent, you chose “Billy Madison,” a vulgar, vile, and vain movie, to express your distaste for my column and me. For sure, it was a little less than Shakespearean!

It seems my simple pleading for truth about Martin Luther King was more offensive than the movie’s vulgar dialogue! Were you indignant at such language in the movie? Did you walk out? Were any children with you? Were you embarrassed, even a little? Did you think of the statement Bible preachers used to make like, “Would you be embarrassed and ashamed if the rapture took place while you were there?” Oh, but maybe you don’t believe in the rapture, sorry for the assumption, but surely you believe in purity. Well, at least you believe in Hollywood!

It is obvious that you only have a little knowledge as is evidenced by your statement that we Fundamentalists think to “be separate” from the world means to attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. I’m a lifetime fundamental Baptist and I have never heard that before! Never! We do preach, as did the Apostle Paul (remember him?), that Christians are to be apart from the world. We should be Christian in our talk, our walk, our dress, our entertainment, our business, our family life and so on without being nuts. We are supposed to be peculiar (I Pet. 2:9) without being odd.

Is that a strange teaching? It may be for New Evangelicals but for those who are committed to the fundamentals of the Bible, it is normal Christian living.