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.

Let me be very clear: no informed, honest Christian can ever, under any circumstances, accept, approve, or applaud “gay” marriage or any other abnormal behavior. Never, even if there is a loss of income, home, job, or threat of prison! The non-thinkers and bigots will accuse me of bigotry followed by their usual diatribe but that is not an answer. The Homosexual Lobby’s policy is if we don’t approve them then they accuse and attack our lack of tolerance! Hypocrites!

It has nothing to do with hate, envy, fear, or twisted thinking, but a dedication to truth. Sodomy is evil, wrong, wicked, sinful, corrupt, perverse, bad, immoral, depraved, decadent, dissolute, debauched, and disgusting. And whether I’m writing in love or hate doesn’t change the facts.

Homosexual behavior has been forbidden since the beginning of time by every religion and every civilization. Even during the “Golden Age” of the Greeks, homosexuality was rather common among the ruling class and the philosophers. The common people had enough sense to know that such activity was contrary to nature and could destroy the human race.

It is not a matter of forbidding one person to love another because we should love everyone! I love people (even people I don’t like!) enough to tell them the truth about perversion and other matters. Love everyone but don’t sleep with everyone! To do otherwise is obviously abnormal, abominable, and awful.

The Homosexual Lobby has taken control of America with the collusion of the media moguls. Even “Christian” churches, colleges, and conventions have been snookered by the loony left. No one wants to appear unkind, unreasonable, or be unemployed; so, religious leaders have climbed on the bandwagon to perdition with a modern Bible version in their hands and a whining, spurious prayer on their lips.

Christian businesspeople have lost the right to practice their beliefs so that a bunch of homosexuals will not get their feelings hurt! It is not a crime to offend someone! Let me be very clear: do not discriminate is not one of the Ten Commandments. Even if it were, those beating the homosexual drum usually don’t obey the original Ten! But that crowd has far more faith in a commandment that does not exist than for the Ten that do exist and for which we all will be held accountable.

Think about it: a person risks his or her money to start a business, works day and night to get it going, and while risking everything is then asked to do something that endorses, encourages, and emboldens a lifestyle that is contrary to his or her sincerely held religious beliefs. He will sell to and service anyone but to certify or accredit sinful behavior he will not do. And may lose everything for acting according to his beliefs. No honest, informed person says that that was part of early America. Those who declare otherwise have perverted truth. We are castigated if we do not “love” homosexuals but they don’t have to love us whom they call “homophobes”!

Non-thinkers compare the civil rights demonstrators sitting at a lunch counter to “gays” being refused an endorsement of their lifestyle by a cake or photographs. It appears that constant media exposure is rotting the brains of people. I’m sure perversion does.

But forcing Christians to act contrary to their beliefs is not only a threat to religious belief. It is a matter of personal rights even apart from religion. In the “old days” an American could choose his own friends, belong to whatever organizations he desired, and disagree with (even ridicule) political, religious, or academic groups without fear. He might be considered a little odd but it was legal to be odd in the old days.

If that “odd” American started a business he could choose to serve anyone he wanted. If a barber especially liked to cut red hair that was somewhat odd but he could choose to cut only red hair–and soon go out of business. But that was his right as an American.

If a lawyer chose to represent only the Irish or Jews or Italians or Germans, that was his right. After all, this was America. He had a right to not like other people. It was not Christian, but it was an American’s right.

A businessperson could hire whomever he chose and pay whatever salary they agreed on with whatever benefits or no benefits. The owner could set the working hours and the employee could work those hours or not. It was America. The owner did not have to get permission from the city or state to start his business and did not have to give an account how the business was run. As long as he paid the applicable taxes.

In recent days we have seen the governors of Indiana and Arkansas show cowardice in face of the Homosexual Lobby. Governor Pence committed political suicide when he cowed to the screaming homosexuals who bullied, badgered, and browbeat him. If he can’t stand up to perverts, he sure can’t stand up to Putin.

The weak, wobbly, and wimpy politicians, including judges, have destroyed personal rights and religious rights. They have put our nation in a place where there is nothing but conflict, confusion, and chaos ahead.

Of course, a Christian baker or photographer or flower shop should not be forced to celebrate perversion. Nor should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding, or the ACLU or similar group be forced to publish an ad in their magazine titled, “Senator Joe McCarthy Was Right!” Or how about a Jewish baker being forced to bake a cake for a Nazi party? How about a homosexual baker being forced to bake a cake with “Same-sex Marriage is Perversion!” for Westboro Baptist Church? Or an atheist printer being forced to print a gospel tract titled “God’s Simple Plan of Salvation!”? Whatever happened to freedom?

Frankly, any businessperson should be permitted to refuse service for any reason unless his business was financed by a state or federal loan. Of course, I don’t believe any entity of government has any constitutional right to lend money. That’s why we have banks.

The city of Coeur d”Alene, Idaho informed the Hitching Post wedding chapel that they must perform same-sex “marriage;” however the preachers refused and sued the city. The city fathers backed down following the suit. Here is where Christians have failed: we have the same rights as others and we should have swamped the courts with aggressive lawsuits against those who slander, harass, and intimidate us.

Recently a Christian asked thirteen major “gay” bakers to make a cake: “Gay Marriage is Wrong” and all refused and some even were insulting and threatening. He should sue every baker.

The issue is not sexual rights but the obsessive desire by the Homosexual Lobby to suppress Christians’ freedom of religion. Homosexuals will brook no disagreement and in this new America they have more rights than normal, decent people.

Homosexuals want acceptance of their beliefs but refuse Christians that same right. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That can’t be done, just as Christians cannot compromise and become an enabler of perversion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just wondering.

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

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Don Boys, Ph.D.

http://donboys.cstnews.com/would-christ-bake-a-cake-for-a-same-sex-wedding

The Bible is the only source for knowing what Christ might do–not civil law, the ranting of preachers of permissiveness, piteous whining of evangelicals desperately looking for acceptance, or the hypocritical palaver of pious politicians. Governor Brewer might bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage” but I’m sure He would not. Regardless of the Nazareth Code for Carpenters, Christ would have also refused to build an elaborate and expensive altar to Baal or a statue of Diana. He would go to jail first. In fact, He did go to jail and to the Cross.

Critics ask if Christ would bake a cake for a homosexual “couple” but the premise is wrong: Christ is not a baker; he is the Savor of all who will repent and receive Him by faith. And He would not have honored the “couple” at a wedding as He did for a normal couple in Cana of Galilee; no, He did not bake cakes but He did turn water into “wine.” After all, He was, is, and always will be God!

We are told that Christians would show love and kindness by baking a cake, taking pictures, etc., for a same sex “wedding;” but while love and kindness are required of us, our basic decisions are based on truth: What does the Bible require of me? It requires obedience to truth. It does not admonish me to “show my love” by disobeying revealed truth–even if the law commands me to do so.

Likewise, I might bake homosexuals a cake but no “congratulations” or two “gay” men on top. I might also recommend them to a “gay-friendly” baker as I handed them some gospel literature, probably written by me. I would also refuse to bake a cake for a “divorce celebration.”

Perhaps a better question might be: would the firm of “Joseph, Jesus, and Brothers” in Nazareth qualify every customer for their religious orthodoxy before selling them furniture? No, of course not, but there is a difference in selling a piece of household furniture and selling an altar for worship of a pagan god. Why do unbelievers have such a difficult time understanding that?

Even if same sex marriages were legal in Arizona, it would make little difference in the morality of the issue. In Nevada where prostitution is legal, can a Christian photographer refuse to produce a brochure pitching the bliss of a brothel visit–maybe a “buy one, get one free” promotion?

It is interesting that a business owner can lawfully refuse service to a man legally licensed to carry a gun but not refuse to honor an abnormal lifestyle! I wonder if the hypocrites of the ACLU and the Homosexual Lobby would demand that a Jewish or black businessman serve a group of uniformed Nazis or KKK? Of course, the KKK clowns would not be wearing their sheets, only carrying them folded over their arms. Must a hotel rent space to Nazis, KKK, or other haters? Does a Jew or Muslim have the right to force a restaurant to serve them special meals? How far will the left push this warped, wrong, and wicked principle? All the way into leftfield, as always.

On the other hand, will the state force a homosexual baker to bake a cake, stating in red sugar across the top, “God Hates Fags!” for Westboro Baptist nuts?  Or, how about forcing a black baker to bake a cake for the anniversary of the KKK? Can a Muslim baker refuse to bake a cake with a cross on it? How about a Jewish baker forced to bake a cake with a swastika for a Nazi rally? Or a Jew is forced to rent a hall for a Holocaust denier to promote his book, What Final Solution? Just wondering if the ACLU and the Homosexual Lobby will be consistent. It is American and Christian to serve a customer but it is unreasonable, unprincipled, and unchristian to promote an offensive, unbiblical message even if refusal means jail time or bankruptcy.

This issue is basically a big government problem: the ever-increasing push for more and more power by prissy, pampered, politicians. If a man uses his savings (or goes into debt) to fund a business, the government, at all levels, has no authority how that business is run. Government has no authority (power yes–since they have the firepower–but no authority) to tell a businessman whom he can hire, how many hours employees can work, when they can work, how much they will be paid, or require health insurance coverage. Now, the market place or a Christian conscience may determine some of that but not government. This is simply an arrogation of authority that is illegitimate, illegal, and insane.

Don’t be mistaken. The progressives will never be satisfied. Homosexuals want acceptance, even respect, and they preach (but don’t practice) tolerance. The fact is, they use intolerance to fight what they perceive as intolerance! They are the biggest haters in the world. They hate Christ and His church. That is their target. Fundamental and Evangelical pastors had better get ready for homosexual weddings. No matter what the law demands, principled preachers will not cave. Many have decided that they will comply since they can “still preach the gospel.”

Shakespeare’s Shylock, the ruthless Jewish usurer in The Merchant of Venice, got it right: “I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.” To do so was considered a compromise of convictions and a corruption of doctrine. Shylock was right. So am I.

Christ would not bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding.”

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

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

The younger Nyquist whines, “the church has deeply hurt us.” No, the church did not hurt him, it was people. Moreover, maybe Carson is a little too sensitive. Maybe he is relishing in his victimhood caused by the older generation. He is sure proud of being a “Millennial” and opines that “few generations before us are so quick to acknowledge failure.” Well, yes, but their failures are so obvious. The previous generation, as all generations, generated massive failures but then, we are all broken, sinful people. The “Millennials” are the same, only younger and more whiney.

Carson declares, as if anyone questions it, “Perfection is a standard no one can meet.” Did it take a few years at Moody and Dallas to comprehend that truth?

Carson assures us, “We value the environment and are the most socially conscious generation in recent history.” That trivial statement would make Congregational pastor, Washington Gladden, (stimulus for the social gospel in the late 1800s) stand up and cheer. Wow, surely Carson could, if he would, be a little more biblical than boast about tree-hugging.

Carson said, “Christian morals are not held as they once were…. In fact, I would argue, as many others do, that this [new morals] is exactly what the church needs.” He is getting ready to hit his stride with his main issue as he discusses morals: homosexuality. “The Christian reputation, established primarily by the previous generation, has been known to show judgment and doctrinal separation. Few would describe this conversation as loving.” But is it biblical? The Millennial and Emergent Church pitch is “don’t be judgmental” even if the Bible demands it. That doesn’t go well with his generation. Adjust, be flexible. “Don’t be so hardnosed” is their mantra.

Another string they constantly strum is their reproof, revulsion, and rejection of doctrine and doctrinal separation. All the loosey-goosey Evangelical groups detest the message of Paul: “Come out from among them.” The Millennials want to stay in and well, not fight but fellowship and fraternize with the ungodly. Might win one now and then. To what?

He adds that the church, because of its harshness and labeling homosexuality as “sin,” has alienated the homosexual community. “I want nothing to do with that reputation.” He writes about the church’s negative reputation in the “gay” community. He approvingly quoted a pro-homosexual blogger who was present at a “gay” pride rally: “I hugged a man in his underwear. I think Jesus would have too.” No, Jesus would have told him to get saved and put on some clothes. The man would have clothed himself as did the demoniac of Gadara. When people get right, they get dressed. The further away from God, the less clothing.

The blogger went on: “I spent the day at Chicago’s Pride Parade.” He and some friends wore shirts stating “I’m sorry that Christians judge you.” “I’m sorry the way churches have treated you.” “I used to be a bible-banging homophobe, sorry.” Well, since all Christians are to follow Bible commands, I wonder how such compromise can be defended in light of Gen. 19 when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain. Has God changed or has Moody changed?

Carson goes on: “Pietistic compulsion to share our convictions does not lead to relationship or reconciliation.” How about repentance? Repentance must precede relationship and reconciliation.

He then deals with the woman in Luke 7 who kissed Christ’s feet and wept. Carson is trying to make a comparison of homosexuals visiting a church and being rejected. Of course, Christ accepted her but Carson doesn’t seem to understand that she had repented and had been forgiven. He added, “What would others think if their community group welcomed a lesbian? Image management rises to the surface and trumps all.” No, truth trumps all and any lesbian would be accepted after repentance.

Some think this was Mary Magdalene but with no biblical reason. The woman in the passage was probably a heathen, a Gentile and maybe a prostitute. She kissed Christ’s feet which was not a Jewish custom. Polybius reported on ambassadors from Carthage who supplicated the Romans for peace in the early 200s B.C. With a humble and abject mind, they fell down and “kissed the feet of the council.” Kissing the feet was a heathen practice and was not part of a Jew’s practice.

Carson does not want to be connected to a faith that takes an anti-homosexual stand. Of course, many Millennials don’t want to stand for anything. He doesn’t want to be identified with that faith. I don’t think he has much to worry about.

Paul added, “We don’t want a watered-down version of God’s word,” however, that is exactly what the Nyquists have and evidently Moody Bible Institute, Moody Press, and Moody Radio have the same. The father declared on the radio program, “We both hold strongly to the biblical standards on homosexuality and any form of sexual perversion.” What a statement! Both men know what the Bible teaches about fornication, bestiality, homosexuality, necrophilia, so how could an honest person make such a statement? They are public apologists for abnormality.

Closing the program, Carson spoke of his tattoo (on his side) saying it was a spiritual experience! He defended tattoos by saying that most of his friends had tattoos and “It’s like wearing a tie.” No, it is not. According to one writer in the Pacific News Service, tattoos are a “new reverence for pagan beliefs.” Lev. 19:28 clearly commands “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” Carson’s dad, president of Moody Bible Institute said of his son’s body marking, “I am fine with that.”

The book is recommended by Glenn R. Kreider, professor at Dallas Seminary. It is not recommended by me! And neither is Moody Bible Institute, Publishing, or Radio recommended by me. And in quiet moments I wonder how any Dallas professor can recommend such a book.

Millennials want to break with their rigid past and have a warm, fuzzy, Christianity. They don’t like to be pressured into a pure, biblical life. They prefer to be uncommitted, unconnected, and unaccountable.

Their book deserves to be unread.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Fuller was founded by old time Fundamentalist, Charles E. Fuller, along with Harold Ockenga, and a few other “recovering Fundamentalists” who wanted to be known as “Evangelicals” or “New Evangelicals.” But now, like many Evangelicals, the seminary has drunk the toxic Kool-Aid of heresy and I doubt they will rest in peace.

Fuller Seminary and the evangelical movement were started in the late 1940s to disassociate themselves from Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists were considered too militant, too non-conformist, too separatist–in other words, too biblical. Fundamentalists made loosey-goosey preachers feel as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes. Many early Evangelicals admitted that they held to the doctrines of old fundamentalism but wanted to be more inclusive and intellectual. Or at least to make a pretense at intellectualism and they wanted the respectability that would never accrue to Fundamentalists. I believe the Apostle Paul said something about Christians being considered the off scouring of the earth.

After watching the compromise, conformity, and capitulation of Evangelicals such as the people at Fuller, I am thrilled they decided to separate from Fundamentalists in the late 1940s. That way, I don’t have to apologize for them or to inform everyone that I am not one of them. It is incredible that those people separated from genuine, Bible Christians but refused to separate from worldly, weird, and even wicked liberal professing but non-possessing Christians!

It is a fact that when doctrine is loosely held, everything begins to slide. That is why God commands us in Acts 2:42 to continue “stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Fuller Seminary has never been steadfast other than being steadfastly against Fundamentalists! They love Liberals and hate Fundamentalists!

God warns us in Eph. 4:14 to grow up; think like an adult. Don’t be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” Fuller has been tossed about since it opened its doors because it did not have a sure Anchor.

In 1 Tim. 1:10 Paul warns, “For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” The word “arsenokoitais” means “them that defile themselves with mankind” or sodomites. Sodomy was the sin that was a “crime against nature” and the unmentionable sin. Sodomy was common in Greece and Rome, even China–and as it is today. Sodomites are now acceptable at Fuller–as long as they are celibate!

The homosexual group calling itself, “One Table” exists to “support the LGBTQ community at Fuller Seminary,” while also offering “a safe place for dialogue between LGBTQ students and the wider Fuller community.” The student/founder wants to “carve out … acceptance for other gays in the broader evangelical community through his role as president of the nation’s first LGBT student club sanctioned by a major evangelical seminary.” He made his intentions clear and Fuller gave permission for the group to meet on campus!

But it gets worse because the LGBTQ leader has grandiose ambitions of queer “evangelism.” He said, “I really hope that people will see Fuller and One Table as a model of what the body of the church is supposed to do in this situation.” However, what the church is supposed to do is preach that perversion is sinful; consequently, homosexuals must repent, and if there is no repentance, they must be excluded from church membership as a declaration of the seriousness of their sin and as a warning to others. Such action will also be a display of love for truth and for the homosexuals as well a display of courage on the part of the church. Those who approve of “gays” hate them while those of us who disapprove of their activities love them!

The school official who approved the group declared that permitting the group on campus was not an acceptance of homosexuality; but of course, he doesn’t know the definition of the word! Acceptance means approval! Officials require group members to be celibate and cannot advocate politically for their lifestyle of choice. That naïve official has been living in a cave for 25 years. Plus, the club’s leader has already identified with the LGBTQ movement and its agenda!

Fuller’s new president, Mark Labberton, declared that the school’s position “is clear.” As a mug of mud. The “gay” club leader clearly stated his intention to affirm the rights of homosexuals in the “broader evangelical community” (that would include Fuller) yet Mark declared that the “gay” club could not be “an advocacy group to alter seminary policy nor to direct any efforts in that direction.” The seminary president and the club president are not singing the same hymn. And everyone knows the resident lesbian will be the group’s biggest supporter.

I wonder what will be the next “Evangelical” college or seminary to see the “progressive” light and welcome homosexual groups to the “table.” That “table” is sure not God’s table since only His family sits there.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

The University of Chicago is sponsoring a Sex Week that it promises will go “far beyond typical sex education” with workshops including “Great Oral Sex with Tea Time and Sex Chats,” “Anal 101,” “The Perfect Vagina,” “Sex Ed for Kids” and a play titled “Genitalia the Musical.” Over $5,000 from student fees will fund the event. Included will be instructions on how to take nude photos. The University was founded by American Baptists with a gift from John D. Rockefeller (a Baptist) on land given by Marshall Field. I’m surprised that American Baptists have not torn that school down one brick at a time.

At Yale’s Sex Week, a porn star stripped down to bare breasts and attached devices to her breasts as an example of sadomasochism. She led another student around the room in handcuffs. Those “educators” also encouraged an open discussion of incest, bestiality, prostitution, and consensual pain during intercourse! Sex Week is so “educational,” it has been adopted at Harvard, Brown, Duke, Northwestern, University of Illinois, and the University of Wisconsin.

Tufts University got tough and decided to come down hard on sexual activities in dorms: they outlawed sex in dorms–if a roommate is present! After all, it interferes with their studying, sleeping, etc., so no sex unless the roommate is absent. One university official said that the university did not want to impinge on the sexual rights of students, but after all, there must be a limit. Yeah, a limit.

Informed people are aware that the media, professional organizations, and especially academia are preparing America for a society where anything goes, especially if the word, “consenting” is added. Note that it used to be “consenting adults.” Not now. We are told that children have a right to sex, even sex with family members! We are being “softened up” for the day when anything is accepted. We are almost there now.

To “help” with sexual performance, the University of California sponsored an event entitled “Is There a Buzz in Your Bed,” which has the goal of teaching students about “various sex toys” and different ways “to play as a couple or alone.” Well, at least the radical professor will not be teaching economics, the Constitution, basket weaving, etc. But then, the class will not help students get ready to work. Play, yes–work, no.

Other mindless courses are taught at the University of California such as “The Psychology of the Lesbian Experience.” California is bankrupt but the taxpayers are funding such nonsense.

But, it gets worse. The University of Minnesota is sponsoring a seminar for “orgasm aficionados and beginners of all genders” to discuss their sex lives. The Minnesota school says the seminar is for all, “whether you want to learn how to have your first orgasm, how to have better ones, or how to help your girlfriend.” Not to be outdone, Illinois University is bringing a porn star to teach a sex orgasm workshop! Every tax dollar should be withdrawn from those schools.

Dirty Bingo seems to be the rage in some universities where, under the color of “safe sex,” students have a lot of “fun” and win sex toys as prizes. At North Carolina State University, the prizes are purchased from mandatory student funds. A university spokesman said “Dirty Bingo offers “a new innovative way to do safe sex education on campus.” Yeah sure.

At a national meeting of Women’s Studies, in Denver, a professor described herself as “a self-identified queer, fat, vegan.” She refuses to drink milk because of feminist principles (ah yes, a principled feminist professor). She said, “Dairy is a feminist issue. Milk comes from a grieving mother….no human can be free while other species are oppressed.”

Loonies are running universities and you are paying them to do so either with tuition or taxes. Maybe both.

From the nation’s heartland, the University of Missouri will have a class that examines the deployment of erotic desire, love, and sympathy as political, economic, and textual strategies, and analyze the gender dynamics involved in such deployment.” It is a class dealing with “sibling incest.” Isn’t that nice? They’re showing an interest in family values! Scumbags.

The University of Michigan has a class called “How to Be Gay 101”; however, it’s said that kids are “gay” by birth. If so, why must they be taught how to be gay? Is this how they look? Feel? Act? They say they can’t help being “gay,” then why would one need to be taught how to be “gay”? Really!

Again, the University of Michigan’s course “Topics in Literary Studies: Ancient Greek/Modern Gay Sexuality” has students reading a “wide selection of ancient Greek (and a few Roman) texts that deal with same-sex love, desire, gender dissidence, and sexual behavior.” Oh, goody! How educational! That seems to rival Swarthmore College’s class of “Lesbian Novels Since World War II.” Wow, how exciting. I sure didn’t have such courses when I was in college. It’s no wonder I’m so uncultured, uneducated, and unqualified; however, I’ve never been unemployed!

Cornell University offers literature students a challenging, exciting course, “Bodies Politic: Queer Theory and Literature of the Body.” Students will discuss, “How do concepts of perversion and degeneration haunt the idea of the social body?” and “How are individual bodies stigmatized, encoded, and read within the social sphere?” Well, I’ve always wondered about that, myself. Maybe I could monitor that course.

Harvard University (founded by Bible-believing Christians!), one of the most prestigious and expensive Ivy League schools in the nation, granted official school recognition to a BDSM sex club. BDSM means “bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism”! No big deal since other major schools such as Yale, MIT, Tufts, Columbia, and the Iowa State University all have S&M clubs. I suppose they think if they’re going to play rough, they need to learn the ropes! Or chains. Harvard is also the site of an “incest-fest” party which a prominent hall hosts each winter.

Some shallow parents want their children to be taught in a sexually charged atmosphere since we are living in a sexploited age, but that’s like working in a bar so they won’t be alcoholics.

The above examples of “miseducation” will not help graduates pay their light bills but it will teach them to have “fun” in the dark. Isn’t education great!

If one is finally graduated from one of these so called universities and maintains some dignity, discernment, and decency, they can sing full-throatily, “Free at last, free at last, Praise God almighty, I’m free at last.”

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Does a Christian business person have the right to choose whom he will serve? Most sane people will agree that no one has absolute rights. In this matter, both the owner and customer have rights, but which right is superior? If we eliminate the possibility of the owner using tax dollars to start the business, it becomes a little less confusing, less contentious as well as less conflicting. It is also to be understood that a customer has the opportunity to do business elsewhere since there are similar businesses available. And it isn’t a life and death matter.

The business owner takes a huge risk putting his own money into the business, working long hours, often without salary and the customer risks nothing. No one will argue that there are some legitimate restrictions: a bar does not have to serve a customer already drunk; nor will a store have to sell a butcher knife to a five-year-old who wanders in with a twenty-dollar bill. Alright, there are exceptions but what about homosexuals who want a Christian photographer to take pictures of their “wedding” or want a baker to make a cake for their wedding reception? That is a sticky wicket! There are similar cases on file of these conflicts; the most famous is the Christian couple in Oregon who got in legal trouble because they refused to bake a cake for two lesbians.

Customers discriminate (make choices) all the time so why not a business owner? The bakery sells to adulterers, homosexuals, tax cheats, etc., but will not bake a cake for a “gay” wedding. Obviously, they don’t hate gays since they sell them birthday cakes but not wedding cakes. The bakery owners do not support same-sex “marriage.” That is their right and responsibility as Christians. What if a pedophile group wants a cake for their annual bash promoting sex with kids? Motto: “Sex by eight or it’s too late.” This is not about a cake but forcing a perverted agenda on others just as the Supreme Court did. I would bake homosexuals a birthday cake but not a wedding cake. I would sell a cake to an abortionist but not to celebrate his 10th anniversary as an abortionist.

What about a Jewish baker refusing to make a cake for a meeting of holocaust deniers? How about a black baker who refuses to bake a cake for the KKK? Can a Muslim business refuse to serve a Jew, or a Muslim caterer refuse to provide pork for a Christian organization? How about a gun-hating baker refusing to bake a cake for a gun manufacturer’s annual party? What about a “gay” architect refusing to draw plans for a pro-family group? What about a radical leftist printing firm refusing to print material for an outspoken conservative cause?

My religious views do not end when they conflict with another person’s religious views. Of course, mine have priority! I can be flexible in some things but unbending in others. Only I can decide the difference. As an American, I can start a business and serve only people with red hair. Dumb but not wrong. Illegal but not immoral.

Homosexuals yell the loudest about freedom, tolerance, respect of others, yet they are the epitome of intolerance and hate when someone opposes them. The homosexual mafia, the attack dog of the LGBT lobby, demands tolerance and practices tyranny so how do you spell hypocrites: H o m o s e x u a l! A Christian couple refused to bake a cake because of religious beliefs and now they are picketed, persecuted, and could be prosecuted for their decision.

This comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act that required a businessman to serve burgers to anyone. Any businessman whose business was started with any tax dollars is morally obligated to serve anyone; however, absent the tax support, a man could morally (but not legally) start a business and refuse to serve Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, and only serve bald dwarfs from Lithuania. He would not be in business long but that should be his right. The U.S. Congress overreached with the Civil Rights Act rightly giving legal rights to Blacks while wrongly removing basic business rights from Whites (maybe even bigoted, hateful, unreasonable rights). That part of the Act was troublesome, tragic and tyrannical.

I don’t support businesses that actively support “gay” rights such as Penny’s and Starbucks. When I think about buying a shirt at Penny’s or stopping at Starbucks, I take a deep breath, count to 10, and then have a sandwich at Chick-fil-A.

That is not bigotry but Bible! Not prejudice but principle! And if the Supreme Justices don’t like it, they can go jump in the lake.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

I am weary of Christians and Conservatives who are so politically correct that they permit their critics to get away with accusing them of being haters because of their opposition to homosexuality. Only non-thinking fanatics make such obviously untrue, unfair, and unscriptural assertions. After all, critics of perversion have history, the Bible, and most national cultures in their support.

A question should be asked of our critics: Are they actually asserting that someone cannot be critical of any issue simply because of problems with the issue itself, rather than problems with the people who espouse that issue? Or, is that simply a way to not answer us? Is it not possible to be critical of Obama’s radical, socialist agenda without being a racist? Can I not disagree with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King, etc., without hating Blacks? So is it not possible, just possible, that I am convinced that homosexuality (perversion, degeneracy, sodomy, etc.) is not commendable for many reasons other than “hating someone who loves a little differently” than the mainstream? After all, I am at least as sincere as my critics so should not tolerance be extended to me? Surely if tolerance is offered to people who climb into bed with the same gender then tolerance should be extended to sincere Christians.

Recently I replied to a homosexual who prefers to be called “gay” and I would also prefer that if I were a pervert but the word gay has been twisted to mean what it does not mean. He characterized my facts as “poison” and said that it almost caused him to vomit. He called my objections to his lifestyle “sick, disturbing, pathological stuff,” like seeing “photographs from Auschwitz.” He claimed that he became physically ill.

Those Lads in Lavender are very sensitive and often present themselves as paragons of virtue. We are told that homosexuality is not evil or an abomination as the Bible teaches but a noble lifestyle reminiscent of the “Golden Age of Greece.” In that “Golden Age,” about half of the population were slaves, women were chattel, and leaders ascertained the future by the entrails of a chicken. Golden Age indeed.

He informed me “Homosexuality is a beautiful, joyous thing. Something that today’s young people celebrate and take pride in.” He encouraged me to get psychological and spiritual help. Now, read the following facts as to homosexual practices and you decide who needs the help. This information along with through documentation can be found in my book, AIDS: Silent Killer!

Research journals and classic studies have revealed:

*Anal intercourse between two men has been the most common activity of homosexual men. All honest, informed people know that it was also the driving force of the AIDS plague.

*Oral sex is another common practice of homosexuals and we now know that it is a dangerous practice.

*About 40% of homosexuals admitted to participating in fisting which is the insertion of the hand and arm into the rectum of a “lover” after greasing the hand with shortening, etc.

*About 20% of homosexuals admitted they participated in “golden showers” or “water sports” where they urinated on a partner.

*25% admitted to sadomasochism or torture. Often one man chains or ties his partner and then whips him in a sexual frenzy. The Sacramento Bee reported that a workshop was offered to San Francisco homosexuals teaching how to be involved in sex-torture without killing each other.

*90% admitted to illegal drug use. They sniffed amyl nitrite which allegedly prolongs sexual ability and excitement. Therefore, they are felons.

*17% admitted to eating and/or rubbing themselves with the feces of partners! Moreover, they are also dumb.

*Hospitals, especially in large cities, reported that it is common to remove bottles, flashlights, carrots, light bulbs and other objects from the rectums of men. So they are super dumb.

Hey, don’t look at me like that. I only report the perversion; I don’t explain it. Such practices are dumb, dirty, deviant, and dangerous, even deadly and go on nightly often between complete strangers. Note “strangers” comes from the word, “strange.”

About 46% of homosexuals have had sex with minors even though it is illegal in all 50 states even if the youngster is a willing participant. Classic studies have revealed that homosexuals always prefer young boys to older men and about half the practicing homosexuals were seduced into perversion before they were 14!

It is my position that homosexuality is not a sickness or a quirk of the genes but an evil abomination as taught in the Bible. While many things contribute to homosexuality, it always results from a choice made by individuals. Frankly, homosexuals don’t really exist; only heterosexuals who choose a perverted lifestyle (deathstyle)!

Fundamental and evangelical churches teach that homosexuals are sinners as are all mankind and are in need of a Savior. We believe that homosexuals must, like everyone else, recognize their sin, repent of sin and receive the Savior. When they experience the New Birth, there will be a transformation in their lives and they can break the bonds of their sins.

Toleration of sexual perversion is the first stage of national decadence. The U.S. has already skipped into Sodom; now we are galloping into Gomorrah. Is judgment shortly coming to this nation?

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Recently, Jason Collins, an over-the hill professional basketball player grabbed a few more minutes of his vanishing fame by announcing to the world: “I’m black. And I’m gay.” As if anyone really cared. Evidently President Obama cared enough to call to congratulate him for his courage as did Bill Clinton. And Michelle yelled, “We have your back.” Really!

Burt Prelutsky, a columnist and west coast talk show host, wrote of Obama’s call to Jason, “I assumed it was to invite him to the White House for a little one-on-one. And maybe even some basketball.” Wow! Few readers got the meaning of that quip.
The President’s dummy, Jay Carney said Jason was “courageous.” Hold on! How can it be courageous to do something that results in a call from the President? And Collins got his photo on the cover of major magazines and he will headline a Democrat fundraiser this month along with Michelle. His announcement did not require courage but choice and calculation and it paid off.

However, another black sports figure, Chris Broussard, announcer for ESPN, expressed a different opinion for which he was symbolically drawn and quartered by the “tolerant” left. Chris said, “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin … that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ.” All informed and honest Christians will agree with his incredibly courageous statement; however, those on the left who make decisions by their “feelings” are frothing at the mouth for Chris’ courage, commitment, and convictions. He has been reprimanded by the channel. No doubt he is on his way out. However, I think he is on his way up!

When Jason declared “I’m black. And I’m gay,” he implied that he had no choice in either; however, he chose to be homosexual. He has been called “a hero” but that might be a little hyperbolic. It used to be that a hero was someone who risked his life dragging a fellow soldier out of danger at the risk of life. Not only is the world changing, it seems words are also changing. Jason had a girlfriend for eight years then sent her to the showers or wherever dumped girlfriends are sent. Now, since he had a girlfriend, does that not prove that he is not an exclusive homosexual? Maybe there is a choice involved here.

Jason has an identical twin who is straight as an arrow, happily married and father of three. Jason and his brother have identical DNA, so, if one is “gay” both are gay! If one is straight, then both are straight. The fact is homosexuals don’t exist! But there are heterosexuals who choose a life of perversion and rebellion against God. Let me make it clear: homosexuals, as a group, do not exist but homosexuality does exist as it is a choice made by weak, warped, willful, and wicked people.

Jason will turn his “courage” into cash as he endorses the merchandise of fools. And many principled Christians will purchase the peddled goods, yawn, watch television, and cluck their tongues as they mumble about the nation going to hell in a hand basket.

Growing Up Straight, a book recommended by the National Institute of Mental Health, reveals, “Scientific consensus holds that homosexuality is very largely conditioned by the environment and childhood and most particularly by parental influence in the home.” No gay gene so no excuse.

Bearrman and Bruckner in the American Journal of Sociology concluded, “[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” The Yale/Columbia professors are saying that DNA does not determine same sex preferences. It is life experience that shapes sexual preferences.

ScienceDaily puts it even more bluntly, “[N]o major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.” No one is “born gay.” And we have Jason Collins to thank for proving that to all of us. No person is born homosexual but any person can choose to be.

Further proof of our unfair, unkind, and unreasonable society is the way Tim Tebow has been treated compared to abortionists, homosexuals and other assorted freaks, frauds, fools, and fakers. Tim is told that he should be silent about being a follower of Christ; however, homosexuals are praised and promoted while normal people are panned and persecuted! Recently released quarterback Tim Tebow is now the most influential athlete in sports in 2013, according to Forbes. But don’t talk about it; after all, he’s a Christian, you know.

Whenever some jerk comes out of the closet, everyone speaks of “celebrating diversity” and promoting toleration; however, no one celebrates me for being a white, pro-gun, conservative, creationist, straight Christian. What am I? Chopped liver? Why doesn’t Obama call me and praise me for taking such a courageous position? Are we to be tolerant of leftist loonies but critical of those who lean toward right? The fact that ESPN apologized for its announcer is positive proof that the main stream media are master hypocrites when they speak of diversity, fairness, and equality. They are very supportive of perverts and critical of Christians!

Because of sequestration, Obama can call me collect to congratulate me anytime.