While Christian Fundamentalists should never be weird or odd, the Bible requires them to be peculiar. A biblically peculiar person reminds people of Christ. However, most secular people could never comprehend the daily lifestyle of a biblical Fundamentalist.

One must also understand that fundamental simply means going back to the origins or the basics. A college basketball team loses 20 games in a row, so the coach gets the team around him and says, “Guys, we must get back to the fundamentals. This is a basketball. That is a basket, and the purpose is to get this ball in that basket without getting fouled.”

I believe all Christians need to get back to the basics of Christianity, discarding the nonsense, the lies, the false traditions, and the heresy—back to barebones Christianity, i.e., Fundamentalism.

U.S. Fundamentalists (a term from the 1940s), including many who identify as Evangelicals, comprise about 30 percent to 40 percent of the U.S. population. They are simply Christians who take the Bible seriously and are willing to stand alone if necessary for their beliefs. Their stand is usually conspicuous for its responsible militancy, and that militancy has occasioned slanderous accusations that they are mendacious, mad, or malicious in their stand. It seems opponents find it easier to accuse Fundamentalists of being mad and mean rather than discuss and debate their militant positions. Biblical militancy will always result in help and will never harm anyone.

And no true Fundamentalist will seek to force his view on anyone. That accusation has been made by people who interpret a loving yet militant statement as “trying to force his ideas down my throat.”

The critic simply cannot refute what he has heard.

Because of Fundamentalists’ high view of Scripture (it is inspired, infallible, and inerrant as well as invaluable for proper living), they adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. Their core beliefs—Christ’s virgin birth, virtuous life, vicarious death, victorious resurrection, and visible return, as well as the validity of miracles and the veracity of Scripture. Of course, at one time, all orthodox Christians believed those doctrines!

So, who changed?

Furthermore, most Fundamentalists insist on the independence of each local church, refusing any religious hierarchy or authority over a local congregation. Therefore, they refuse to belong to any denomination. Each local Fundamentalist congregation must be judged on its own merits. Most are tender and compassionate, while some are tyrannical and cold.

There were exceptions to the anti-denomination position in the early 1900s when many highly competent Fundamentalists were in the Presbyterian U.S.A. and the Northern (later American) Baptist Convention. During that era when the Fundamentalist/Modernist battle was raging, many great preachers refused to recognize the theological corruption in their groups or, if admitted, they refused to leave their beloved denominations. Such a move would have had a significant impact on their family, friends, finances, and future. Many others did leave and became what they should have always been—unaffiliated or independent Christians, as were the first-century Christians.

Fundamentalists are not the new boy on the block. Resource books are wrong when they call Fundamentalism a phenomenon of the 20^th century. While the name is new, the movement goes back to an empty tomb in a beautiful garden outside Jerusalem.

Harvard Divinity School Professor (and Church Historian) Kirsopp Lake wrote, “Fundamentalism is virtually synonymous with orthodox Christianity.” He added, “It is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the…survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians.”

Dr. Lake continued, “The Fundamentalist may be wrong: I think that he is. [No, if we are original Christians, then Fundamentalism is not wrong.] But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is [sic] on the Fundamentalist side.” (Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, (Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin, 1925), pp 61-62.)

It is a fact, recognized by all, that the best support for your position is the positive comments by your critics as per Lake’s above.

To repeat, even unbelieving scholars teach that the original Christians were Fundamentalists called by different names—Christians, Disciples, Believers, Followers, Arnoldists, Donatists, Waldensians, Hussites, etc. As years passed, some got loose in their beliefs and took on spurious views, which exploded into the world’s religious mess today.

Fundamentalists eschew formalism, anthems, vestments, and repetition and usually prefer, even demand, simplicity in worship, doctrinally sound hymns, and serious Bible teaching and preaching. They meet in massive megachurches, smaller “churchy” buildings, storefronts, or even homes. They are also known for their independence; consequently, some Fundamentalists will fuss with me for “speaking for them.” Of course, I speak for myself, prompted by my knowledge of church history and current events.

The very suggestion that modern Fundamentalists (those who adhere to the basics) are the same as original Christians causes heartburn, palpitations, and hot flashes across the fruited plain. After all, aren’t Fundamentalist Christians uncouth, unsophisticated, and uneducated louts responsible for dandruff, sunspots, drought, and partly responsible for global warming? Aren’t they blamable for the declining population of copperheads and rattlesnakes in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee? Didn’t they organize the Flat Earth Society? Don’t their children live in constant fear, and their wives are usually pious, plump, put-down—and pregnant?

Well, maybe the above charges are outrageous, but surely, Fundamentalists are legalistic and pharisaical! No, all these accusations indicate that the critic is desperate and devious, if not dishonest.

Or, maybe just simply dumb.

The world generally has a silly, untrue caricature of Fundamentalists. A Fundamentalist has recognized himself as a sinner, repented of sin, and received Christ as Savior based upon His sacrificial death and physical resurrection. Following his salvation, he seeks to honor Christ in every respect. He takes the scriptural commands seriously to live godly, separate from compromise, and he lovingly rebukes those who stray from the truth. Moreover, he will try to pass to his children those same characteristics.

That means Fundamentalists are obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, treat others the way they want to be treated, respect the dignity of all people, show genuine love in response to hate, generously give to help others, stand for biblical truth against all odds, whatever the cost, even to correct but not coerce those who do not stand for truth.

To an informed Christian, the truth cannot be sacrificed on the altar of a bogus tolerance. Tolerance is often used as a smokescreen to secretly and safely retreat from orthodoxy. We are told repeatedly, all views have equal merit, and none should be considered better than another.

Practically everyone believes that lie. All persons are considered equal, but not all positions are. Anyone can have odd ideas, and he has a right to them, so I respect him and recognize his right to express his views. However, while he is equal to me, his ideas are not necessarily sane, scholarly, or scriptural. His ideas can be foolish and unsound, but he must realize that he should support his silly views with facts. To say we must be tolerant of all people and give as much equivalency to all ideas is nonsense.

However silly, a person may believe what he wants, and he may espouse those beliefs, but that does not mean his behavior must be accepted. There is no right to do wrong. Modern philosophy says that you can’t disagree with anyone since it will hurt his feelings. So? Such is life in the real world. If one takes that senseless position, then one can never disagree with anyone about anything. What a crock!

The Christian must always seek to do right in all circumstances, realizing it is never right to do wrong.

A Fundamentalist is incensed when lies are presented as truth, when evil is presented as good, and when the young and innocent are harmed. He is there when the depressed need a friend. He keeps his word at all costs and is known for his kindness, gentleness, and faithfulness. He eschews anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, and filthy communication.

He is known for his humility of mind (esteeming others better than himself), meekness, longsuffering, blamelessness, and harmlessness. He lives in a crooked and perverse nation, among whom he is supposed to shine as a light in a dark world.

However, that light is flickering almost to extinction.

The Apostle Paul records a command for all Christians in Philippians 4:8, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

I have gladly accepted the term Fundamentalist knowing my critics and the ignorant have perverted its original meaning. They have done so because they cannot reply and are highly unkind, unfair, and uncivil when dealing with Fundamentalists. After all, tolerance only goes so far!

If I am a devoted Christian (a Fundamentalist), I will be careful about my morals, manners, and militancy. Bible Fundamentalists are known for their love of people, principles, and precepts—all with passion.

I have tried to live as a genuine Christian Fundamentalist (not always successfully) for more than 70 years. Moreover, I just published my memoirs, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets to, among other things, further enlighten those who don’t know that all genuine Christians are biblical Fundamentalists.    

Christian Fundamentalists are not deranged, deplorable, demented, or dangerous but gentle, gracious, and generous people.

(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 19 books, the most recent,  Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook will be available at Amazon.com  next week. 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 to receive his free articles, and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

But it would be stretching the English language to call St. John’s a church, but then it does have a steeple, so that’s close enough for moderns who don’t believe much of anything.

The Washington diocese bishop Dr. Mariann Budde waxed eloquent in her denunciation of Trump. She opined that his “message [was] antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and everything that our church stands for.” Budde doesn’t seem to know that her denomination doesn’t stand for anything that might be construed as biblical. She knows that it is a dying group since she is the spiritual leader of 40,500 Episcopalians in 89 churches and 20 schools in D.C. and four Maryland counties. All have been dying for decades.

The Washington Post quoted her saying, “Everything he has said and done is to inflame violence …We need moral leadership, and he’s done everything to divide us, and has just used one of the most sacred symbols of the Judeo-Christian tradition,” leaving her “outraged.” The bishop doesn’t seem to know that the Bible is not a symbol but a Book of instructions—instructions that Episcopal leaders refuse to follow. Moreover, I didn’t realize that preachers in Episcopal Churches had powers to read minds. She’s even made a judgment as to Trump’s motives. Wow, what powers.

Maybe Mariann could use her amazing powers to determine why her denomination and St. John’s, in particular, are dying on the vine. The offerings and the pews are as empty as some of their main spokesmen and women’s heads. Wonder why she is not outraged at the viciously heretical comments made by their foremost leaders.

Famous, long-time leaders have made it clear that they do not believe the Bible is the Word of God; Christ was not virgin-born, did not die a vicarious death, nor have a victorious resurrection. Moreover, sodomy is no longer a vile sin; abortion is no longer murder; fornication is no longer evil; same-sex marriage is no longer an abomination; it is no longer a joke to suggest that a man might become a woman—even have a baby.

At least the church does in public what they teach because Bishop Budde and members of the Cathedral’s LGBT ministry group, among others in the diocese, marched in the 2016 Capital Pride March “to honor the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.” Hand me a barf bag.

The darling of the Episcopal Church for many years has been John Shelby Spong, who is a theologically corrupt, professed believer. However, he doesn’t believe in much since he is quick to tell anyone who will listen that the “virgin birth…makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible” or “The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.” Moreover, to no one’s surprise, he does not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. Therefore, the most prominent Episcopalian is not a believer.

Why was Spong not found guilty of heresy and removed from the Episcopal denomination? But then, they did put up with Bishop Pike, a long time cultist, who was thrice married, fornicated with his secretary, and died in the Israeli desert while on his honeymoon. Lay Episcopalians must be very broadminded.

How can ordained unbelievers be so unprincipled, so unreasonable, so unethical as to accept generous salaries, benefits, and retirement income from a religious institution and ridicule the Bible upon which those groups are supposed to be founded?

Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida Greg Brewer tweeted: “This is blasphemy in real time.” No, what major leaders in the denomination are teaching is blasphemy, but evidently, Greg can’t get his knickers twisted about such things.

Former Dean the Very Rev. Gary R. Hall retired said, ‘No sex before marriage is not realistic.’ He even opened the cathedral for homosexual nuptials! He really jumped into a cauldron of confusion when he opined, ‘It is not only just okay to be gay, straight, bisexual, or transgendered. It is good to be that way because that is the way God has made you.’” Rev. Hall has no knowledge that he has no knowledge, and someone who is unaware that he is unaware is pathetic.

The Rev. Canon Gina Campbell, a divorced female priest, was hired as Canon Precentor of the National Cathedral in September of 2013. In November of 2014, she invited 100 Muslims to say their Friday prayers at the National Cathedral! She said: “This needs to be a world in which all are free to believe and practice and in which we avoid bigotry, Islamophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Christianity and to embrace our humanity and to embrace faith.”

Obviously, the teaching of the National Cathedral is the antithesis to Christ and the Bible when it embraces a vile, vicious, volatile terrorist group like extremist Islam.

Ms. Campbell even had all the crucifixes covered and closed the church to Christian worshipers for four hours. She had armed guards at the church doors to exclude Christians who might want to attend. She even removed the pews so the Muslims would not be offended. She wanted the Muslims to pretend to be in a mosque where they sit and kneel on the floor. When she welcomed the Muslims, she said, “Salaam, shalom, peace, you are all so very welcome here….Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God.”

Maybe she worships that god, but I don’t!

The Muslim cleric, with no attempt at being sensitive to the location and the circumstances, responded, “God has no son, that Jesus Christ cannot be his son, and that there is no god like Allah.” It is a wonder the massive cathedral did not fall on his head. Does any sane person think Ms. Campbell will receive a similar invitation to do her thing at the local mosque? Especially if she tells the truth about Islam!

Not even if pigs learn to fly in formation and do backward summersaults over the White House.

One headline tells the story of what’s happening: “Episcopalians Continue Bleeding Members, Attendance at Alarming Rate.” However, it seems the denominational bigwigs haven’t connected the dots. Members are fleeing their churches as if their hair is on fire because of the outrageous, anti-biblical, and leftist positions taken by the leadership.

The denomination’s website says nothing about reaching people for Christ with the Gospel. Conversely, it does boast about their activity on Ash Wednesday of going to the streets, no not with Gospel literature, but to put ashes on the foreheads of people! However, there is no, absolutely no biblical foundation for such a church activity.

There is no Bible support for most of what is going on in mainline denominations: a church hierarchy, massive salaries, special clerical vestments, relics, icons, and involvement in leftist political causes.

Church leaders should not need consistency forced upon them. Their character should require it.

Episcopal clergy make up a nest of vipers far more dangerous than rattlesnakes on the floor of a nursery. At least rattlesnakes, by nature, warn potential victims of danger. False prophets do not.

It might be rude or even crude for me to remind my readers that the Episcopal Church was the major opponent of our War for Independence. More than half of their Colonial ministers left their pulpits in disagreement with our demand for a break with England.

But what can you expect of a church denomination founded by a lustful (he had many mistresses), glutinous King Henry VIII who it was said had “six wives he was wedded. One died, one survived, two divorced, two beheaded.” He broke with the Roman Catholic Church because the Pope refused to give him a divorce from Catherine so he could marry Anne Boleyn.

Not the best reason to start a church group, but when there is no commitment to the authority of the Bible, any reason will do. Maybe Henry wanted to break with the Roman Catholic Church because he failed Latin and would rather be known as a wife-killer, fornicator, and liar than known for being ignorant.

I would rather be known for being ignorant.

(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 Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! 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.)

Chinese eat snakes, worms, and water bugs boiled and soaked in vinegar. The wealthier eat live scorpions soaked in strong liquor. Chinese connoisseurs delight in roasted bee larvae and fried silkworm moth larvae after a steaming bowl of ant soup. Others eat large water beetles, stinkbugs, and fly maggots. They raise the larvae of flies in heaps of rotting fish.

Live scorpions are placed on a bed of noodles and gourmets say they taste like potatoes. I’ll take their word for it.

The Chinese mainland has about 100 cockroach farms, and new ones are opening frequently. Even many Chinese were surprised when a million cockroaches broke out of one of those farms! This Great Escape made headlines around the world. Cockroaches are considered a succulent delight and are farmed like chickens in Georgia.

However, health experts reveal that the coronavirus is connected to bats that are considered a delicacy; a viral video has emerged online of a Chinese woman devouring a bat. A second video features a woman eating “bowl of bat soup.” There is little doubt these filthy creatures play a critical role in transmitting the deadly coronavirus.

After a careful review of the habits of ancient Jews, I suggest that Jews were thousands of years ahead of all nations, and a return to their diet and sanitary habits might limit or eliminate many of the world’s diseases.

Some uninformed health officials teach that Egypt was the medical center of the ancient world. This mistake was advanced by the ancient historian Herodotus who recorded that during the days of the Medo-Persian Empire, it was King Darius’ practice “to keep in attendance certain Egyptian doctors, who had a reputation for the highest eminence in their profession.” However, Egypt was not nearly as medically informed as ancient Israel. Egypt was more skillful in building (think, pyramids) than medicine, but Israel was far advanced of all nations in health issues.

An example of Egypt’s medical backwardness is their instructions on removing splinters from the flesh. It consisted of “worm blood, mole, and donkey dung.” However, Doctors S. I. McMillen and David Stern noted that dung “is loaded with tetanus spores” and “a simple splinter often resulted in a gruesome death from lockjaw.”

The ancient Egyptians’ prescription for skin disease was “A hog’s tooth, cat’s dung, dog’s dung, aau-of-samu-oil, berries-of-the-xet-plant, pound and apply as poultice.” (Ancient Egyptian, 1930, p. 92.) Other remedies included dried excrement of a child, hog dung, and a farmer’s urine. One recipe to prevent hair growth included lizard dung and the blood from a cow, donkey, pig, dog, and stag.

It was said that the urine of a faithful wife was effective in the treatment of sore eyes. It seems ancient Egyptians had a thing about dung and urine! Israel was not so backward.

The Encyclopedia Britannica’s conclusion regarding the Bible’s instructions on sanitary and medical practices is very revealing: “The Old Testament is a mine of information on social and personal hygiene. The Jews were indeed pioneers in matters of public health.”

The Jews’ strict regulations regarding sexual activity along with their sanitary regulations plus their treatment of infectious diseases were millennia ahead of all other nations. God gave specific instructions to Israel regarding human waste. They were to relieve themselves away from the living area and to carry a tool for covering excrement! People in third world nations still don’t follow that basic practice!

The Encyclopedia of Medical History declares, “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease.” Maybe, just maybe, we should use the Bible to manage our personal lives, not because it is ancient but because it is accurate.

When one looks at the book of Leviticus for treatment of infectious disease he does not see dirty, dangerous, and deadly remedies and ingredients prescribed by Egypt and other ancient civilizations. In fact, the Pentateuch reveals awareness of germs and disease that “modern” medicine did not grasp for 3,500 years after the book was written!

For thousands of years, doctors denied that disease could be transmitted by imperceptible means; but in the 1860s, Louis Pasteur confirmed it in his Germ Theory of Disease. He proved that most infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from outside the body.

Moses gave specific instructions to prevent the spread of disease from dung and dead bodies thousands of years before modern man understood the danger. Moses instructed Jews that diseases such as leprosy were dangerous to everyone and such infected people were to “dwell alone without the camp.” Leviticus 13:45 commands when an infected person came near an uninfected person, the infected person was to “cover his upper lip, and shall cry, ‘unclean! unclean!’” That was not unkind; it saved thousands of innocent lives.

It is obvious that the covering of the upper lip was to keep the infected person from coughing, sneezing, or spitting on non-infected people. On Oct. 9, 2014, it was announced that researchers found that a patient showing no symptoms of the disease “can still transmit a virus like Ebola by air if droplets containing the virus are transmitted to another person by a sneeze or cough.” That is contrary to what major health officials were saying!

It was 1873 that mankind finally realized that leprosy was infectious instead of hereditary but then, Moses and the Israelites knew about it 3,500 years earlier! If a Jew was suspected of being infected he was examined by a priest who confirmed whether or not he was infected. If so, then he was to be removed from the living area until he was healed. That meant quarantine and while it was unpleasant and uncomfortable, it was not unreasonable.

Because of Israel’s advanced knowledge they were the only culture cognizant of infectious diseases with the knowledge of how to deal with them. They were the only group to practice quarantine until the Black Death (bubonic plague) smacked the face of Europe in the 14th century. Millions were dying of plague until church leaders in Vienna thought about the Bible’s plan to stop the spread of infectious disease. Officials required all ships entering Vienna’s port on the Danube to be isolated 40 days to ensure that none of the sailors or passengers was infected. Other cities followed the plan and the Black Death was stopped.

U.S. and world health officials must realize they are health officials not politicians dedicated to making everyone feel good, safe, and fuzzy. We must prohibit anyone from entering the U.S. who has been to any Asian or African nation unless they have been in isolation 21 days. That also includes our southern border where people are entering our nation daily without any physical examination. Even animals have to have shots to enter and kids have to have vaccinations to attend school. You think maybe we could be a little stricter with so many deadly viruses? It is time to act now. If the coronavirus reaches a critical mass, it could become a medical tsunami that will burn itself out after killing millions of people.

Ancient Israel told us how to stop infectious disease: confirm, contain, and confine the disease. Maybe physicians should add the Bible to their medical references.

(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 Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! 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 request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles, and click here to support his work with a donation.)

Progressives declare that they cannot be racists; they get away with that because they use their own definitions. They can use offensive words in what they call music or in drama, but if I use the same words to tell people not to use those words, I am considered a racist! Frankly, a black progressive calling a conservative Christian a racist is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath.

Leftists insist on using their unique definitions for many words as Humpty Dumpty said to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean.”

American universities are telling students “Understand that you are white, so it is inevitable that you have unconsciously learned racism. Your unearned advantage must be acknowledged and our racism unlearned.”

That is not only racist but also stupid.

Have you noticed that when a racial minority commits a crime against a white person, the media quickly tells us to not judge the whole race because of a few; however, when a white man does a crime against a colored person, we hear charges of systemic racism? It appears that those who yell the loudest and are the quickest to identify racism are the most racist of all.

Dictionaries should rewrite their definition of racist to be “someone winning an argument with a liberal.” The argument is easy to win if one simply reads leftist newspapers and journals. Of course, that would result in terminal brain rot.

The headline shouted, “Atlantic Writer Claims Solar Eclipse is Racist!” Mother Nature was racist because the path of the eclipse fell across areas of the country populated mostly by white people! No, it was not humor or satire. It was tagged, “science.” A dummy Brooklyn Law Professor said, “Still, an eclipse chaser is always tempted to believe that the skies are replaying a message.” Taking a second breath and wiping the foam from her quivering lips, she wrote, “The strange path of the eclipse suggests a need for reorganization” of our society. And generally, the path was over Americans who voted for Trump. I kid you not.

How dare Mother Nature spread the eclipse across white America leaving out the major black cities requiring them to experience the eclipse second or third hand.

The professor should be in a mental hospital where she can get the help she desperately needs, not in a law school where she can destroy young minds–young minds that are already soft and porous from drugs, rock music, and incessant bombardment from the left.

Folks, the big surprise here is not an idiotic statement made by a self-hating white racist but that any school would hire such a person. And to not fire her for such an outrageous statement proves the depth of moral cowardice in academia. I think she has a right to be a racist but she doesn’t have a right to be ignorant. Fire her for ignorance, not racism.

But it gets worse, if possible. “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition….” That statement came from an article titled “Abolish the White Race,” and published in Harvard Magazine, vol. 105, no. 1 (2002), p. 30. Yes, that Harvard.

The above was written by a Harvard Professor! Suppose a Christian had written the same thing about Blacks or Hispanics! Sane people believe that people, all people, should be treated like people—not Black, White, etc. Not Irish-Americans. Not African-Americans. Just Americans!

Now we are told that black racists complained to the Palm Springs, California Desert Sun that some trees planted in the 1960s are racist! I kid you not. Of course, note that this is California. Residents complain that the invasive trees block views of the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course and San Jacinto Mountains. In doing so, they have artificially depressed property values and prevented black families from accumulating wealth in their property over the past half century! Surely all Americans have a right to expect our trees not to be racist!

Students at Michigan State University are being taught that doing yoga is “cultural appropriation” by white people which makes them racists. I don’t like yoga because of its relationship to eastern religions but it is not racist.

Now, we are told that Little House on the Prairie (books and television series) was not the wholesome series we thought. It too is, you guessed it, racist!

The media glorifies racists and castigates Conservatives who call attention to black racism in Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Omarosa, or Al Sharpton. Al spoke at Kean College and provided a first class example of black racism. He said, “White folks was (sic) in caves while we was (sic) building empires. We taught philosophy and astrology (!) and mathematics before Socrates and them (sic) Greek homos ever got around to it.” It is difficult to imagine a legitimate college providing a platform (and a generous honorarium) to such an incompetent race baiter.

Overlooking his incredibly botched English and his positive reference to astrology, he implied that mankind lived in caves, which is a silly distortion of early civilization although it does fit the evolutionary mythology. Men have always lived in caves; even millions do so today in China and the Philippines but cave living is a cartoon depiction of reality. Moreover, he failed to mention one empire that Blacks have built. Now, remember he brought this up so I am only correcting his historical misinformation. Of course, I will be called a racist for doing so. That way, they don’t have to explain the missing black empires.

I’m not sure whether Sharpton knows the facts or not; he probably doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. He does know that race baiting pays off big time. He even has his own television show to display his $1000.00 suits and $400.00 shoes—and his proficiency in the English language!

Black leader Booker T. Washington wrote, “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays.” It does pay and very well.

A few years ago, I didn’t know what racist was; now it seems I are one!

According to the racists with small minds and big mouths!

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.

While anyone may choose to be kind, decent, and gracious, there is no compelling reason for him to choose to do so if there is no God. With God, there is obligation. If there is no God then how one treats others is inconsequential. His mistreatment of the innocent and weak will not be faced in eternity since there is no eternity–according to their perverted view.

But there is a God and eternity is in the future of every person on earth.

Plato wrote about goodness as it relates to education of children: “We educate them so that they become a good person, because good persons behave nobly.” All societies want noble citizens since the result will be a well-ordered citizenry producing peace, prosperity, and progress.

The principled Irishman, Edmund Burke, wrote of valor, honor, duty, responsibility, compassion, and civility. As a Member of the English Parliament for many years, he supported American independence and criticized the French Revolution. He practiced what he preached.

Seems quaint doesn’t it!

Of course, we must define “goodness” to make any kind of sense in this discussion. The Bible declares there is none good, no not one, but I am speaking of the general or obvious “goodness.”

The philosophically minded will demand a definition of “good” and that is not unreasonable although most people usually know the difference in good and bad, right and wrong. Basically, everything that is forbidden in the Bible is bad and that which is commended is good. We can start with the Ten Commandments and move on to other requirements. So, up front, we know that it is always wrong to lie, steal, kill, lust, mistreat animals and people, covet things, use illegal drugs and alcohol, and not go to church. Not a bad start.

But, it is even more than that. Not only must we not kill, we must not hate anyone for any reason. Not only must we not be sexually impure, we must not even think about it! Not only must we not steal from a neighbor, we must not even covet his farm, vehicle, or wife. If we don’t covet, we won’t steal.

Atheists are right in that I don’t have the authority to decide what is right and wrong for others but God sure has that authority and sets it forth in the Bible. If not, then there is no place on earth where the answer can be found. And that is true for those who don’t believe the Bible. The standard is still there and everyone will be held to that standard even if they profess profusely that they don’t believe it.

Society ridiculed and rejected the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Christ and is surprised that we have a generation without character or honor and has no desire for duty. C. S. Lewis wrote, “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst…We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” We have sired a generation of tattooed and pierced street thugs who have no convictions about anything. Their mantra is, “Whatever.” They are non-thinkers who jump to support any minority or subculture without considering the possibility they may be defending culprits and encouraging them in destructive behavior.

Sane people are horrified at the violence, vileness, and vulgarity that is everywhere; yet what else could be expected? We are responsible for this generation. If not, then who is? We have removed the teaching of morals, mores, and manners from public schools and see our streets filled with disobedient, disgusting, and dangerous children only a mother could love.

When we do wrong then there is a price to pay since another scriptural precept is that one can never get away with doing wrong. There is always a payday someday. If not here, then hereafter.

By goodness, I am not just referring to obeying laws, paying bills, and not pushing little old ladies into traffic. That is a given. I mean being decent in language, honest in all dealings, doing the right thing all the time, living honestly and honorably, and when we lapse (as we all do from time to time), there is regret, repentance, and reformation.

I am referring to doing one’s duty as a husband and father by working hard, being an example to children, and being faithful to his wife–mentally, emotionally, and physically. He makes his wife the most important person in his life, cherishing her above all others, and building her up in every way. I refer to a wife being kind, thoughtful, modest, gracious, obedient, doing her duty as a mother and wife.

I refer to children who are obedient and disciplined–honoring, respecting, and obeying their parents. Children who would never bring shame to the family by wicked, irresponsible behavior; they will work hard in school and never cause a problem in the classroom because that is not “right.”

I’m referring to college students who will study hard and not party, play, and protest while parents sacrifice to pay their college bills. They will confront arrogant university professors who spout immature, illogical, and insane philosophies. When professors seek to defend their reckless rantings, courageous students will refute them realizing that the professors are defending a castle in ruins.

I am referring to employees who do quality work without trying to evade responsibilities by permitting someone else to do their work. Workers should do more work than is expected of them by their employer; after all, if not then why would they ever get a raise?

I’m referring to politicians at every level who do their homework and sincerely seek to make a difference in their office. I’m referring to politicians who, when confronted with evil, will stand against it even if it means personal defeat.

I’m referring to pastors who are dedicated to truth and will preach it without fear. And, if fearful, still preach it anyway even if it affects the offerings. I refer to pastors committed to the discipline of church members who transgress the church covenant and the Bible even if most members don’t like such “judgmental” discipline.

I’m referring to journalists who are committed to the facts, not fiction and fraud, who will report a story even if it negatively impacts a friend or associate. Or their political party.

Atheists may be “good” and declare that no credit be given to belief in the Bible since they never read the Bible, never went to church, and were life-time atheists; however, what they believe has been absorbed into their inner core over a lifetime. Without knowing it or being willing to admit it, they base their “goodness” on the Bible! There is no “goodness” without God. Without some biblical influence, they would be sitting around a fire chewing on the bones of a neighbor.

Is goodness the same in every culture? Would murder and rape be wrong if there were no God? A few obscure South American tribes consider fornication the norm; however, they have always been far removed from biblical influence but are still held to the same standard. Fornication is always wrong in every location.

However, everyone wants to be exonerated from personal guilt. We don’t want to recognize evil as evil and we will decide what is good. That way no one is guilty of anything.

Those of us who talk about guilt are accused of being narrow minded bigots who try to cram our religious beliefs down the throat of others. It seems no one is accountable even to his own conscience.

The barbarians are not beating on the gates or climbing the walls; they are coming at us from our churches, colleges, and communities. They are home-grown barbarians. Even the Washington Post recognized our condition when they opined, “common decency can no longer be described as common” and the New Republic seemed to agree: “There is a destructive sense that nothing is true and everything is permitted.”

That is because the standard has been ridiculed, repressed, and rejected.

If there is no God then what is the foundation for right and wrong? Anyone and everyone can decide what is right and wrong and no one can rightfully disagree if there is no definitive standard. We are told that an inflexible authority (Bible) is out of date in a fast changing world. But is the Bible unreliable because it is ancient?

God warned ancient Israel not to remove the landmarks; but that is what modern man has done and has come under His judgment.

God for sure knows the difference in good and bad, right and wrong and so do we. And we all will give an account someday as to how we responded to it.

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.

I believe that pastor, far more qualified than I, was wrong. In a discussion with him or other scholars about biblical manuscripts, I would feel like a mule at the Kentucky Derby. But he is still wrong. In fact, he has to be wrong because God promised to preserve His Word. If He did not, then the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary.

Even though that pastor is my very special first grandchild (and the father of four precious great grandchildren), he is still wrong! Of course, he knows my position on this issue.

He also suggested that pastors need to know the biblical languages in order to provide correct instructions to church members; however, if pastors know those languages, they must use the correct manuscripts and reject the corrupt ones. But his suggestion smacks of Roman Catholics who made it illegal for members to keep a copy of the Bible in their vernacular. The Catholics were to come to the priest for a “correct” interpretation. One reason God gave us the Bible in our language was so we could all become Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” While it is good to know the original languages, it is not a requirement to be an effective pastor.

Some pertinent questions about the Bible’s reliability will be helpful: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God lead and direct men to write a perfect book? Of course, the question demands a positive answer. Question two: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God, after directing men to write a perfect Bible, then keep scribes and translators from error? Again, the answer must be positive. Third question: Why would a sovereign, all-powerful God direct men to produce a perfect Bible to give mankind directions for life and death, and not preserve its perfection?

Pastors who take the modern approach tell us that the Bible is perfect in the “originals” but they seldom tell their audience that no one has seen the “originals” in 2000 years! Why would God give man the “originals” for a few years and leave following generations with an imperfect book? Why give the human race a perfect book then take it from us?

The disputed passage belongs in the Bible; if the Bible is not reliable in John 7 and 8, it is not reliable in John 3 on which personal salvation rests. The Bible is the Words of the Living God which will stand forever. If our critics are correct and we do not have an available, accurate, and authoritative Word then where on the face of the earth can we find His will?

Admittedly, the issue is one that good, great, and godly scholars have debated for centuries. One of the earliest objections to the John passage is that Christ seems to be abrogating the Old Testament law requiring death for adultery. Ancient Jews were fearful that Christ’s leniency might give succor to their wives about adultery! Ambrose (died 420) mentioned this in a sermon on David and Bathsheba condemning those who were critical of Christ and those who excised the passage. So the passage was in the Bibles of the early 400s.

Many other Latin Fathers including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo all speak of the passage as being canonical! Augustine (died 430) said some scribes removed the passage because it might seem that Christ was nonchalant about adultery, but Augustine did not advocate removing it from Scripture.

Jerome (died 420), who translated the Latin Vulgate, agreed the passage was legitimate and left it in his translation. Furthermore, he says that the disputed passage was found in “many Greek and Latin manuscripts” in Rome and the Latin West, late in the 4th century.

However, an overzealous scribe decided it would be best to remove the passage rather than cause concern and possibly encourage loose living with scriptural justification! Such scribes were guilty of taking away from the Word of God which is dangerous.

The disputed passage is included in the 1611 KJV, in the 1587 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishop’s Bible, 1539 Great Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, 1535 Coverdale Bible, 1526 Tyndale Bible, and 1382 Wycliffe Bible. Modern Bibles omit it, footnote it, or bracket it so that readers get the message: it is not reliable. It is fake news, a false story by fallible writers.

All liberals and many Evangelicals teach that the John passage should not be in the Bible, yet the new translations keep putting it in the Bible! The RSV even took it out causing a furor, then replaced it in a later edition to make people happy and to continue selling Bibles! (Is it cynical to suggest that modern translations are all about money?) Modern translators know that removing that famous story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in their Bible market. So they knowingly use a passage that practically all their liberal experts agree should not be in the Bible! If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their research and convictions), they should do the principled thing, but modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. They place the disputed passage in their translations because of cash, cowardice, and convenience.

There are some reputable scholars who agree with my grandson about whether or not the passage belongs in John’s Gospel. Among them are: Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris, Merrill Tenney, D. A. Carson, Ed Blum, Colin Kruse, John Piper, R. C. Lenski, Alfred Edersheim, G. Campbell Morgan, and A. T. Robertson.

Some in the above camp consider the defense of the passage and defense of the KJV a “cancerous sore,” “cultic,” “near cultic,” and “deplorable.” Such “scholars” are, in my opinion, “deplorable.”

Other scholars accept the passage as scriptural: Dean John William Burgon, Zane Hodges, D. A. Waite, David Otis Fuller, Edward F. Hills, A. W. Pink, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James Boice, J. C. Ryle, and John Calvin. So, there are good, highly qualified men on both sides of this issue.

Evidently, there is some doubt. It is not as clear as the critics say.

According to the number of manuscripts that have and don’t the passage, 1,495 Greek manuscripts include the John passage or part of it, and 267 do not include it. Moreover, the 267 manuscripts are very early. Most people are impressed with the “earliest” manuscripts but valid, original manuscripts were in the hands of early church fathers who quoted from them from A.D. 150 forward! They quoted, for example, from the last twelve verses of Mark so how could they quote from manuscripts they didn’t hold in their hands? Manuscript date is part of the equation, but it is non-determinative. Manuscripts should be accepted unless proved defective.

Even Aristotle’s dictum supports that approach. He said, “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” However, modern translators think they are more trustworthy than the document in question, but I wouldn’t trust them to walk my dog!

The fathers of modern Bible translations, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) declared, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.” These so-called earliest and most reliable manuscripts were polluted at an early age by the Gnostics whose headquarters were in Alexandria, Egypt–the same city where the Vatican manuscript arose. When the Gnostics didn’t agree with some doctrine or passage, they either subtracted it, or changed it in some way to fit their heretical theology. Hence the production of the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.

Westcott and Hort, like many liberals, gush over the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts but the earliest are not always the most reliable. Both men were unbelieving Anglican priests.

It should also be remembered that the main reason there are so many older manuscripts extant is because they were avoided by the early church leaders because the documents were corrupt. They didn’t get worn out and thus survived to be found and used to confuse Christians today.

Moreover, the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts are identified as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the fourth century. Westcott and Hort assumed that both manuscripts were far superior and since those manuscripts did not have the John passage, that was enough for them. However, traditional Greek manuscripts preceded the 4th century manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and were quoted by many church fathers such as Irenaeus who wrote from 150 A.D.! Since very early church fathers quoted from Mark 16:9-20 for example, then it is false to claim that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the oldest known manuscripts.

But it gets even worse for proponents of modern translations. Dean John Burgon was a famous scholar and Bible defender (died 1888) and he declared that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among “the most corrupt copies in existence.” Older does not equal reliable.

According to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150! He also declared of the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) from the 4th Century: “From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written.”

Of the Codex Vaticanus (B) from the 4th Century, he declares that a marked feature is the great number of omissions and calculates that whole words or clauses are left out!

Not a good recommendation for the much vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus–from a scholar recognized as an expert by both sides of the controversy.

Most readers do not know of this Bible disagreement in Fundamentalist and Evangelical ranks. Most religious leaders do not believe the KJV is totally reliable while many do. However, I have noticed for many years the tendency of both sides to demonize the other. Those critical of the KJV are often very arrogant and vicious in their opposition, even calling us “cultists.” They quickly slide by the fact that many of our persuasion hold degrees just as reputable as theirs.

And on the other side, some in our group give good ammunition to the other side by making irresponsible and ridiculous claims. Some claim the KJV is “better than the Greek”; others declare than the KJV must be used in preaching or a person cannot be born again! There are devoted dummies on both sides of the issue.

If a man tells me he sincerely wants to know about eternal things, I will send him to the King James Bible for the truth. I tell him that it is God’s instruction manual for mankind which was accurately translated into English from the reliable and preserved Hebrew and Greek texts and preserved by God therefore, is totally reliable.

All the modern versions are based on corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the work of evolutionists Westcott and Hort, radical unbelievers. They were Anglican scholars who never missed a chance to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Bible; but they did not disprove it. According to Dr. Jack Moorman’s book on Bible manuscripts, Westcott and Hort’s Vatican and Sinai manuscripts of the New Testament contain more than 8,000 differences with the traditional text underlying the King James Bible!

I can’t think of anything more shattering than for congregations to be told that the Bible on their laps is full of mistakes, misquotes, and misinformation. It is not if it is the KJV.

All right, for sake of argument, I could be wrong. If I have placed too much confidence in the Word of God, I will discover that at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I suppose Christ will say, “Don, you were wrong about the KJV being totally reliable. You were too committed to my Word!” I believe He will correct my error but with a smile and nod.

After all, I have only convinced people to place too much reliance on the Word of God–not the worse sin to commit; however, those who burn incense to the corrupt modern translations are guilty of taking away from the Word of the living God who promised to preserve it forever!

If I am to be wrong, it will be in favor of the Word that He promised in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: …Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Either He did or He didn’t!

So, honest people will look at the issue and come down on the side that is most convincing; however, it takes character to change when one has gone on record for most of his or her life. It’s difficult to admit a mistake. Tolstoy expressed this when he wrote, “I know that most men…can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”

However, having a reliable Bible is not a simple issue but it is sublime. I’ve made my decision and if I’m wrong, Christ will correct me. Same with you!

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.

The early church leaders lived close to the time of Christ and the apostles; plus, they staunchly defended the faith against the first major heretics. However, even they, with their commitment, courage, and character also harbored error and even strange, scandalous, and silly teachings.

The Gospel of Thomas, (unknown author) as early as A.D. 40, ran off the rails by commanding nudity during baptism! “Jesus said: ‘When you unclothe yourselves and are not ashamed, and take your garments and lay them beneath your feet like the little children (and) trample on them, then [you will see] the Son of the Living One, and you will not be afraid.’” Jesus didn’t say that!

It seems they removed their clothes out of fear that a demon might hide inside a fold and be baptized with them! Silly and scandalous teaching so early in church history.

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (A.D. 95) stoops to pagan mythology when it declared, “Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years.” Even such notable non-Christians as Herodotus, Lucan, and Pliny the Elder, along with Isidore of Seville (a professing Christian) propagated that same error! Some even said that the bird is resurrected after each life and can live 1400 years!

It is amazing what sane, educated, and professedly orthodox people believed and please note that Clement was bishop at Rome and knew the Apostle Peter. Some say Peter consecrated him as bishop yet Clement thought the Greek phoenix was a fact! Unbelievable!

Justin Martyr (died 165) declared, “And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan.” There is no fire in the Gospel account, just water.

Incredibly, Martyr also indicates that the “true religion” predated Christianity. He declared that the “seeds of Christianity” (manifestations of the Logos acting in history) actually predated Christ’s incarnation as unknowing Christians! Heresy from Martyr! This notion allowed him to claim many historical Greek philosophers including Plato and Socrates as unknowing Christians! Since personal salvation requires a choice, there cannot be any “unknowing” Christians. Furthermore, while dying, Socrates ordered a cock to be sacrificed to Aesculapius–the Roman god of healing.

This same heresy was taught by Clement of Alexandria (who died 215) that Greeks were saved through philosophy! “Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 A.D. 208). He also taught that Christ’s promise of salvation is available to all, even those condemned to hell!

Clement declared, “By striving to imitate Christ, man can achieve salvation.” Say what! He suggested that Christ is neither male nor female, and that God the Father has both male and female aspects. Please note that Clement was an early pastor at the church in Rome!

Tertullian, who died in 240, taught that dedicated Christians would not have false hair, wear colored garments, have gold and silver vases, downy pillows, eat white bread, take warm baths, or shave the head or beard. In fact, he taught that to shave the face was to lie against our own face and was an attempt to improve on the works of the Creator.

He taught that there is no public entertainment which does not inflict spiritual damage.

He also taught, “Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none.” So, Tertullian taught baptismal regeneration!

Origen, considered one of the most alert, astute, and active minds of the early church, even castrated himself thinking he was obeying Matt. 19:12! Gibbon wittily commented, “As it was Origen’s general practice to allegorize Scripture, it seems unfortunate that, in this instance only, he should have adopted the literal sense.”

Self-castration! I would not call Origen alert, astute, and active but dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

Origen declared, “It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 A.D. 235). Here was another famous early church leader who taught baptismal regeneration!

Origen rejected the literal teaching of Scripture asserting that the reader would find many passages in the Gospels that were untrue events! He believed God had created other worlds and would do so again in the future. Origen was another mixed up dude!

One of the most famous early church leaders was Augustine who declared, “In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance.”

He even went further to teach baptism of infants! “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” This famous theologian declared, “The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration.” Not according to Scripture.

In 420, he declared, “Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted.” How do followers of Augustine handle his teaching of baptismal generation?

Augustine said, “It is better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected….Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal sufferings, before they attain the highest grade of religious development.”

By that teaching, Augustine laid the foundation for the bloody Inquisition in Europe by the Roman Church in dealing with “heretics.”

Modern Christians must ask some questions: Is it possible to be a born again person and hold some of the teachings revealed here? And remember that some of these men gladly went to their deaths for their faith. If a local pastor or seminary professor taught what Origin, Justin, and Tertullian believed, would he be fired peremptorily? Have Christians down through the centuries been too quick to accept a preacher or teacher because of his impressive preaching, pedigree, and personality? Has there been massive failure on the part of pastors and seminary professors to rebuke, exhort, and contend for the faith? What responsibility do laymen have in challenging a pastor who preaches strange, scandalous, and silly beliefs? Isn’t it time to get back to what we have professed: we teach only what the Bible teaches?

Maybe historian Will Durant provided the answer why the early church ran off the rails so quickly when he wrote, “While Christianity converted the world, the world converted Christianity, and displayed the natural paganism of mankind.” Faithful Bible preaching would have kept early Christians on the right track and it will do so today.

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.

“Rick addressed the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that is in bed with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He even apologized for all of us! Rick has a deficiency of wisdom since he seems to support anyone. I have a photo of him hugging Cat Stevens (known as Yusuf Islam) who supported the call for death of Rushdie because he had ‘insulted’ Muslims. Cat also wrote, ‘I’m praying to Allah to give us victory over the kuffar’! Kuffar is a Muslim term for non-Muslims usually preceded by dirty. Rick boasted that Cat came to visit him at his home. I think Rick may have a sense of insecurity and needs to be loved by everyone.

“In May of 2015, Rick held hands with homosexual activist Elton John at a congressional hearing even joking that if they kissed it would be ‘the kiss heard ’round the world.’ Rick doesn’t understand that perversion is no joke. Rick is a brilliant, talented man without wisdom or discernment–two characteristics, in my opinion, that are essential for preachers.”

Rick did not deal with my charge that he was in bed with Muslim extremists, having spoken at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (July 4, 2009) an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and financier of the Hamas terror group. At that event, he shared the platform with Imam Siraj Wahhaj who is an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack. Wahhaj has a history of extremist and anti-American incitement. He said, “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a Caliphate.” Rick did not chasten Siraj when he had the opportunity.

Also had the event was Zulfiqar Ali Shah, director of a Hamas fundraising group that was closed by the FBI in 2006 and Naeem Muhammad a staff member of Islamic Relief, a front for Hamas according to the Israeli government. Rick no doubt would say that he was pleased to get the opportunity to represent Christians at the meeting but the fact is he apologized for us because of our alleged mistreatment of Muslims!

Rick needs to tell us if he believes that Muslims and Christians “serve the same God” as one of his staff reportedly said.

Rick has some strange bedfellows. It is noteworthy that he did not acknowledge in his response to Cal that he failed to confront Cat (a Muslim convert) for supporting the assassination of Rushdie! It is interesting that Rick is often seen with radical Muslims, Roman Catholics, and others but I don’t know of any association with Fundamentalists. Maybe he has more in common with the Muslims and Catholics. One thing is sure: Rick Warren’s philosophy is like the elastic in an old woman’s drawers–stretches to fit any shape. He can get along with anyone (because he refuses to confront anyone) whether Muslim, Mormon, Roman Catholic, or heretical “Protestant.”

Moreover, I wonder if Rick would be willing to accept an invitation to represent Christians at a KKK rally? If not, why not? Are radical Muslims more acceptable than the KKK?

Nor did Rick deal with his ridiculous statement about if he and Elton John kissed, it would be “the kiss heard ‘round the world.” Trying to justify his defense of perversion, he did say that he had protesters at his church every Sunday for eight years protesting “my very public stand against gays redefining marriage.” Note that the protests were not because of his stand against perversion but his stand on “gay” marriage. Rick’s stand on traditional marriage is commendable but not germane. It has nothing to do with my charges. Of course, distracting people from the major issue to dwell on a lesser one is a ruse used for thousands of years to defend oneself from error.

Rick said, “I am not anti-gay marriage” after being accused of supporting Proposition 8 that would have reinstated the traditional definition of marriage in California. Rick may not be anti-gay “marriage” but God is, as a cursory reading of the Bible proves. And that position is reinforced with an extensive, exhaustive, exegetical study of Scripture.

Thinking he was helping his defense, Rick boasted that Pope Francis asked him to be the closing speaker at the Vatican Conference on Marriage, Family, and Sexuality! During that message did Rick deal with the Catholic’s warped position on celibacy that has contributed to one of the worst sex abuse scandals in world history? Of course not. He was building bridges instead of “earnestly contend[ing] for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” and presenting a clear-cut message of salvation with no dependence on works.

Dr. Warren charges, without any way of knowing whether factual or not, that I know nothing of what he has publicly stated about “both Islam and homosexuality.” I do know that Rick did not chide the Muslim groups for their financial support of terror, or of their insistence for female mutilation, for their insistence on sharia law and their support of jihad, or for their persecution of Muslims who leave Islam for Christ. No, he was so busy “building bridges” that he never got around to exposing Muslims to the truth.

Rick is very careless in mentioning people favorably who are enemies to the cause of Christ. Without any disclaimers, he mentions Aldous Huxley, an evolutionist who used LSD and preached Hindu philosophy; Madame Guyon, a French Catholic mystic whose fellow nuns even thought she was weird; Henri Nouwen, a Roman Catholic priest and psychologist; and Anais Nin, a feminist and writer of erotic literature!

Rick writes of being attacked for his “commitment to Scriptural convictions,” but his convictions are selective. Rick doesn’t seem to understand that Christians have an obligation to confront doctrinal error in a firm but loving way. II Timothy 4:2 commands us to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” I do not know of Rick ever obeying that Scripture. How does he justify such disobedience?

Furthermore, Titus 1:9 commands us: “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” We are told in Titus 2:15: “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” Rick does not rebuke (except Fundamentalists) but comforts, commends, cajoles, consoles, and compromises. A faithful minister must do some very unpleasant things.

Rick said, “I see absolutely zero reason in separating my fellowship from anybody” and he has practiced that during his ministry. However, Paul the Apostle commanded, “Come out from among them.” With his unscriptural position, Rick claims that Mormonism is just another Christian denomination rather than a false religion. Moreover, he refused to speak the truth to a Jewish group in Los Angeles where he managed to not mention the name of Christ once! Wonder what Stephen [Acts 7] would think of that?

Rick, like most loosey goosey evangelicals, will never attack any group except from time to time will attack dangerous Fundamentalists.

Warren then lectured me about how to do evangelism when the fact is I was literally doing evangelism before he put on his big boy pants. In fact, before he was born! He then casually informed us that he also had his Muslim neighbor at his home while Cat was there. Rick did not say if he took the two men down the “Romans Road” that always leads to the cross of Christ. Rick did say that his church had baptized 46,000 adults in 36 years.

He mentioned, “Mr. Boys can take false pot-shots all he wants” but Rick did not document any false shots. My shots hit the target they were aimed at. He added that I’ll be embarrassed “for spreading a false picture” when I get to Heaven. He then suggested that I must be very insecure (one of my charges of him) since my Ph.D. is used in my columns. He added that he had a Ph.D. but never “put it in an article.” I feel no need to respond but I will because it shows how uninformed and desperate Rick is. My background is the ministry and education; and in education, academic degrees are almost always used on books, papers, etc. Rick no doubt does not know that doctor is Latin for teacher. Ministers can choose to use an appellation if they desire and if they earned them, why not use them? Most educators almost always use them in public presentations. Anyway, this shows how desperate Rick is.

Rick closed with another reference to “lie” but never disproving any of my charges. He also charged that I would never print a retraction which of course, is only his opinion stated as a fact. Those who have read after me know that I have made retractions.

I will back off some of my statements in this column when Rick confesses his disobedience to clear Bible commands to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” and if he stays out of bed with those who hate Christ and Bible truth.

Until then, Dr. Rick Warren is an erring brother; and in obedience to II Thess. 3:15, I “count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

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.

I could go on and on with many other indications that Obama uses every opportunity to denigrate, disparage, and deny biblical principles and promote, preach, and pander to Islam. It is not becoming for the President of the United States to be a shill for a brutal, bloody, barbaric, and backward religion even if he sincerely believes their principles.

Obama pontificated, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” I wonder if he knows the difference in slander and truth. Rather than answer our charges, the followers of Islam slander the truth-teller.

The President declared, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” Of course, Obama did not try to document his statement since we owe nothing to Islam. Muslims have cluttered our culture with abhorrent, atrocious, abnormal activities such as honor killings, female sexual mutilation, Sharia law, etc.

Obama said, “Islam has always been part of America.” Well, yes and no; it has been a source of conflict going back to our earliest days with the Barbary Pirates when they captured more than a million European and American sailors, and sold them into slavery or killed them.

The President opined, “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer.” Frankly, I have heard the call to prayer all over the world and I find it rather offensive and grating on the nerves, especially the pre-dawn call after a lengthy, late arriving flight to a Middle East nation.

The President really stepped in it when he said, “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” When most people in the world think of Islam, they think of burqas, bullying, badgering, beheadings, and burning innocent people alive. Plus, honor killings, mass murder, grinding people up in giant shredders, etc.

Obama authoritatively said, “I made it clear that America is not–and will never be–at war with Islam.” However, his buddies in Islam seem to think they are at war with the non-Muslim world, seeking a world caliphate. Isn’t it strange that Obama has never repudiated the caliphate!

He declared, “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism–it is an important part of promoting peace.” A little problem there. Ask anyone anywhere in the world who the terrorists are and they will tell you it is Muslims. Islam only talks of peace to provide them time to prepare for war. The velvet glove of Islam hides an iron fist.

Obama said, “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’” But the Koran also commands, “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it.”

He also told Muslims, “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.” However, have you noticed that he doesn’t have time for Christians and never makes a Christmas statement? And I don’t think he has ever hosted a dinner, lunch, breakfast, brunch, or snack for Fundamentalist Christians. If so, he didn’t invite me.

The President asked, “Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK…Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?” Evidently, what Obama knows about the Bible would fit into the navel of a flea. However, our public policy is determined by laws based on the US Constitution. We are not a theocracy.

Furthermore, the Bible never “suggests [that] slavery is OK.” The slavery in the Old Testament was basically indentured servitude. God “put up” with slavery since it was worldwide and gave instructions for Israelites who had slaves but He never endorsed, encouraged, or excused slavery. Moreover, a child was not to be stoned if he “strays from the faith” but if he were a glutton and rebellious child. Also, the stoning of a rebellious child was a threat and not one incident is recorded in the Bible or history of it being done.

Obama wrote, “I am not willing to…accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” Obama does not know that the Scripture cannot be broken apart and one line is not less inspired than another line. That “obscure line” in Romans warns men not to “burn in their lust” for each other, in other words, not to slip between the sheets with other men.

Speaking about “gay” couples Obama said, “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.” He needs to be reminded that Christ told us during His Sermon on the Mount that the pure in heart would see God and “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” I don’t think that purity and righteousness are what the “gay” rights movement is all about.

Obama declared, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” and “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” Obama, like most politicians, seems to think just making a statement makes it become a fact. While only individuals can become Christians, a nation can reflect Christian values and have a Christian foundation.

Obama really fouled his nest when he said, “If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.” No true Christian would make such a statement. What the Heretic-in-Chief does not seem to know is that when a person has a New Birth experience with Christ, he or she is a changed individual. He or she wants to go to church to hear more of the wonderful story of faith. They prefer to hear and proclaim the Gospel instead of huffing and puffing on the golf course.

He declared, “We have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own.” That means any belief is as good as another so the stone age people still living in the Amazon or New Guinea where they worship spirts, snakes, the sun, and occasionally eat their fellow men are as viable as the faith of Christ! No sane person believes that.

He said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.” In a sense that is true because there are many paths to the same place but it depends on where you want to go! Obama was speaking of Heaven; but Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Well, that settles that.

I think I have successfully proved that Obama is a sympathizer, spokesman, and sycophant of Islam. He never misses an opportunity to sympathize with Muslims; he often speaks for them as if he is a shill; and he appears to be a toady of Islam.

I rest my case.

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.

Perry Bulwer is an atheist lawyer who declared, “The educational rights of children are also undermined when they are intellectually abused with biblical literalism, anti-science creationism or denied the right to attend university.” He charges that “many fundamentalist and orthodox beliefs are highly detrimental to children’s minds.” (Religion and Child Abuse News website.) Note that he was not referring to physical abuse, but intellectual abuse because children are taught Bible truth and Creationism! But it gets worse, much worse.

The American Atheists’ website clearly proves my contention when the founder, Al Stefanelli, Georgia State Director, wrote of fundamentalist Christians, “They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated.” Eradicated means “to wipe out, destroy, tear out by the roots.” He continues to libel us when he lumps us with fanatics who fly planes into buildings and “people being burned for witchcraft.” Al is so uninformed that he doesn’t know that no “witch” was ever burned in America! (Check out my book, Pilgrims, Puritans, and Patriots: Our Christian Heritage!)
Nevertheless, those of us who follow Christ (who commanded us to love our enemies) “must, must, must, be eradicated.” That is one atheist who is not only a jerk, but a dangerous jerk.

Another God hater wrote, “In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense. And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children’s teeth out or lock them in a dungeon.” (Nicholas Humphrey, “What Shall We Tell the Children?” Amnesty Lecture, Oxford, 21st February 1997.) Where is all the outrage from liberals because of this major attack upon freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

Daniel Dennett, one of the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” wrote, “The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strain of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for.” (Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, p. 515.) “Meme,” as a term, didn’t exist until Dawkins pulled it out of his confused brain and used it in a 1976 book to express the passing of cultural or religious teaching to others.

Richard Dawkins is the leader of the New Atheists and wrote, “We should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them.” (Dawkins’ Religion’s Real Child Abuse, website.)

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins claims that teaching children about religion (specifically, the doctrine of Hell) is a form of child abuse that scars children for life. Accordingly, Dawkins states, “Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.” Clearly he is saying that Bible truth is dangerous, detrimental, and destructive to children, more so than depravity! It is my opinion that the rabid blather of New Atheists is destructive to everyone and is as deadly as a noxious fog.

Sam Harris, another of the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” is not only a rabid hater of Christians and our God but he foams at the mouth more than most. That was proved when he declared, “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.” (The End of Faith, P. 52.) Note that Sam, like the others above, suggests that even believing Christian truths qualifies us to be killed! So it’s not only our actions but thoughts that must be punished!

Sam even outraged some liberals and “old atheists” when he suggested a preemptive nuclear strike against Muslims! He posits the scenario of a Muslim state with nuclear weapons that is not deterred by the surety of U.S. retaliation, killing millions of Muslims. Wiping the foam from his lips he said, “In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.” (The End of Faith, p. 128.) And I am called an “extremist”!

I have very strong opinions regarding Islam as expressed in my book, Islam: America’s Trojan Horse! but to kill millions of innocent civilians (not just bomb nuclear production facilities) is incredible, insensitive, and insane. I should think that the most liberal media moguls would disavow such irrational, irresponsible, and illogical attacks upon innocent people. While Sam has received a cavalcade of criticism even from his allies, I should think he would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. (I’m not sure they still do that but in Sam’s case it could be restored.)

Folk, the barbarians are not at the gates, they are within the gates and have launched a crusade to destroy our faith and remove our children from Christian influence. Not from this family! New Atheists can get all the state or Federal laws passed they want but they will never take my visiting grandchildren no matter how many warrants they have. Not without a literal fight!

America is in deep trouble especially when you realize there is still a fool on every corner, a clown in every public office, and every village has not one, but several idiots plus numerous tyrants, terrorists, thugs, and totalitarians lounging down at the American Angry Atheist Association. They are dangerous, duped, dopey, and deluded people who might be helped if brains could be transplanted. Absent that, if they had a New Birth experience with Christ, they might become tolerable–with time.

No, I do not hate any of the New Atheists. I simply accept their declaration of war. Those who criticize my “strong” language are a bunch of pantywaists who don’t understand the seriousness of this war or have already capitulated to the enemy or are part of the enemy.

We used to laugh at atheists; now we are in a life and death struggle with them. Our children are in their sights so that puts atheists in my sights. Remember, this is a war of their making. After all, there are some things worth fighting for and the First Amendment and my grandchildren are two of those.

New Atheists are designing, deceptive, and dishonest people who are determined to control what all children are taught. Is the Bible dangerous for children? Has the First Amendment been repealed? Where is all the outrage at such a dangerous, disastrous, and deadly threat?

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