Some females are without shame and have no sense of Christian propriety, common decency, and biblical principles.

Sharon Hodde Miller, a doctoral student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, said, “A woman’s breasts and buttocks and thighs all proclaim the glory of the Lord.” Yes, we are fearfully and wonderfully made but God did not expect this “glory of the Lord” to be observed by everyone everywhere, especially in church.

She said, “Modesty is an orientation of the heart, first and foremost. It begins with putting God first.”  In that, she is correct; however, if God is first in one’s life, he or she will seek to do all to the glory of God.  A woman is very unchristian if she uses her bouncing breasts, swaying buttocks, or exposed flesh to influence any man other than her husband. It is also a blasphemous use of the female body.

Nutty, shameless feminists in Fort Collins, Colorado, have contended that male and female breasts are identical!  Women brandished their bare bouncing breasts along with signs proclaiming, “My breasts are no more sexual than my mouth or my hands,” “Honk for gender equality,” and “Free the NIP.”

This is not your father’s world!

My deceased philosopher father, with a sixth-grade education, would say, “This world is nuttier than a fruitcake.”  And he would have found it incredible that professing Christians would defend immodest dress.

Some Evangelical and Fundamentalist youth wear shirts declaring “Modest is Hottest” or the reverse, although I can’t imagine Christians wearing something like that.  Whatever one’s definition of “hottest,” it obviously has a sexual connotation.  Why send the wrong message to others?  I wonder what parents are doing in the parenting department.

Are Christians to be “hot”?  That kind of sexual suggestion is not conducive to the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit.  However, non-thinkers tell us never to correct our children since it might stunt their development, and they might even throw a hissy.  Can’t have that.  They also may think they are unloved.

Christians are not to draw attention to self but to Christ.  In Matthew 23:5, Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees saying, “But all their works they do for to be seen of men…and enlarge their borders.”  Enlarge borders refers to Jews who wore fringes on their robes as commanded in Numbers 15:38-39 to remind them to keep the Commandments.  However, some Jews went beyond God’s command and enlarged the borders to draw attention to themselves.  Likewise, people dress outrageously and do strange things to their bodies to attract attention to themselves.

I have often wondered why a beautiful young woman would put metal in her face. For sure, while it will attract people’s attention, it is not attractive. Principled people should know why they believe and practice certain things and not make decisions without reasonable thought.

Paul’s command in Philippians 2:5 to have the mind of Christ will eliminate seductive clothing, inappropriate clothing, piercings, tattoos, expensive jewelry, green hair, Mohawk haircuts, and pants drooping below the 38th parallel.  Christians are not to draw attention to self but to Christ. Believers were called Christians in Antioch because they reminded people of Christ.  Many modern Christians remind me of circus performers.  Shocking, shameful, and salacious dress (or activity) should be unacceptable to decent people.

A Texas public school district announced that any tattoos must be covered, and only ear piercings would be accepted!  Are any churches teaching such honorable standards to their members?  Of course, visitors should be welcomed whatever they wear as long as it meets a minimum standard of decency.

Church of God in Christ is a formal Pentecostal denomination where ushers wear white gloves, and their denominational handbook says, “dressing in a sensually provocative manner produces inclinations to evil desires.”

I agree with this Church of God in Christ statement, although I am not a Pentecostal.

Even Catholic churches are battling this problem of undress. I saw this scores of times on my tours to the Middle East, especially in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. Tourists are asked to be modest when visiting famous historical and biblical church sites.

Often, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are very careless, even indecent, in what they wear to church.  However, I contend that the concern should not only be on Sunday, but everyday indecent dress in public is always unacceptable, ungodly, and unnecessary.

Modesty should be a byproduct of genuine Christianity, although critics confuse modesty with prudery.  Prudery is as abnormal as exhibitionism is at the other extreme.  Modesty is Christian, common, and commendable.  Modest people have respect for their bodies (made in the image of God), respect for social norms, and respect for other people.

Both genders should consider proper dress as a sign of elegance, education, and erudition.  A silent statement is made by immodestly dressed people, male and female: “I don’t think much of myself, and I don’t expect you to value or respect me either.”

In many churches on Sunday morning, it is almost a Sunday Morning Slutwalk with bouncing boobs, cavernous cleavage, gyrating hips, skintight pants (male and female), and skirts slit front, back, and both sides.  It seems tempting, tantalizing, and taunting are parts of some modern women’s arsenal.

Feminists and others seek to remove all responsibility from women for the reactions they get from men because of seductive clothing, while most lusting men put the responsibility for their temptation totally upon the women!  However, smearing honey all over yourself and then strolling through bear country does invite attack by bears!

If the way women dress is not an invitation to men, then why do prostitutes dress the way they do? A good woman will dress to be modest and attractive, instead of modern and alluring. Street walking prostitutes feel a need to dress in salacious clothing to compete with other women.

Exposing the female body and doing the “come on” bit will also attract predator men. Immodest girls are like pigs rolling around in the mud and shouldn’t be surprised when men treat them like pigs.

Many women refuse to admit that their clothing sends a message to others. If they dress like a harlot, they will be perceived as a harlot even when it is not true. Proverbs 7:10 makes clear that dress is associated with prostitution: “And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.”

All women who dress provocatively are not trying to attract men; some are simply careless, thoughtless, or trying to be relevant. However, it is wrong, and their husbands should remind them of the danger of advertising without trying to do so. Proverbs 11:22 says, “As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.” Principled women will seek to be appropriate, wise, and thoughtful of how they are perceived.

It is normal for men to react to exposed breasts and other parts of the female body.  That is the way God made them.  It would be abnormal if they did not react to the exposed female body.  However, men are responsible for their own impure, illegal, and iniquitous thoughts and actions.  Moreover, mere attraction is not lust, but it often leads to lust.

Normal men like to see female skin, but how much skin is permitted?  Some Muslim women are forced to cover their entire bodies except the eyes and hands; others even hide their eyes!  That would be considered going far past modesty to prudery.

The absence of modesty among females is an egregious problem, but I must emphatically state that however wickedly women dress, it does not justify lecherous men’s abusive actions.  While lust is natural, it is naturally sinful.  It dehumanizes the female when a man takes her for himself (even mentally), often to prove superiority over her as well as to satisfy unpermitted personal cravings.

Decent people should ask themselves not only what is acceptable but also what is appropriate for each occasion.  It is a joy to meet a person with a happy smile, pure heart, and noble intentions who is modest, kind, humble, and genuine.  Not many out there!

I’ll be considered naïve and self-righteous for even suggesting they should be out there!

Young boys used to look at National Geographic for naked bodies, strange piercings, and tattoos. In this day, it is easy to see about anything everywhere, even observing leading members of some Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches.

(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 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. 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.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Nothing would shock me.

However, I am weary of reading about Joe Biden’s decency and his faith. If Joe—longtime swamp critter—is so decent and true to his faith, why does he stand opposite to what his Roman Catholic Church teaches? He has supported the slaughter of innocent unborn babies all his political life and now even supports killing the kids up to the time of birth!

The church also stands against fornication and adultery, but that hasn’t changed Biden’s personal morality.

Joe is a major supporter of sodomy when his church stands against it. He stands for same-sex marriage, which is contrary to biblical teaching, standards of moral behavior, and common sense. He equates sodomy with love and romance when it has always been known as a crime against nature. It is an aberration and abomination and is appalling, yet Joe applauds it.

God warned all of us about calling good evil and evil good.

Moreover, Biden even supports children deciding whether they are male or female, although that can be decided by each doubtful person with a quick downward glance.

Joe stands with the male athletes who pretend to be female while they humiliate all females in various competitions. He asserted, “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time…There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.” Recently he came out for transgenderism for children, even to permitting an 8-year-old to make the decision!

So, how can Biden be a Catholic when he stands against what the church stands for? What does a Catholic have to do to be kicked out of the church? But then Hitler and Mussolini died in the arms of that church. I hope Americans have higher standards for their President than church officials have for members. (To their credit, some Catholic leaders have declared that Biden should be refused communion, but he should be excommunicated since he does not support his church’s teaching.)

Joe is known for lying and cheating from his youth. He is known for touching and hugging girls and women. A decent person cannot watch some incriminating videos taken at White House events without cringing in disgust.

A Secret Service Agent declared, “We had to cancel the VP Christmas get together at the Vice President’s house because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s a****.” The agents said Biden always swam in the nude when his wife was absent and female agents resented his nudity. “He would mess with every single woman or teen. It was horrible,” the agent said.

In 2009, Biden “cupped” the breast of a Secret Service Agent’s girlfriend, and other agents had to hold back the agent from assaulting him. While I believe in turning the other cheek, I would not do so under those circumstances. I would have decked the Vice President.

Yes, Virginia, there is a time for violence even for an active Christian. While I haven’t been violent since high school, I could get there quickly if anyone touches my wife, daughters, or grandchildren inappropriately.

Additionally, the agent claims that Biden would walk around the VP residence naked at night. “I mean, Stark naked… Weinstein level stuff,” he added. No Christian or decent pagan does things like that in the presence of other people.

And he may become your President!

The mainstream media refuses to deal with such base, brazen, and bizarre activities. At least seven women have charged him with unwanted touching, kissing, smelling their hair, etc. Nor has the accusation of sexual assault by Tara Reade been addressed. It was not mentioned in the debates and town halls.

Shocking, but it is even worse.

Joe often tells a romantic tale of meeting Jill on a blind date following the death of his wife and child in a car accident. But, it was just another one of Joe’s lies. You can’t trust Joe Biden when you ask him about today’s date. Lying seems to be in his blood, as does cheating.

Bill Stevenson and his wife Jill gave themselves to work for Joe’s first run for the U.S. Senate, plus Bill gave Joe “$10,900 in cash.” Jill especially gave herself to Joe and his campaign. She got sexually involved with Joe, according to Bill. Joe got elected, Bill had his home wrecked, and Jill married a U.S. Senator. Bill claims, “‘Biden Stole my Wife.’ Joe Biden and his wife Jill ‘had affair when she was still married’” was the headline of The Sun.

So, the home wrecker wants to fix America. What he wants is to turn America into a Socialist state to satisfy Bernie, AOC, and that Indian woman from the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts.

Jill admitted in her 2019 autobiography Where The Light Enters that Joe really pushed her for a date, and after repeated refusals, she accepted. That date went further than they planned, and they spent the next two nights together as well.

So, Jill admitted to adultery on their first date. It didn’t happen that way since it started with a work-place affair during Joe’s first senatorial race.

Biden’s running mate, what’s-her-name Harris, is no better.

Everyone in California except a few disoriented homeless street people know 29-year-old Harris slept her way to the top. Her former lover, 60-year-old Willie Brown (the very definition of slime ball), said, “Yes, I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was [California] Assembly speaker. And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.”

However, the married Willie Brown sees nothing wrong in their fornication or in giving her positions that were not based on her ability but her willingness to fornicate. Harris was Brown’s escort at many social and political functions and even had her at his 60th birthday party where his wife was present.

Brown’s much-mistreated wife declared, “Listen, she may have him at the moment, but come inauguration day, and he’s up there on the platform being sworn in, I’ll be the b***h holding the Bible.”

One commission that Brown appointed her to paid her over $97,000 for a six-month stint, then another board paid $72,000 and met once a month. The work required little knowledge, skill, or commitment but gave her something to do when she wasn’t taking care of Willie, plus gave her a generous income. Harris is a shameless, brazen hypocrite.

More than that, she is an ingrate. After getting to the top with the help of Brown and no longer under him, she now said, “His career is over; I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years. I do not owe him a thing.” Well, no, I suppose she has already paid him; they both got what they wanted.

Brown admits to helping other Democrats get elected or appointed to public office, but “The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I ‘so much as jaywalked’ while she was D.A.,” Brown wrote. “That’s politics for ya.”

The Biden-Harris team declared, “There is no vaccine for racism.” I followed that with a column declaring neither is there a vaccine for lying and hypocrisy!

As to where Harris would take America, she is Hillary Clinton in blackface, according to a black pastor. She is worse than Hillary since she can always play the race card.

Will any reporter ask, “Mrs. Harris, how many different men have you slept with to gain personal or political advantage?” That question would be followed, if the intrepid reporter was still alive, by “Mr. Biden did you break up the home of Bill Stevenson because of an affair with his wife Jill, and how much money has accrued to you through the machinations of your son Hunter and his work with Ukrainians, Russians, and Chinese?”

Ah, yes, remember when real, honest, hard-hitting journalism was alive and well.

It seems America’s next President may be Dead Man Walking Biden and/or I Served Under Willie Brown Harris.

Adultery may not be a requirement to run for the Presidency, but it seems not to hurt, especially if accompanied with a generous dose of hypocrisy.

(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.)

The Roman Catholic Church has received major body blows yet still survives. The early conflicts with the Greek Orthodox Church in Constantinople; the virulent, violent, and vicious Crusades against the Muslims and later against “heretics” within the church; the bloody Inquisition; some vile popes (as many as three at a time); the frequent battles with European emperors; and the uneducated, unspiritual, and uncontrolled priests who often bought their positions–all made the church bleed profusely.

Sexual immorality was one of the biggest complaints (along with the selling of indulgences) against the Roman Church as admitted even by Roman Catholic historians. It was common for priests to solicit sexual favors from women in the confessional! Historian Will Durant revealed the alarming fact, “Thousands of priests had concubines, in Germany nearly all. In Rome it was assumed that priests kept concubines, and some reports estimated the prostitutes there at 6,000 in a population not exceeding 100,000.”

He suggests that the convents and monasteries differed “little from public brothels.” It seems the Catholic clergy had a taste for good food and bad women.

Then entered the Reformers!

The early reformers were led by John Wycliffe (died 1384) of England and John Hus (executed in1415) of Bohemia and William Tyndale (executed in 1536) of England who were the forerunners of the Reformation with their emphasis on personal piety and producing the Bible in the common language. Wycliffe died in his sleep following a stroke in 1384 but his bones were exhumed in 1428, burned, and cast into the River Swift as ordered by the Pope.

John Hus was summoned to the Council of Constance and had received a promise of safe conduct by the Emperor and had that assurance from the Pope who declared, “Even if he had killed my own brother…he must be safe while he is at Constance.” The Pope and Emperor lied and Hus was arrested when he arrived at the council. Hus refused to renounce his alleged errors unless he could be shown otherwise from Scripture. To the council he said, “I would not, for a chapel full of gold, recede from the truth.” He was burned at the stake.

Wycliffe, Hus, and Tyndale are called “Pre-reformers” but they were more than that. They set the stage for the major Reformation in the 1500s led by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others. They were all Reformers and the world owes them much gratitude.

It should be remembered that while Reformers were great men, they were still men and made many mistakes in their lives and ministry. Those mistakes, not to be excused, must not negate the major contributions they made to the Reformation. Readers should realize that most great leaders are complex people whom God uses in spite of their “clay feet.” Just like today.

Martin Luther shockingly wrote in On the Jews and Their Lies, “What shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews. Since they live among us and we know about their lying and Blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity.”

His rant continued, “Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.…their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His son and His Christians.”

I am appalled that a sane man would make such a statement, but for a Christian leader to do so is beyond the pale.

He added: “Let their houses also be shattered and destroyed…Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money, and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in safety. And if all this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of the land.”
He even said, “We are at fault for not slaying them!”

Obviously, good men say and do some stupid things.

In Luther’s Works, he wrote a letter stating, “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly…as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin….No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

Luther was correct to make the point that nothing can separate a Christian from Christ; however, it is astounding, and abhorrent and not accurate to suggest that any truly born again person would “commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.”

It is believed by many that Luther was given to hyperbole since he often spoke of God’s grace covering our sins. He was not saying, “Go out and paint the town red. Live it up. Eat, drink, and be merry.” Whatever he meant, it was a stupid thing to write.

Concerning his position on the Peasants Revolt, he wrote Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants urging, “Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and a whole land with you.”

He added, “To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog! If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs.”

By 1531, Luther believed that blasphemy was punishable by death and he included “false teaching” into that definition. He got that from his time in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1536, Philip Melanchthon drafted a memorandum demanding death for all Anabaptists and Luther signed it. Wow, now he’s getting close to me because my theological ancestors were Anabaptists.

Luther was not patient with the Roman potentates. He wrote, “We should take him—the pope, the cardinals, and whatever riffraff belongs to His Idolatrous and Papal Holiness—and (as blasphemers) tear out their tongues from the back, and nail them on the gallows.” It was one thing to point out the errors and crimes of the Roman Church but there was no excuse for Luther’s excessive ranting and encouraging physical violence. That’s what the Catholics were doing!

Luther’s problem was not only a problem of discretion but also one of doctrine. He wrote in On Marriage, “As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it.” In his Of Married Life, he wrote, “The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”

How would you react if your pastor taught those thoughts last Sunday?

Thomas Muentzer, usually identified as an Anabaptist, was a reformer in Germany and often was in opposition to Luther especially in the Peasants Revolt that Luther criticized and Muentzer championed. Muentzer wrote, “curse the unbelievers…don’t let them live any longer, the evil-doers who turn away from God. For a godless man has no right to live if he hinders the godly. The sword is necessary to exterminate them…if they resist let them be slaughtered without mercy…the ungodly have no right to live, save what the Elect choose to allow them…Now, go at them…it is time…The scoundrels are as dispirited as dogs…Take no notice of the lamentations of the godless! They will beg you… don’t be moved by pity…At them! At them! While the fire is hot! Don’t let your sword get cold! Don’t let it go lame!”

While we must remember the era in which these men lived, that is no justification for such outrageous and unchristian activities.

Muentzer was a leader in the Peasants’ War (1524-1525), and was later imprisoned by the Roman Church. He did not accept infant baptism and believed in additional revelation. He and his followers are usually described as Anabaptists, although there is no evidence that he re-baptized anyone. He recanted his “heresy” and accepted the Catholic mass just before his beheading, and his head was displayed outside the city for years as a warning to others. Muentzer is a good example to believers to be balanced in political matters and to keep one’s eyes on Christ and His teaching.

Ulrich Zwingli (died 1531) was a prominent reformer in Switzerland who had major personal problems. He had a brief affair with a barber’s daughter; slept with a woman from a previous church; was secretly married to Anna Reinhart which was commonly known. They were publically married three months before the birth of their first child. He defended his womanizing by saying he had never defiled a “virgin, nun or married woman.”

That is as bad as, “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”

Under Zwingli in Zurich beginning in 1518, Catholics were forbidden but so were Anabaptists. The city council declared, “It is our will, that wherever they be found, whether singly or in companies, they shall be drowned to death, and that none of them shall be spared.” Felix Manz was an Anabaptist who was arrested and executed for baptizing adults who had trusted Christ after having been sprinkled as babies.

John Calvin (died 1564) was a major reformer in France and Switzerland but influenced Europe and America. He was an intellectual, preacher, author, theologian, attorney, and statesman. His Institutes of the Christian Religion has made an incredible impact on the world. In 1541, Calvin was chosen by the city of Geneva to be their religious leader to supervise the religious education of the cities’ children and to implement his version of church order.

When Michael Servetus (medical doctor and preacher), who did not believe in the Trinity or infant baptism, mentioned that he would come to Geneva, Calvin wrote a letter to a friend noting that if Servetus were to come, “as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive.” Strange talk for a Christian preacher.

Servetus went to Geneva and was arrested, tried, and found guilty of heresy. He was burned at the stake on the outskirts of Geneva. That was indefensible but Calvin’s followers make a feeble attempt to justify the murder. They still do!

While the Reformers were courageous and committed men, they were also challenged men who often failed in choosing to do right when faced with wrong.

The Reformers did their job that shook the world but their results have faded, after all, nothing lasts. Moreover, they failed when they formed state churches that still exist which should be disbanded today. Thank God for the reformers with all their flaws but with the modern sexual perversion endorsed by religious leaders, apostasy by all the mainline denominations, general unbelief and wicked rebellion of church members, it’s time for another Reformation!

It’s time to welcome the Reformers–again!

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 Washington Post reported of Teresa, “Her saintly reputation was gained for aiding Kolkata’s poorest of the poor, yet it was undercut by persistent allegations of misuse of funds, poor medical treatments and religious evangelism in the institutions she founded.” However, in her defense, what is wrong with her religious evangelism? After all, she was a Catholic nun! Not only is the Washington Post guilty of fake news, it also has an antireligious agenda.

Moreover, the British medical journal Lancet published a critical account of the care provided in Teresa’s facilities in 1994, repeating what many others have reported. Many former volunteers have testified of patients receiving no pain medicine and nuns washing needles in cold water to be used again!

It has been suggested that the Roman Church used Teresa’s image of compassion to support Catholicism and to distract from the priest pedophilia scandals around the world. I’m not sure that is a legitimate criticism.

Teresa was strongly criticized, even by some of the Roman Catholic media, when she endorsed Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s suspension of civil liberties in 1975. Teresa said of Gandhi’s India, “People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes.” She was often careless in her statements.

Penn and Teller’s Showtime show whose title is obscene did an episode titled “Holier than Thou” in 2005 that criticized Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama! Their main concern was her association with Keating and the Duvalier family as well as the quality of medical care given in her homes. That complaint has been made by many.

To her credit, Teresa was a long-time anti-abortionist and, after winning the Nobel Prize in 1979, she said in her acceptance speech that the “greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” She also angered Bill and Hillary Clinton when she spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington in February 1994, where she argued that abortion was a mother murdering her own child! Peggy Noonan, the former speechwriter of former President Ronald Reagan, wrote that Bill and Hillary “sat there, in the glare of the hot lights, all eyes in the crowd fixed upon them, as they tried not to move or be noticed, conspicuous in their lack of response, clearly uncomfortable as the applause raged on.” Bill, Hillary, and Al Gore were as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes.

Teresa had theological problems as well as problems with principle. She was asked if she ever converted people (or only fed the hungry, lifted the poor, etc.) and she replied, “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him.” That is heresy. No real Christian believes that.

But then, maybe I was correct on a London talk show when I suggested that she was not a Christian but only a Catholic. (Just as there are many Baptists who are not Christians.) Following her death, her letters to various confessors of the past 60 years were read and caused a major stir world-wide. Author Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk revealed Teresa’s emptiness since “the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever.” He adds, “Neither in her heart or in the Eucharist.”

Teresa expressed her anguish, doubt, and fears when she bemoaned the “dryness,” “darkness,” “loneliness” and “torture” she was undergoing. The author wrote, “She [Teresa] compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God.”

In one letter Teresa wrote, “Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith.” This was expressed by a woman who became a “saint” in 2016, but I am a Baptist who became a saint the day I trusted Christ. Furthermore, I have never had a similar dark, foreboding experience in over 65 years of being a Christian.

She lived in a period of darkness all her life and cried, “If there be no God — there can be no soul — if there is no Soul then Jesus — You also are not true.” As she smiled to the world, she wrote to another confessor, “I have come to love the darkness.” John 3 tells us that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

My critics will be angry that I did not call her Mother Teresa but she was not my mother. My mother was Emma and while she was not an activist in the slums of Zanesville, nor did she lift the sick and poor from the gutters, she was a godly woman who knew Christ as her Savior. I am convinced she is in Heaven.

I’m not positive where Teresa is today.

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.

It is my desire to dispel the myths, delusions, superstitions, and lies that are circulating about Patrick. Of course, he did not drive the snakes out of Ireland but his preaching of Christ drove out the pagan Druids and removed human sacrifice; also, his assistants in his “monastery” copied and preserved the Bible and standard texts for us to peruse today. All this while the Roman Empire was crumbling and the dark ages were falling upon Europe and the Roman Church gained more and more power and riches.

Patrick was reared in a Christian home and his father was a deacon in an evangelical (or Baptistic) church. Also, his grandfather pastored in these ancient churches of Britain which had never come under the Roman yoke. An historian wrote more than a hundred years ago, “…the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of…his father.” Under that Christian influence, Patrick felt called to go back to Ireland as a missionary to convert those pagan Druids who had enslaved him!

He became one of the most effective missionaries of all time, some think, only second to the Apostle Paul! He refused to take gifts from kings and preached to everyone about the grace of God. Patrick wrote that he “baptized thousands of people,” ordained men to the ministry, counseled and won wealthy women, and sons of kings and trained them for Christian service. He refused to be paid for baptizing people, ordaining preachers, and even paid for the gifts he gave to kings.
He was legally without protection since he refused the patronage of kings and was beaten, robbed, and put in chains. He says that he was also held captive for 60 days but gives no details.

It is only natural that the nascent but growing Roman Church would claim him but it was and is a bogus claim.

One historian wrote, “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints.” Well said.

Baptists should appreciate the fact that Catholics pay homage to him, even build churches in his honor; however, it is time to realize that Patrick was only a very simple, even untrained Baptist preacher. He was not interested in power or position or possessions but in preaching the simple Gospel of Christ. From my study of him, he would be embarrassed and chagrined that a day in his honor is often turned into a drunken orgy.

The early non-Catholic Churches were not called “Baptist” but most preached, practiced, and professed what modern Baptists do.

If Patrick had been a Roman Catholic then somewhere there would be support for that, but there is none. Patrick wrote Confession, or Epistle to the Irish and Epistle to Coroticus and in neither did he refer to Rome. The Breastplate, a hymn is also attributed to him. Not one of his early biographers mentions any Roman connection. Moreover, there is no support for the claim that Pope Celistine sent him to the Irish people.

Furthermore, during his life, the Roman Church was only in embryo form. The Bishop of Rome was not considered the authoritarian he became much later. In fact, church authority was split in five directions: the Patriarchs at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria all claimed to have as much authority as the Roman Bishop!

Professor George T. Stokes, a prominent scholar, declared that before the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish Church was independent, autonomous, and “…dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all.”

Neander’s History of the Christian Church says that the facts “prove the origin of the [Irish] church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain… Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confession; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself.”

Odriscol, who, incidentally, was an Irish Catholic, in his work entitled, Views of Ireland, reveals: “The Christian church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages, free and unshackelled. For 700 years this church maintained its independence. It had no connection with England and differed on points of importance with Rome.” That’s from an Irish Catholic!

Another Irish scholar wrote, “…Leo II was bishop of Rome from A.D. 440 to 461 and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there.” So, until after 461, the Roman Church had not tried to make Patrick as one of their major “saints.”

Furthermore, the Venerable Bede (Father of English History) did not refer to Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. That fact is shattering to Patrick’s Roman connection.

Moreover, there are many other proofs that Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic:
He only baptized born again believers–never infants. He wrote about a convert named Enda who was saved the night after his son Cormac was born. He baptized Enda but not his infant son. And in all his letters and his books, Patrick never mentions baptizing infants. He wrote of “baptized captives,” “baptized handmaidens of Christ,” baptized believers,” and he wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men,…” But never infants.

An additional proof of Patrick being a Baptist was he only baptized by immersion. Various church historians record an incident when 12,000 people were converted and baptized. “Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle [Patrick] entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire.”

Thomas Moore, in his history of Ireland says: “The convert saw in the baptismal fount where he was immersed the sacred well at which his fathers worshipped.”
Archbishop Usher admits: “Patrick baptized his converts in Dublin, including Alpine, the king’s son, in a well near Saint Patrick Church, which in after ages became an object of devotion.”

Famous church historian William Cathcart stated, “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.” He also wrote, “There are strong reasons for believing Patrick was a Baptist missionary and it is certain that his Baptism was immersion.” No, Patrick was a Baptist preacher, not a Roman Catholic priest.

Some have accused Patrick of not believing in the Trinity, but that is false. He does not deny it in his two books and his hymn, The Breastplate clearly affirms that vital doctrine: Patrick and his followers advanced toward the Irish king dressed in white, carrying crosses and singing the first verse of Patrick’s hymn:
                                     I bind to myself today
                                    The strong power of the invocation of the Trinity;
                                    The faith of the Trinity in unity;
                                    The Creator of the elements.

He is also accused of keeping the Sabbath, that’s no big deal. I think everyone would be in better health if they took a day for total relaxation. I noted that one reference to him keeping the Sabbath mentioned that he rested on the Sabbath but held services on the Lord’s Day. Col 2:16 tells us “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” It is also true that people of Scotland kept the Sabbath so it could be that he decided to not hinder his preaching by attacking lessor matters. Whatever, I think it is no big deal or even a small deal.

Patrick knew nothing of confession or forgiveness by a priest; he forbade worship of images; he never told his converts to pray to Mary or any other “saint”; he never mentions purgatory, holy days, rosary, or last rites. Moreover, Patrick never mentions any pope or cardinal or gives credibility to any creed, catechism, or confessional. Nor to Eucharist, relics, or dogma of the Roman Church.

Patrick was not Irish nor was he a Catholic. He preached, practiced, professed, and promoted Baptist distinctives and to declare otherwise is simply Irish blarney.

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.

You have often mentioned that your critics never contact you as required in Matthew 18 before they criticize you in print; however, you refuse to participate in Matt. 18 ministry. I sent you an email on Jan. 13 and I received a note that someone would be in touch with me about my concerns but I never heard from you or one of your spokesmen.

I am thrilled that you have baptized 46,000 converts in 36 years! Obviously, you must be doing something right. However, is it possible that you might be doing something wrong?

Cal sent me your comments about my column, “American Churches Have Lost their Sense of Shame!” and I assure you I want to be accurate and fair even if we totally disagree as to how ministry should be done. I know what it is to be misquoted so I will appreciate your cooperation.

I am Baptist, author, columnist, former writer of columns for USA Today, and former member of the Indiana House of Representatives. Cal suggested that you would be willing to make sure I had up-to-date information before I send my column to various Internet sources. My columns have been published on websites such as Canada Free Press, WorldNetDaily, Barbed Wire, Conservative Truth, Free Republic, the Olive Branch Report, Capitol Hill Outsider, Publius Forum, and many others.

I know you are far busier than I am and I appreciate any information that will make my comments accurate and balanced. All but the last two questions can be answered with yes or no.

*Did you address the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and did you chide them for their support of Muslim terrorists?

*Have you ever publically demanded or even suggested that Muslims repudiate sharia and jihad; sexual mutilation of girls; honor killings for being “too non-Muslim”; killing of those who reject Islam and trust Christ; etc.?

*Your photo hugging Muslim Cat Stevens is famous but isn’t it dangerous to not make clear that you do not support his extreme position on the threat to kill Rushdie? And his statement, “I’m praying to Allah to give us victory over the kuffar.”? Do you want a Muslim victory over non-Muslims?

*Was it wise to share the platform with Muslim extremists without any rebuke to them and no explanation to the public of your disapproval of their false teaching?

*There would be a similar issue with your hugging Elton John and your statement about the “kiss heard round the world.” Isn’t that too frivolous and giving aid and comfort to homosexuals when they demand their “right” to be accepted regardless of their perverse lifestyle?

*Have you stated publically that the homosexual lifestyle is evil and should be eschewed?

*Do you believe that Mormonism is a part of Christianity?

*Would you share the platform with KKK leaders?

*Do you think the Apostles would have remained quiet about the Gospel of Christ if they spoke to Jewish or Muslim groups? Steven was not concerned with “building bridges” when he told the Pharisees that Christ was their only hope. In fact, he declared, “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” Do you ever think it is appropriate to preach the same thing today?

*Is it wise to favorably mention Roman Catholic mystics without any disclaimers?

*Do you think the Reformation was a mistake? Are you trying to reverse it with your close association with the Pope and other Roman Catholic leaders?

*Do you ever obey Titus 2:15: “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.”

*Paul the Apostle commanded, “Come out from among them.” When is it right to follow that command?

*How do you respond to your incorrect claim that your book is “the best selling non-fiction hardback book in history”? I heard you say that twice and you were quoted saying it in a WND interview. You also said in that interview, “I always own up to mistakes.” Here is your chance. Please provide the date and page number of Publishers Weekly that you referenced as proof of your boast.

Rick, like most Evangelicals, seems to want a religion that is brief, bright, and brotherly but ended up with one that is meek, mild and motherly. That always results in a flawed message, method, and maybe, motive.

So sad.

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 the Roman Catholic Church has much to be ashamed of since its beginning in the fifth century, (not the first century, as all honest historians know) much of these recent apologies are simply damage control. And Francis is the one who keeps doing the damage!

Furthermore, the pope recently told a group of poor people visiting the Vatican to “Pray for the rich, the wise and the hypocrites. Pray that the Lord may bring about a conversion in their hearts.” Francis, never missing an opportunity to spout error and banalities, assumed that the poor were Christians while the rich and wise were not! Someone at the Vatican needs to apologize for Francis!

The Roman Church has been in deep doo doo for many years. The major problem is the sex scandal; plus the declining number of priests worldwide, the loss of the religious elementary and secondary schools in the U.S., the hypocrisy in standing against abortion yet permitting major politicians to stay in good standing while they promote (and have) abortions, makes principled people gag. But then the Roman Catholic Church permitted Mussolini, Hitler, and assorted South American dictators to remain in the church until they did the world a favor and assumed room temperature after pointing their toes upward.

Columnist Burt Prelutsky referred to the Roman Church’s refusal to deal with politicians who advocate abortion asking why some famous people are not excommunicated from the Church. He opined that the Church “should start booting these high-profile backsliders out on their collective fannies. Otherwise, when it comes to their members as well as their leaders, we have to assume that the Elks, the Moose and the Rotarians all have higher standards than the Catholic Church.” Wow, not bad for the Jewish talk show host and columnist!

Francis wrote in his book, A Big Heart Open to God: “Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?” I’m not sure Francis was expecting an answer from me but the fact is God always loves the homosexual (and fornicator, thief, glutton, liar, false prophet, Liberal, etc.) but condemns all our sins and offers forgiveness only through the work of Christ on the cross.

Recently, the pope told some journalists that the Catholic Church owed “gays” an apology “for the way the church has treated them in the past”; however, history proves that the Catholic Church has been very friendly to homosexuals. U.S. News and World Report revealed that “most priests are gay” (July 29, 2013) so the hierarchy has been very casual in their screening process. One Roman Catholic clergyman suggested that “30 percent [of priests] were gay, 30 percent were straight and 30 percent are in denial!” I don’t think I would joke about something like that, but maybe he was serious.

Trying to push all the right buttons Francis said, “I think the church must not only apologize … to a gay person it offended, but we must apologize to the poor, to women who have been exploited, to children forced into labor, apologize for having blessed so many weapons.” What an inane statement.

Francis declared that homosexuals “should not be discriminated against” but should be treated with respect and “accompanied pastorally.” Frankly, it is difficult to respect people who do unbelievably vile things to each other and are in rebellion against God’s plan for the human race.

As to “accompanied pastorally” I have no idea what that means. Maybe the pope should apologize for his ambiguity.

Francis could start by apologizing for and nullifying Pope Boniface’s asinine statement in his 1302 papal Bull Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” The Church professes not to believe that today but it was an “irreversible doctrine” and still stands! That means, according to Catholic doctrine, the pope and the Vatican Council II were wrong to say that non-Catholics can go to Heaven. The Roman Church has always taught salvation is found only in their church but that is bad public relations.

Does Francis blush when he reads that he and all popes are God according to the Fifth Lateran Council of 1512? “For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on Earth.” Surely, with blushing face, pounding heart, trembling hands, and knocking knees, Francis will repudiate that blasphemous statement.

Most people don’t know that no pope has ever apologized for the Council of Trent curses upon true believers. While it is five hundred years late, maybe Francis could in the spirit of the much-vaunted ecumenicity, lift the curses! Now, that would be a major move but don’t expect it because Trent was the beleaguered Church’s desperate, defiant, and divisive response to the Reformation.

The infamous Council of Trent declared, “We define that the Holy Apostolic See [Vatican] and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world.” Will Francis repudiate that teaching?

How about canon nine where all who believe that men are redeemed by faith in Christ alone are to be cursed? Will Francis repudiate that teaching?

Canon twenty-four curses those of us who believe that good works are good, but are not essential for eternal salvation. Will Francis lift that curse?

Obviously, Francis and the Roman Catholic Church have much for which to be ashamed. How about some genuine apologies followed by lifting the Trent curses!

No, Francis will not and cannot apologize for me.

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

Moreover, the Church owns several billion dollars’ worth of gold according to the United Nations World Magazine with a large portion of it stored as gold ingots at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank with the remainder stockpiled in Swiss and British banks.

The Vatican is headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church and represents 1.2 billion people in 180 nations of the world. The Vatican is a two-and-a-half square mile complex on the Tiber River in Rome.

The Church’s real estate holdings are enormous in that they own local churches (220,000 worldwide), massive cathedrals (3,300 worldwide), and colleges (1,358 worldwide) along with monasteries and nunneries all over the globe. The Church has been squirrelling away billions of dollars of inheritance from the faithful that have been invested worldwide for hundreds of years .

Apart from the horded gold, thousands of church buildings, thousands of estates, they own thousands of art, books, sculpture, and relics that are impossible to even guess their value.

The Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis upon relics is an embarrassment to sane people. In 1881, The New York Times published an article condemning “the silly worship of relics” and recounted an amusing anecdote of two rival French monasteries that each possessed a head of John the Baptist! The monks, with amazing mental gymnastics, explained this uncomfortable detail by saying that the first skull belonged to John as a man while the smaller skull was from “when he was a boy.” Sure.

I saw one of John’s skulls in a mosque in Damascus although I’m not sure which skull it was! Not sure what Muslims are doing with John’s skull. He sure would pound them for having multiple wives since preaching against King Herod’s adultery with his brother’s wife was what got John beheaded.

One expert whose work was financed by National Geographic said, “There are about eight or nine skulls of John the Baptist out there. He added with a massive understatement, “They can’t be all John the Baptist.” Even this simple Baptist preacher can understand that!

A church in St. Omer boasted of having the lance that pierced His side; some manna that dropped from Heaven to feed the Jews; Aaron’s rod; and the original stone Ten Commandments! Three different churches in France boasted of the complete corpse of Mary Magdalen and five different French churches boasted of the relic of Christ’s circumcision! One cathedral boasts of having some hairs of the Lord’s beard and the left arm of John the Baptist while other monasteries claim to have the right arm. If some enterprising monks got to work, they might be able to put John back together again.

Calvin wrote of His Holy Blood that was “exhibited in more than a hundred places.” That is not only relic worship but blasphemy. But each item would sell at a premium and if they sold everything quickly, they could always “discover” more relics.

In Bethlehem they claim to have a drop of Mary’s milk and a 17th century painting shows a statue of Mary holding baby Jesus as she squirts milk into the mouth of a male worshipper standing below! Great shot!

During the mid-fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386) wrote that “already the whole world is filled with fragments of the wood of the Cross.” More than forty shrouds of Jesus exist, so the story goes. Exeter Cathedral displayed parts of the candle that the angel of the Lord used to light the tomb of Jesus and fragments of the bush from which God spoke to Moses! I seem to remember the words of P. T. Barnum that are most appropriate here.

The Roman Catholic Church is the wealthiest corporation in the world. Nothing compares to it yet it was allegedly started by Jesus Christ. So, the former carpenter, turned itinerate preacher, is the source for the wealthiest institution on earth? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

We are expected to believe that Christ lived and died poor and passed on to Peter and future popes the office that permitted them to wear gold embroidered silk robes and possess wealth and treasures unknown and have a mansion with 1100 rooms!

Francis, it’s time to make history, secular and religious, by having the biggest and richest yard sale in history at St. Peter’s Square and at the same time clean out your closets of those relics that are only gathering dust. Sell everything. Christ was the poorest of the poor and your church is the richest of the rich. Get poor again and gain a little credibility. On with the yard sale! I’ll see you in St. Peter’s Square.

Next, I hope to attend a yard sale sponsored by some of the super-rich television evangelists with the proceeds going to poor non-Catholics. Get ready Benny, Trinity, Morris, Kenneth, Creflo, Joel, and Paula.

I’ll not hold my breath since I don’t look good in blue and I don’t trust the televangelists any more than I trust Francis!

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters, will be published in hardback on Oct. 21 by Barbwire Books and on Amazon.com as an eBook.)

The hawkers have arrived before him and prepared the way with all kinds of merchandise for the faithful–for a price. With a choice of 193 “official” items, you can choose a T-shirt with the Pope’s likeness; an “exclusive Pope Francis Bobblehead” for $19.95; an “I Love Pope Francis” mug for $14.95; a “Pope Francis Rosary Keychain” for $4.95; a 4-inch “Pope Francis Figurine” for $11.95; a “Pope Francis Plush Doll” for $24.95; a “Pope Francis Holy Bear” for $11.95; a pair of “Team Pope Boxer Shorts” for $12.95; and on and on and on.

This is similar to the religious junk sold in almost all Protestant, even Baptist, bookstores that sell nail clips with “I Love Jesus”; “Hand and Body Cream” with Scripture verse; hand soap with “God Bless Our Home”; a whole food Bible Bar; Bobble Heads of Mary and Jesus; a glass ash tray with a “picture” of Jesus; pens, jewelry, etc. ad nauseam. But all promote cheap Christianity. And I am not referring to the price.

I suppose in this day of materialism the above is to be expected; however, there are limits–lines many Catholics will not cross. If the Church pitches an all-natural breakfast “Pope-tart” then many Catholics will dispose of their rosaries  quicker than long underwear in a Texas heatwave.

At the Pope’s first meeting with the international press he said, “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor.” Well, he can take care of that. He has had much to say about the poor (whom Christ said would always be with us) and the disadvantaged; however, I will believe Francis is really concerned with the poor when he announces, advertises, and accomplishes a massive yard sale of the Vatican’s vast assets in St. Peter’s Square–with the proceeds going to poor Catholics.

According to the International Business Times, Francis is raffling off his espresso machine, wallets, a panama hat and other personal items with the proceeds going to the poor. Posters are all over the Vatican announcing this gambling venture that will aid the poor. Nice gesture but it is just that, a gesture. Now he should get serious and sell off the priceless works of art, jewels, books, etc. After all, the Roman Catholic Church is the richest institution on earth. That’s far from its alleged founder who didn’t have a place to lay His head.

Francis quoted the great Fourth Century preacher John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople who died in 407: “Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs.” Well, if it’s theirs then give it back. After raising maybe a trillion dollars in the world’s biggest and richest yard sale Francis could pass the proceeds to the poor in various nations depending on the percentage of Roman Catholics in those nations.

The Apostle Peter, allegedly the first pope, although there is no historical evidence that he was ever in Rome, didn’t only talk about the poor, he did something about it. In Acts 3:6, he was asked by a poor, lame man for some money and Peter replied, “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have, give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” And he did! Pope Francis can’t say “Silver and gold have I none” because he sits on unknown wealth in the Vatican. Neither can he say, “Rise up and walk.” He has great possessions but no godly power.

St. Peter’s Square is an ideal place for a yard sale with plenty of room for two million books; 80,000 valuable hand-written manuscripts; paintings by Raphael; statuary and works by Leonardo de Vinci; artwork of Michelangelo with tools used in work on the Sistine Chapel; embroidered silk vestments, religious relics and a touchable cast of Pope John Paul II’s hand. Wow, a touchable cast. Right or left hand? Additionally, there are hundreds of mosaics, frescoes, and bone fragments of Peter and Paul. But then only a fool or fanatic would put any credibility in bone fragments. But many would and the price tag would be enormous. How many people can boast, “I own some of Peter’s bone fragments”?

The “Holy Towel of Jesus” on which Christ wiped His face, and bears His image is kept in the Pope’s private chapel and could demand a huge price from one of the faithful buyers. Many other relics of inestimable value would sell “like hotcakes.” Also there is a thorn from His crown of thorns, milk from the Virgin Mary, and an object that at one time contained Christ’s umbilical cord! Not the cord itself but the object that the cord was in at one time! Of course, there are some splinters from His cross although there are enough pieces of the “original” cross upon which Christ died to build a modern house! Hyperbole perhaps, but only slight.

The Church also has some “filings” from the chains of Peter that they permit the hoi polloi to see at times that would bring a huge sum. But since Peter was not in Rome either as pastor or prisoner, where did the “filings” come from? Just wondering.

It seemed when European Roman Catholic Churches got short of funds during later Middle Ages, they “discovered” more relics to dazzle, deceive, and draw the naïve. And such actions always filled the offering plate just as the sale of indulgences built St. Peter’s starting in 1506 and completed in 1626. The Pope’s very public avarice in the sale of indulgences to simple-minded peasants, who were promised perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next, precipitated the Reformation. Future Popes refused to learn from their sorry, sinful, and sordid history and continued to sell indulgences to get people out of purgatory.

In my opinion, the Pope should stop selling indulgences and start selling the Church’s opulent holdings, including all the relics. Indulgences are toxic according to history. Francis should keep in mind that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. When does the yard sale begin?

I haven’t been to Rome in a while but I’ll be one of his customers. Maybe I can afford to purchase a splinter from the “true” cross!

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!”

It is my desire to dispel the myths, delusions, superstitions and lies that are circulating about Patrick. Of course, he did not drive the snakes out of Ireland but his preaching of Christ drove out the pagan Druids and removed human sacrifice; also, his assistants in his “monastery” copied and preserved the Bible and standard texts for us to peruse today. All this while the Roman Empire was crumbling and the dark ages were falling upon Europe and the Roman Church gained more and more power and riches.

Patrick was reared in a Christian home and his father was a deacon in an evangelical (or Baptistic) church. Also, his grandfather pastored in these ancient churches of Britain which had never come under the Roman yoke. An historian wrote more than a hundred years ago, “…the truth which saved him when a youthful slave in pagan Ireland was taught him in the godly home of…his father.” Under that Christian influence Patrick felt called to go back to Ireland as a missionary to convert those pagan Druids who had enslaved him!

He became one of the most effective missionaries of all time, some think, only second to the Apostle Paul! He refused to take gifts from kings and preached to everyone about the grace of God. Patrick wrote that he “baptized thousands of people,” ordained men to the ministry, counseled and won wealthy women, and sons of kings and trained them for Christian service. He refused to be paid for baptizing people, ordaining preachers, and even paid for the gifts he gave to kings.

He was legally without protection since he refused the patronage of kings and was beaten, robbed, and put in chains. He says that he was also held captive for 60 days but gives no details.

It is only natural that the nascent but growing Roman Church would claim him but it was and is a bogus claim. One historian wrote, “Rome’s most audacious theft was when she seized bodily the Apostle Peter and made him the putative head and founder of her system; but next to that brazen act stands her effrontery when she ‘annexed’ the great missionary preacher of Ireland and enrolled him among her saints.” Well said.

Baptists should appreciate the fact that Catholics pay homage to him, even build churches in his honor; however, it is time to realize that Patrick was only a very simple, even untrained Baptist preacher. He was not interested in power or position or possessions but in preaching the simple Gospel of Christ. From my study of him, he would be embarrassed and chagrined that a day in his honor is often turned into a drunken orgy as in Rio and New Orleans.

The early non-Catholic Churches were not called “Baptist” but most preached, practiced, and professed what modern Baptists do.

If Patrick had been a Roman Catholic then somewhere there would be support for that, but there is none. Patrick wrote Confession, or Epistle to the Irish and Epistle to Coroticus and in neither did he refer to Rome. The Breastplate, a hymn is also attributed to him. Not one of his early biographers mentions any Roman connection. Moreover, there is no support for the claim that Pope Celistine sent him to the Irish people.

Furthermore, during his life, the Roman Church was only in embryo form. The Bishop of Rome was not considered the authoritarian he became much later. In fact, church authority was split in five directions: the Patriarchs at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria all claimed to have as much authority as the Roman Bishop!

Professor George T. Stokes, a prominent scholar, declared that before the synod of Rathbresail in A.D. 1112, the rule of each Irish Church was independent, autonomous, and “…dioceses and diocesan episcopacy had no existence at all.”

Neander’s History of the Christian Church says that the facts “prove the origin of the [Irish] church was independent of Rome, and must be traced solely to the people of Britain… Again, no indication of his connection with the Romish church is to be found in his confession; rather everything seems to favor the supposition that he was ordained bishop in Britain itself.”

Odriscol, who, incidentally, was an Irish Catholic, in his work entitled, Views of Ireland, reveals: “The Christian church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and his predecessors, existed for many ages, free and unshackelled. For 700 years this church maintained its independence. It had no connection with England and differed on points of importance with Rome.” That’s from an Irish Catholic!

Another Irish scholar wrote that “…Leo II was bishop of Rome from 440 to 461 A.D. and upwards of one hundred and forty of his letters to correspondents in all parts of Christendom still remain and yet he never mentions Patrick or his work, or in any way intimates that he knew of the great work being done there.” So, until after 461, the Roman Church had not tried to make Patrick as one of their major “saints.”

Furthermore, the Venerable Bede (Father of English History) did not refer to Patrick in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. That fact is shattering to Patrick’s Roman connection.

Moreover, there are many other proofs that Patrick was a Baptist, not a Catholic:

He only baptized born again believers–never infants. He wrote about a convert named Enda who was saved the night after his son Cormac was born. He baptized Enda but not his infant son. And in all his letters and his books Patrick never mentions baptizing infants. He wrote of “baptized captives,” “baptized handmaidens of Christ,” baptized believers,” and he wrote, “Perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousand men,…” But never infants.

An additional proof of Patrick being a Baptist was he only baptized by immersion. Various church historians record an incident when 12,000 people were converted and baptized. “Profiting by the presence of so vast a multitude, the apostle [Patrick] entered into the midst of them, his soul inflamed with the love of God, and with a celestial courage preached the truths of Christianity; and so powerful was the effect of his burning words that the seven princes and over twelve thousand more were converted on that day, and were soon baptized in a spring called Tobar Enadhaire.”

Thomas Moore, in his history of Ireland says: “The convert saw in the baptismal fount where he was immersed the sacred well at which his fathers worshipped.”

Archbishop Usher admits: “Patrick baptized his converts in Dublin, including Alpine, the king’s son, in a well near Saint Patrick Church, which in after ages became an object of devotion.”

Famous church historian William Cathcart stated, “There is absolutely no evidence that any baptism but that of immersion of adult believers existed among the ancient Britons, in the first half of the fifth century, nor for a long time afterwards.” He also wrote, “There are strong reasons for believing Patrick was a Baptist missionary and it is certain that his Baptism was immersion.” No, Patrick was a Baptist preacher, not a Roman Catholic priest.

Patrick knew nothing of confession or forgiveness by a priest; he forbade worship of images; he never told his converts to pray to Mary or any other “saint”; he never mentions purgatory, holy days, rosary, or last rites. Moreover, Patrick never mentions any pope or cardinal or gives credibility to any creed, catechism or confessional. Nor to Eucharist, relics, or dogma of the Roman Church.

Patrick was not Irish nor was he a Catholic. He preached, practiced, professed, and promoted Baptist distinctives and to declare otherwise is simply Irish blarney.

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!”