It will come as no surprise

In the aftermath of the liberal 1990s where progress was measured in how much money a person had in their wallet, the size of their portfolio, the opportunity for coporations like Enron and Worldcom to screw people, a President who was immoral in the oval office, a nation that joined the rest of the world in appeasement peacemaking which allowed Saddam to divert mass sums of money from his people though the defunct oil for food program, and ignoring the gathering threat at the nations borders...It comes as no surprise that our nations moral metal is being tested as it embarks on making past mistakes right, honoring its pledges to the Iraqi and Afghan people, bridging a real gap between the west and the North Koreans (instead of being suckered) and seeing enormous change stirring in the Middle East...It comes as no surprise that evil people and those with evil tendencies would ignore the hope that is stirring, would instead prefer to fall back into their 1990s mindset of self-preservation and isolationism...It comes as no surprise that people hate excellence when they would prefer to sit in the seat of mediocrity where a government handout to the local grasshopper is more valuable than a nest of ants working together...It comes as no suprise that Americans feel that their right to liberty and money is far more relevant to those who share our borders and a hope for a better life...It comes as no surprise... that these series of tests will one day show us how judged we are...

Pet Peeve

It really bothers me when people go through the 15 items or less line at the grocery store and they have more than 15 items. I saw a woman who should have known better go through with a cart of over 30 items. I counted them. The teller said nothing.

I have a number of other pet peeves I am going to share over the next few days. Please... don't be like the people I tell you about.

Definately worth a read: Comparing Presidents

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/
frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/greenstein.html

Do Facts/Truth Exist??

There are no longer such things as facts. Social humanism killed truth/fact a long time ago. Today there is only relativistic interpretation of events. That's what happens in a standardless society bent on self-preservation, rationalization and mediocrity.

A Person for all Seasons

Genesis 43: 15-34

What were Joseph's sanctifying virtues?

1. He worked well under authority and respected those under his authority.
2. He returned good in the place of evil; he was forgiving. (Romans 12:17-Do not repay evil for evil). Do more than is required, replace evil with good, love your enemies.
3. He executed his stewardship with complete trustworthiness. He used his position for the common good (John 17:4)
4. Whenever he spoke he spoke truth. He didn't tell everything he knew but what he did tell was true.

A mistake is not a sin.

Suffering & God's Use

Hebrews 5:1-10 & Genesis 37:12-36

1. To show and move one beyond their suffering and longing.
2. Faith develops where one is at in their life and not where one was or where one will be.

New Orleans: Out of the City of Death

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina one begins to think about ones home. Where is home, what is a home, who makes up a home? People long for a permanent home that is non-hostile, one that is safe, secure, comfortable, peaceful. In the gulf region 3 million people are without homes. Citizens in New Orleans fled as best they could the city of death and hostility. There is another city of death and hostility and it is one only Jesus Christ can get one out of.

Judging Others

Ever heard the phrase, "Judge not lest ye be judged"? I am sure that most have. Unfortunately when people toss this phrase into a discussion they rarely include the full context where the phrase comes from (Matthew 5:1-7:27).

The command to "Judge Not" is not a requirement to be blind toward truth telling... but a plea to be discerning, gracious and merciful. The passage where this verse is found is part of a larger sermon Jesus taught called the Sermon on the Mount. The entire sermon is needed for understanding. Chapter 5 emphasizes the Kingdom of God... especially as it relates to the law. Jesus lays out the spiritual "order of opperations" (PEMDAS). Blessed are the poor in Spirit. The person recognizes their fallen nature. Blessed are those who mourn. The person is sorrowful and seeks repentence... and so on. Jesus builds the truth upon a solid rock foundation. Man is evil. God is good. God justifies man. Jesus is the justifier. Chapter 6 emphasizes the Fatherhood of God and the freedom that provides. Chapter 7 emphasizes the Judgment of God and the impact that has on our lives.

With an truthful understanding of Chapter 5 and 6, chapter 7 and the "Judge not" passage makes more sense. Here are some of the misinterpretations of this passage:

1. We should never judge or criticize anyone for anything.
2. We are not to be discerning.
3. Love and Judgment are incompatible.

The first misinterpretation is the one unbelievers usually use. They use this interpretation in the political/social arena to justify actions, attitudes and beliefs.

Here is the irony about judgment. If one judges in your favor then that person is being open minded, progressive, tolerant etc... but if a person judges against you then that person is being close minded, out of date and intollerant.

The thrust of this passage is distinguishing between true and false religions... between truth and hypocrisy. It reveals the natural human tendency to see the faults of our neighbors while blithely overlooking our own. What misinterpreters fail to realize is that their interpretation is blind to a simple truth. Judgment is meant to bring one to repentence and conversion.

But there are many Christians who do not understand this and they use the hammer of justice like the Pharisees and Scribes used it. They were oppressively judgmental. They were unmerciful, unkind, unforgiving, censorious (harshly critical/ inclined to find fault), lacking compassion and lacking grace. The truth be told many non-christians are often censorious as well--and judge all that is wrong with the world to be the fault of Christians, their Bible and whomever the world perceives to be their "political" leaders. These are erroneous views of judgment. Keep the context in mind, "Judge not lest ye be judged" ... "for in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." This is not saying not to judge but to be right in your judgment. God will measure His judgment upon mankind according to the standard of measure mankind uses; may it be a measure of grace and mercy.

The Blame Game

Why do people believe nothing bad should ever happen to them and when something bad does happen why do they try and find someone to blame? Sometimes events occur and people are to blame and sometimes events occur and there is nothing anyone could have done.

We live in a fallen world. Bad things are going to happen. Get over your self importance.

Gas Prices to high? Try Europe!

By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Fri Aug 26, 4:00 AM ET

PARIS - When Guy Colombier pulls his economy car up to a Paris pump, he allows himself just 15 Euros ($18) worth of gas - barely enough for three gallons. Since prices started rising rapidly earlier this year, says Mr. Colombier, a printing press worker, "I drive a lot more slowly ... and I'm looking for a place to live closer to where I work."

ADVERTISEMENT

Colombier's pain is shared by drivers all over Europe, where fuel prices are the highest in the world: a gallon of gas in Amsterdam now costs $7.13, compared with just $2.61 in America. The contrast in prices and environmental policies - and the dramatically different behaviors they inspire - signals a widening transatlantic energy gap. And it raises the question: Does Europe offer America a glimpse of its future?

Indeed, while Europeans have learned to cope with expensive fuel (mostly due to taxes), there's scant evidence yet that US drivers are adopting their conservation tactics.

"Societies adjust over decades to higher fuel prices," says Jos Dings, head of Transport and Energy, a coalition of European environmental NGOs. "They find many mechanisms."

Chief among them, say experts, is the habit of driving smaller and more fuel-efficient cars. While the average light duty vehicle on US highways gets 21.6 miles per gallon (m.p.g.), according to a study by the Paris based International Energy Agency (IEA), in Paris, its European counterpart manages 32.1 m.p.g.

"European consumers are very sensitive to fuel economy and sophisticated about engine options," says Lew Fulton, a transport analyst with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). "European car magazines are full of comparisons of fuel costs over the life of a vehicle."

Europe's cars: 40 percent are diesel
That approach has given a special boost to diesel cars, which make up more than 40 percent of European car sales, compared with just 4 percent in the US.

Just ahead of Colombier in the line at the gas station Thursday was Nicole Marie, a high school teacher, who was using her husband's diesel Audi, rather than her own gasoline-powered car, to take her daughter to Normandy for a final week of vacation by the sea.

"I only use my car in town," she says. "We bought a diesel car deliberately because it is cheaper to run."

That is partly because the French government encourages the use of more- efficient diesel fuel by taxing it less heavily. Only in four European countries is diesel more expensive than gasoline, the way it is in America.

But efficiency alone does not explain the huge disparity between fuel-use figures on either side of the Atlantic: European per capita consumption of gas and diesel stood at 286 liters a year in 2001, compared to 1,624 in the US, according to IEA figures.

The nature of cities plays a role, too. "America has built its entire society around the car, which enabled suburbs," points out Mr. Dings. "European cities have denser centers where cars are often not practical."

In Paris, for example, about half the trips people make are by foot, by bicycle, or on public transport, says UNEP's Mr. Fulton. In America, that figure is more like 20 percent.

Impact of fuel tax
"The single most effective measure" that has brought down motorists' fuel use in Europe, however, is taxation, says Dings.

On average, 60 percent of the price European drivers pay at the pump goes to their governments in taxes.

In Britain, the government takes 75 percent, and raises taxes by 5 percent above inflation every year (though it has forgone this year's rise in view of rocketing oil prices, and the French government has promised tax rebates this year to taxi drivers, truckers, fishermen, and others who depend heavily on gasoline.) On August 8, for example, the price of gas in the US, without taxes, would be $2.17, instead of $2.56; in Britain, it would be $1.97, instead of $6.06.

"There is really good evidence that higher prices reduce traffic," says Stephen Glaister, a professor of transportation at London's Imperial College. "If fuel prices go up 10 percent ... fuel consumed goes down by about 7 percent, as people start to use fuel more efficiently, not accelerating so aggressively and switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It does change people's behavior."

The US authorities, however, "are unwilling to use resource price as part of their strategy" to conserve oil, says Lee Schipper, head of transportation research at the Washington-based World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank.

"The biggest hole in our policy today is fuel taxation," he adds. "Tax increases are something Americans should do but don't know how to do, and I wonder if they will ever be able to.

"Consumers want muscle cars, manufacturers say they make what the consumer wants, and the government panders to both constituencies," Mr. Schipper continues. "It's a vicious cycle."

Europeans may drive smaller cars, but there are few signs that the current record gas prices are making them drive less.

Germans who live close to the Czech Republic can drive across the border to take advantage of the lowest prices in Europe, but most people "cannot react to [the prices] because they still need to drive a lot," says Jürgen Albrecht, an official with Germany's largest auto club, the ADAC. "I can't say I'm not going to drive the 50 kilometers [31 miles] to work because of the high gas prices. It doesn't work that way."

"Most people have no alternative, particularly those who live in rural areas," says Paul Hodgson of the RAC, the British motoring association. "A lot of motorists tell us that if there was a decent and affordable public transport system they would use that ... but we are still a long way from having an alternative."

Prices vary widely across Europe. The Greeks, for example, are getting off comparatively lightly, with just $4.32 a gallon. But they're not exactly celebrating.

On the Greek isles, where almost everything comes in by boat, residents are hit even harder by rising fuel prices. "Whatever you do, it all comes back to gasoline," huffs Dimitra Vogiatzi, who sells produce on the far-flung island of Patmos, as she slams closed her massive ledger.

Ms. Vogiatzi has been obliged to raise her prices, and more and more of her customers are buying on credit, she complains. "Imagine if we need a doctor, or someone has to have a baby," she adds. "All the boat fares, coming and going - isn't that gasoline?"

Though shipping costs in the Aegean may remain high, European Union regulations are forcing vehicle manufacturers to make their products even more efficient than they already are.

Though their primary motivation is to reduce CO2 emissions, in line with targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, bio-fuel and hybrid cars are still so rare that increased fuel efficiency is the fastest route to lower emissions, says Dolf Gielen, an expert at the IEA.

CO2 emissions from new European cars fell by 12 percent from 1995 to 2003, according to Mr. Gielen, and manufacturers have voluntarily pledged to reduce them by a further 14 per cent by 2008, he adds.

European governments are proposing tax breaks to encourage motorists to take advantage of these possibilities. Belgian drivers who buy a low-emissions vehicle get a 15 percent price rebate; Spain cuts $865 from the cost of registering a car if it replaces a car using leaded gas more than 10 years old; Hungary waives registration tax for hybrid cars.

End of the road for SUVs?
Though US vehicles' fuel efficiency has improved greatly over the past 30 years, overall consumption has risen in the past decade because consumers and manufacturers have used the leeway offered by the new technology to buy and build bigger and more powerful vehicles, experts say.

Environmentalists wonder whether the current price spike in gas prices might lead to a lasting change in US behavior. "The exciting thing now is that we are almost at the real high point of prices in 1981," says Mr. Schipper. "We'll see if American manufacturers, authorities, and drivers realize that these prices may now be locked in."

"Sales of big SUVs have been dropping in the last few months," points out Fulton. "We are now at the point where people believe this is real and they are reacting. The longer it goes on, the more they will react."

• Mark Rice-Oxley in London, Andreas Tzortzis in Berlin, and John Thorne in Patmos contributed to this article.

War Protestors--Be Strategic

There are a lot of people protesting the war and they are using every form of media to their advantage. I think it is great that in the United States we have the freedom of voice and I would not begin to say the Iraq War Protestors should "shut up." I hope they continue to voice their opinion of the war. But I wish they would voice their opinion strategically.

During the Vietnam War protestors in the United States bolstered the enemy to continue their fight. "Those who initially objected to the involvement in Vietnam fell into three broad categories: people with left-wing political opinions who wanted an NLF victory; pacifists who opposed all wars; and liberals who believed that the best way of stopping the spread of communism was by encouraging democratic, rather than authoritarian governments. (1)"

Memoirs and documents released by the North Vietnamese since the Vietnam War tell of the reliance upon the anti-war movement in the United States in helping to fight the American's.

Cindy Sheehan says that Bush killed her son by sending him to Iraq. Insurgents killed your son Ms. Sheehan. Insurgents hate Democracy, Jews and Christians. Like it or not the insurgents consider Democracy, Judaism and Christianity one and the same. Whenever a war protestor calls the insurgent a "freedom fighter" the insurgent and his/her allies around the world are bolstered to continue attacking.

Those who protest the Iraq war should do so but they should be strategic about it. Writing letters to Congress and telephoning state representatives are two ways to maintain free expression and do so in a way that does not aid enemy insurgents in Iraq or their supporters around the world. Protest marches and OpEd pieces are perfectly fine so long as the rhetoric is carefully worded. Calling Iraqi insurgents "Freedom Fighters" as and making comments such as "we are losing the war", "we are in a quagmire", "Bush lied", "this war is immoral", and "all this for oil" do nothing but bolster the enemy. If someone wants to believe these things go right ahead and tell your Congressional representatives who have the real power to work on your behalf to bring the troops home. In public be reserved when our troops are in combat.


1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNprotest.htm

Anti-War Folks Targeting Heroes

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."

When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.

"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.

"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.

"We don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.

At least one anti-war demonstrator conceded that standing out in front of a military hospital where wounded soldiers and their families are entering and exiting, might not be appropriate.

"Maybe there is a better place to have a protest. I am not sure," said a man holding a sign reading "Stop the War," who declined to be identified.

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. "We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen," Luke said.

Code Pink, the group organizing the anti-war demonstrations in front of the Walter Reed hospital, has a controversial leader and affiliations. As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has expressed support for the Communist Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas.

In 2001, Benjamin was asked about anti-war protesters sympathizing with nations considered to be enemies of U.S. foreign policy, including the Viet Cong and the Sandinistas. "There's no one who will talk about how the other side is good," she reportedly told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Benjamin has also reportedly praised the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro. Benjamin told the San Francisco Chronicle that her visit to Cuba in the 1980s revealed to her a great country. "It seem[ed] like I died and went to heaven," she reportedly said.

Cindy Sheehan: "Peace" mom

There has been a whole heck of a lot in the news lately regarding Cindy Sheehan who lost her 24 year old son in Iraq. She has become the face of the peace movement. I use peace figuratively because the type of peace she and her followers espouse I have already discussed throughout this blog.

Losing someone is tragic and I can speak this for personal experience. I have lost many people in my life and a few of them were in accidents that were not their fault. Cindy's son died because of insurgents in Iraq. Terrorists.

Cindy was interviewed by CBS News’ Mark Knoller on August 6, 2005. In this interview (that has never made it to the main stream media, no surprise, she makes the following statements to questions Mr. Knoller asked her:

1. "Iraq was not a terrorist state."
2. "But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in."
3. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

Sadly, Ms. Sheehan is very much mistaken and has allowed the emotion of her loss to cloud her logic. Let's look at the truth.

1. Was Iraq a State sponsor of terror? On July 22, 2002 Palestinian Kefauah Eshatah had a picture taken of her by REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah. Kefauah was posed in front of a picture of her son who killed himself in a suicide bombing. Kefauah is pictured holding up a compensation check for $10,000 which she received from the pro-Iraqi faction ALF (Arab Liberation Front). Saddam Hussein has given millions to families who have lost men fighting Israel. Pro-Iraqi Palestinian officials say Iraq has paid at least $5 million to Gaza families.

2. We have decimated the country? No, actually aside from the suicide and car bombing terrorists the country would be in pretty good shape.

3. The borders are open: Cindy, Cindy, Cindy... the borders were open long before the United States took out Saddam. That region of the world has always been pourous and will probably always be relatively pourous.

4. "Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in." So... the insurgents and terrorists are "freedom fighters"? What was your son who died for what he believed in? I want to have sympathy for this woman but I also want her to be logical. These people who are going to Iraq to fight are not Freedom fighters. At least not in the definition most people use. They want freedom... to go back to Saddam era politics or create a Fundamentalist Islamic State that does not recognize basic human rights.

5. "people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country." Cindy, there is no shortage of Islamic Fundamentalists and the presence of the United States has done very little to change this. The only thing that is true is that Iraq has become the hub for terrorist acts and I would much prefer that they happen in Iraq than in your home state. Let's not forget that the United States was not in Afghanistan in 2000 or 2001, but the Taliban support for Osama Bin Laden's network had no problem perpetrating 9-11. For your logic to be even remotely feasable the real terrorists should have come with the political support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait where the United States has bases.

Now, before someone points out and says, "most of the terrorists were Saudi." Yes, that is true... and they followed Osama who was kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

Cindy, when you call these people "Freedom Fighters" you empower them with your message. When people by into your illogical conclusions they add more voices to a false justice. Your voice, and those before yours, only add to the enemy and result in more deaths... perhaps even leading to the death of your son. Now you are doing what is going to kill another woman's boy.

What the United States needs to do is maintain its resolve against terrorism and fight it where it spawns, grows, infests and congregates.

How Old is T-Rex?

In 1993, a report surfaced in the journal Science that a T-rex fossil found in the United States contained fresh bone tissue with nucleated blood cells. Since organic molecules of this type can only be preserved (even in the best circumstances) for a few thousand years, this becomes compelling evidence that this animal was possibly alive when Noah was building the ark.

A graduate student named Mary Schweitzer from the Museum of the Rockies in Montana found the fresh bone tissue; upon thorough microscopic investigation, she reportedly discovered nucleated blood cells still present in the tissue. She said that “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it…the bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”

She showed the slide to her boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, and he told her to prove that they were not blood cells. She worked on this research for nearly seven years, and reported in Earth Magazine (June 1997, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp 54-58) that “so far, we haven’t been able to.” Dr. Horner and Edwin Dobbs, who co-authored Dinosaur Lives that same year (1997), reported that, “under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she’d discovered where in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.

Similarities between Bush and Truman (David Shuster)

If you've been watching Hardball, you've seen some of our reports that dip into the vast NBC archives to put current political events in perspective with previous presidents, lawmakers, and etc. I'm excited to tell you that we are going to offer some of those same stories here on our blog. For example, for Hardball I've been working on a report that compares the challenges President Bush is facing with those of Harry S. Truman.

Truman was our 33rd President. He took over following the death in 1944 of President Roosevelt and had to deal immediately with a host of foreign policy issues. The video we have is remarkable. There was the conclusion of the war in Europe, the Potsdam conference when allied leaders (Truman, Churchill, Stalin...) decided how to handle a defeated Germany, and the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan. Three years later, in 1948, Truman held on to the Presidency by just four percentage points. Last fall, after four years dominated by 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq... President Bush held on to his presidency by three points. Like President Bush's critics, Harry Truman's considered him not up to the job of President. Truman was a folksy man who popularized simple phrases (i.e. "The buck stops here.") President Bush is a folksy man who tends to see the world in black and white.

There are other similarities as well... Despite a growing economy and job growth, President Bush's approval rating is falling because of problems in Iraq. President Truman's approval fell even lower because of the war in Korea. President Bush felt the sting of allegations that his White House leaked classified information. President Truman was hurt by allegations that his State Department was riddled with communists.

Today, historians regard Harry Truman as one of our nation's best Presidents. His huge U.S. investment in rebuilding post-war Japan and Germany paid off... and Truman's policy of containing Soviet expansionism was a role model throughout the cold war. The question with President Bush, of course, is whether his huge war on terror investment in Iraq will pay off and whether history judges him to be a treasured President like Truman or somebody regarded far less.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086

The Next Conservatism: The Danger of the Ideological State

Free Congress Foundation. 2004 http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/050816.asp

By Paul M. Weyrich
August 16, 2005

If there is one clear lesson from the 20th century, it is that all ideologies are dangerous. As Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is not an ideology, it is the negation of ideology. Conservatism values what has grown up over time, over many generations, in the form of traditions, customs and habits. Ideology, in contrast, says that on the basis of such-and-such a philosophy, certain things must be true. When reality contradicts that deduction, reality must be suppressed. And when an ideology takes over a state, the power of the state is used to accomplish that suppression. The state’s citizens are forced to mouth lies.

One of the new facts the next conservatism must address is the fact that America, for the first time in its history, has become an ideological state. The ideology commonly known as “political correctness” or “multiculturalism” now shapes the actions of government in thousands of ways. Under the rubric of “hate crimes,” it sentences American citizens to additional time in jail for political thoughts. As “affirmative action,” it “privileges” women, blacks and homosexuals over heterosexual white males. In some cases, it requires private businesses to give their employees “sensitivity training,” psychological conditioning in obedience to the state ideology, including its demand that everyone express approval of homosexuality. Employees who demur lose their jobs.

It is ironic that after the catastrophic failure of ideologies in the 20th century in Russia, Germany, Italy and many other countries, America should now head down the same road. How did it happen? While conservatives slept, ideology crept in on little cat feet, taking over all our cultural institutions, just as Gramsci demanded in his “long march.” As I have said before, culture is more powerful than politics.

What should the next conservatism do about it? First, it needs to reveal this ideology for what it is. In terms of its historical origins and basic nature, it is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The translation was undertaken largely by the unorthodox Marxists of the Frankfurt School – Horkheimer, Adorno, Fromm, Reich and Marcuse, to


name the most important players. Contrary to Marx, they said that the culture is not just part of society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They concluded that for Communism to be possible in the West, traditional Western culture and the Christian religion first had to be destroyed – a destruction to be accomplished by “critical theory” and “studies in prejudice,” to use their terms. Most important, they realized they could not destroy our historic culture through philosophical arguments. They turned instead to a much more powerful weapon, psychological conditioning, in effect crossing Marx with Freud. Marcuse then injected the whole poisonous brew into the baby boom generation in the 1960s. The result? A brilliant success for them: America now has a Marxist ideology, not the Marxism of the Soviet Union but cultural Marxism, imbedded in and supported by the power of the state.

The next conservatism needs to shout from the housetops, “People, here’s what this stuff really is. It's not about ‘being nice’ or ‘toleration.’ It’s about destroying our culture and our religion, and it is succeeding.”

Then, when we have the American people behind us, which we will once they learn the real nature of “PC,” we need to comb through every law, every government regulation, every federal office and department and weed the cultural Marxism out. The goal should not be to replace it with any ideology of our own – again, if we are real conservatives, we don’t have one – but to restore a non-ideological American state, which is what we had up until the wretched 1960s.

Cultural Marxism is a particularly nasty ideology, as we see all around us in its products (just turn on the television; the cultural Marxists took over Hollywood decades ago). But all ideology is wrong, because the concept of ideology is wrong in itself. Society cannot be made to fit some abstract scheme dreamed up by this or that thinker, and attempts to make it do so always result in disaster. To see the truth, all we need to do is compare most aspects of life in America in the 1950s, our last non-ideological decade, with life now. The next conservatism should work to get our old country back.


Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

Will Roberts leave you?

On Tue Aug 16 USAToday.com posted an oped piece. It can be found here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-15-our-view_x.htm

The writer, who is not identified for probably good reason, runs the typical liberal slants we have all come to know. In the first place the writer says, "Ask people about personal privacy, and most will see it as a top priority and a fundamental right. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important." The logic used is the dangerous sort of thing conservatives have spoken out about on numerous occassions. Notice how the liberals have slowly but surely begun to twist the debate from abortion to "personal privacy". Make no mistake about this slippery slope. To the liberals abortion = personal privacy and when they use the words they are interchangeable. When a USA Weekend poll is taken what they ask is whether protecting personal privacy is important. When 88% of the population agrees there is a large chunk that do not "get" the sly liberalism USA Today uses.

And then we move to the next issue, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." Notice the deep rhetoric in this statement and the appeal to fear when the writer says, "may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." First one needs to remember the dual use of "privacy rights" when Liberals use the phrase. Second one needs to step through the opaque film to see the real image they are trying to portray; that somehow Robert's will destroy privacy rights. As if he alone would sit upon the bench and judge without peers. Not only is this faulty logic but this writer, if I am judging the piece through the mirror of a liberal, is in this case not talking only about privacy rights as abortion but has placed the phrase here as a ruse. S/he is saying that all privacy rights would no longer exist, including but not limited to, abortion.

Finally when we reach paragraph three we get to the meat of this authors deception. S/he says, "The conservatives' primary grievance is with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that women, not the state, get to decide whether to end their pregnancies by abortion." I truly love the biased hypocricy of the left media. Why does this author not come out and look in the mirror and say, "the liberals' primary grievance with a possible Robert's appointment is what he would say about Roe v. Wade." Instead they skirt the issue and present any number of red herrings to sway their audience away from the truth.

The writer does not stop there, however, and concludes this farce with the following, "But by questioning the unpinning of Roe, they call into doubt many earlier rulings that keep the government from meddling in people's lives." This needs a rather detailed rebuttal. First, the underpinning of Roe is whether a woman has the right to an abortion or whether the unborn have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, these "earlier rulings" the writer says kept the government from meddling in people's lives has been affirmed in the examples the writer has given but only in the first part of his/her rhetorical question. Using his/her own words, "What are freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom from unlawful searches and the like other than respect for privacy?" Make it a point to read carefully how this author has blended the obvious Constitutional intent with what has clearly not been expressed in his/her rhetorical question which I bolded. What are these privacy rights guranteed in the Constitution which deserve the phrase "and the like"?

From this point on the logic teeters and collapses. Here is the context:

"Starting in the 19th century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the privacy of the mail and that individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment.

Thus it was no stretch when, in 1965, the court overturned a Connecticut law banning birth control. Surely, the court ruled, the right of privacy prohibited police searches of "the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms." That decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, was the foundation for Roe."

Notice the illogic the left uses to compare the "privacy" to destroy the genetic explosion between two DNA's that becomes (at some point) a living human being with things such as the mail and the right to refuse medical treatment. In the case of medical treatment the rulings were due to the first amendment right to the free exercise of religion (Jehovah's Witnesses).

Next the author postulates another red herring when saying, "To the anguish of those who want government in the bedroom and other personal places, privacy rights now protect unmarried and same-sex couples and individuals." Rather than dealing with the debate about homosexuality whether monogomous or not and heterosexuality, monogomous or not, the author diverts attention away and says there are people who "want government in the bedroom." The people the author refers to are of course "conservatives" and in particular "christian conservatives" who are demonized as "NeoCons" and other such neologisms. I don't know a single conservative who wants a government official walking into the bedroom on an illegal search. The issue is not "what happens in the bedroom". The issue is on moral grounds of right and wrong. This author doesn't appear to have any desire in debating the larger moral questions which s/he has introduced and his/her point is obvious an appeal to fear. Consider for example the closing paragraphs:

"Roberts' record on the issue is scanty, but legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote raise questions as to whether he accepts current law on privacy. As a Justice Department lawyer in 1981, for example, Roberts drafted an article that referred to "the so-called 'right to privacy,' " and asserted that "such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution." Whether that was Roberts' view, or merely what his bosses wanted to hear, isn't clear."

In the first place his record is scanty but apparently we can judge his real views based upon "legal briefs he worked on and memos he wrote" when he was working for his "bosses". The author says it isn't clear but when we return to the opening silos of rhetorical fear mongering we see that the author clearly says it is clear, "But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist." I realize the author used the phrase "may soon call into question". The author did this to try and cover him/herself. However based upon the interpretation I have provided--dualism of definition for example--the author clearly has a position s/he is trying to hide.

Now we have the fomal conclusion which tries to tie into the opening remarks, "Far clearer is that few would want a nation in which there was no limit on government intrusion into personal lives. In the confirmation hearings that begin next month, the Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line."

While the author has a clear position s/he at the same time attempts to sway the audience away from the "wait and see when there are Senate Hearings" position even though s/he mentions this in closing. If this was the authors position the Oped piece could have been shortened simply, which I will show shortly.

In the meantime recognize again the use of polling numbers and the distortion in questioning when one realizes the liberal dualism of abortion and "right to privacy" as equal definitions. Next look at the hysteria the author wishes to create that suggests anyone wants "no limit on government intrusion into personal lives".

This article could have been non-enflamatory and stuck just to the facts without the use of partisan rhetoric (which I believe most American's are sick of--though I have done no formal poll). Here is what I would have written:

Ask people about personal privacy in all its debated forms, and most will see it as a top concern with a fundamental differing set of questions and opinions in the interpretation of the Constitution. The last time a question of that sort was asked in a poll by Opinion Research for USA Weekend, an overwhelming 88% said they are concerned about their privacy and consider protecting it important. But where these individuals fall in their personal views of what privacy does and does not constitute the poll does not ask.

But President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court may soon call into question whether privacy rights exist for some people and their interpretation of their rights.

The Senate has an obligation to explore where John Roberts would draw the line.

Now see...isn't that clearer and filled with less rhetoric. It says all that needs to be said without being inflamatory or inciting fear...not to mention it is unbiased.

The left has a lot to learn...

Of Faith and Reasoning--From Streetwalker

Several powerful forms of reasoning for the existence of God take an indirect approach. C.S. Lewis once penned in one of his writings that God is much like the sun... We cannot look directly at God, but without Him we could not see anything else. The underlying principle behind Lewis' words begins with this: Everyone at some point or other eventually confronts two fundamental questions:

1) Is there a God?
2) What is His nature?

Whether the effort to arrive at a resolution is made formally or informally, every individual will make their most important decisions in life as though there is a God or there's not (However, this is more autobiographical in nature and tells us nothing of whether or not the philosophy claimed corresponds with reality. For our purposes, we'll be examining the logical outworkings of our choices at this stage of development).

Acknowledging one might well take issue with the assumption smuggled in (2), let me assure the reader my traditional gender-specific reference is made purely for argument's sake, and that the answer to even that conflict falls within the scope of the question: Is it within God's nature that we should call God a "He"? Yet the broader issue the question seeks to elicit is: based on our response, how then should we align our lives accordingly?

And though our conclusions to those two questions will form the basis for every important decision we make in life, our choices here have an even more profound effect --They delineate what we will allow to qualify as reliable "knowledge".

There are varying theories of "knowledge". And it is precisely for this reason why I believe many atheists, agnostics, and theists have a difficult time communicating with one another.... not necessarily because neither have done their homework, rather they haven't agreed which homework is worth doing. Lewis' words underscore a chief characteristic of the Christian worldview: God is the very point of reference from which all else is accounted for, apart from which life reduces to one big question mark. The atheist however, must pull himself by his metaphysical bootstraps and decide his own destiny, draw his own boundaries, conjure up a meaning for life and suffering, and then perhaps try to gain an enduring sense of purpose from everyday living. In this light, the rejection of God appears about as liberating as an abandonment o'er the wastelands of fragmentary ruin and insignificance. There's no ultimate authority to turn to for answers and justice anymore. When prodded to turn from God in the midst of suffering, G.K. Chesterton asked the pivotal question: "Fine... but in heaven's name, to what??"

From this perspective, we might well argue that for the Christian, although the peripheral questions haven't been given an immediate answer, all the root ones have been addressed. Yet, the skeptic seems to be in a different battle altogether, for while all the periphery impulses have been indulged, the core of what really matters remains a big mystery. Perhaps this is precisely why many attempts at finding this universal meaning have often been plagued by never-ending battles with nihilism. Nihilism is much like a philosophical cancer poisoning the mind of a thinker to conclude that "Life is meaningless", and as such any "meaning" we try to confer to life is equally meaningless. As with the Kurt Cobains of our generation, misery then becomes not just a moment, but a way of life. So what's that to say of the problem of death? "What's preventing me from suicide," as Jean Paul Sartre once pondered. Albert Camus echoed the same sentiment.

Centuries' worth of heavyweight thinking in our quest for Godless meaning --through and beyond the enlightenment-- have only brought us to a nihilistic age... an age where rather than admit defeat, the willful skeptic would instead champion relativism in Marxist-like bravado as though it were some kind of marvelous achievement. Such unyielding obstinance brings a tyranny all its own. In our search for autonomy, freedom is lost at the altar of determinism. Mired in pitiless incongruence, the state of philosophical order remains in shambles.
Deep-rooted questions of meaning in our time are now dismissed as expressions of weakness... And the faithful are derided as lesser mortals falling prey to that weakness. The strong would move beyond any primitive notions of some imaginary God-parent taking care of humanity despite the massive amount of suffering present in our world. We would pull ourselves by sheer volition and fabricate our own purpose, our own meaning, and never dare think of what will become of us in the hereafter. After all, such lower-level questioning is reflective of a genetic inferiority destined to perish with the dinosaurs; but until then, secular society "puts up with" the masses living under the intoxication of superstitious belief. One day, the sobering realization of the death of God will become agonizingly clear in cataclysmic epiphany... and for a time, society will descend into madness and bloodshed. But such things must come if we are to liberate ourselves from the shackles of religion and finally build a utopian society where man can finally become his own God, ruler of his universe.

Such were the prognostications of Fredreich Nietzsche, German philosopher of the nineteenth century, and extremely acidic in his disposition against Christendom. A giant among atheists, this man was perhaps one of the more honest and insightful individuals on the consequential effects of God's eviction from the moral consciousness of an entire people. So what happens when an entire generation is raised in a culture where the very atmosphere is tangible with this cloud of pessimism? Arrogantly, many are content to bloody themselves against the goads of life, determined to find their own way, never turning towards Transcendence for the answer... and why? Out of a sheer antipathy for the supernatural? What an awesome responsibility! To play God in our lives and in someone else's life out of sheer arrogant pride -- doesn't that strike us in the least bit as terrifying? When life is meaningless, then any behavior from that foundation of reality is equally meaningless and inconsequential. What moral obligation then do we have to be kind or even tolerant of our neighbor if life has no purpose? In a world bereft of any such thing as a way "things ought to be", can we really trust ourselves and one another to live peaceably?

One may interject and say, “These are all theories, aren't they?" No sir. Nietzsche’s prognostications were correct.... In fact, by some accounts, more blood has indeed been spilled in the 20th century alone than the other nineteen put together; the result of a will that would not bend a knee to Christ's teachings. C.S. Lewis once cogently remarked that in the end, either we will bend our knee in reverence and say, "Thy will be done," or God will turn to us and declare, "Alright then... Your will be done!"

Let me summarize with some final thoughts...

Firstly, this is an all-important question, and so to hide behind a mask of facetiousness and laughter is to miss the gravity of the matter. Too often people resort to mockery as a mind-numbing shield from having to face the more glaring questions stalking our existence. I trust, dear reader, you are not one of them....

Secondly, when we broach the issues at hand, we do so from the basis of our presuppositions. Some forms of argumentation will be very convincing to one set of individuals because it comports with how their rules of reasoning dictates one comes to reliable knowledge. However, to the opposing encampment, there is a sense that an incomplete or otherwise false premise has led to an incomplete or false conclusion. It is often helpful then to first begin by pointing out how popular methods of reasoning between groups have been ineffective, and have brought us to many inexorable points of arbitrariness. We might begin by asking of the skeptic just what qualifies as “evidence”?

Lastly, a concession that none of this necessarily constitutes God's existence by way of pure reason. It does, however provide some insight into the preliminary reasons why many come to trust God for their answers. All too often this is hastily dismissed as an indication of gullibility or irrational emotionalism -- a sign of a weak temperament. However, these are matters every worldview must deal with, and dismissing them as non-important isn’t really an explanation... that's just explaining away. Apprehending the struggles of life warrants a style of reasoning not bound by the rigors of cold logic. Sheer unaided reason alone cannot lead one to an ultimate understanding of reality anymore than a computer can explain love, truth, or beauty. One must go beyond that and take into account the deeper questions stalking each individual where they are. It is no wonder that many life-shaping philosophies in our youth-culture have been molded and refined --not by the famous intellectual heavyweights of years gone by-- but by popular artists! And lets face it, they tend to be more honest in their lyrics about their struggles than you and I are with one another when delving into logical discourse. As one Scottish philosopher once quipped:


“Let me write the songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws!"


There is a real existential rub behind the questions at hand...
Therein lies a key to finding the answers.
Lets not run from that.

Christians as bad as Taliban: And other ridiculous comparisons

Why do logical people--and I do believe these people are logical-- continue to compare christians and the Taliban or some Islamic terrorist-like organization? Perhaps on paper it sounds funny, perhaps it is just a personal "dig" at christians throughout the world and particularly here at home in the United States. Perhaps the comparison is meant to garner "recommendations" by those who are like-minded...or simply to gain "recommendations" because point givers don't bother to consider the truth.

Let's discuss the truth.

The Daily Star, a free press newspaper based in Lebanon provided some startling numbers in a recent article. Readers will find the link below this blog entry. The polling suggests that support for suicide bombings are dropping in Muslim nations, however let's keep a focus on what the numbers are currently. "In Turkey, Morocco and Indonesia, 15 percent or fewer now say such actions are justifiable." Really? 15%! In Pakistan, only 25 percent now take that view... In Lebanon, 39 percent now regard acts of terrorism as often or sometimes justified... In Jordan, a majority 57 percent now says suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defense of Islam...

In Iraq nearly half of Muslims in Lebanon and Jordan, and 56 percent in Morocco, say suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."

So, are Christian's as bad as the Taliban and other Islamic extremists? Find me 56% of the Christian population that believes Christians should blow themselves up in abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors. Direct me to 39% or 25% or how about the small number of 15% who believe Christians should blow themselves up and take out civilians who believe in abortion. Maybe 5% of the christian world believes we should blow ourselves and civilian women and children if we believe "christianity" is under attack? Could there be 3%? How about 1%? Infact I suggest that the actual percentage if a poll were conducted would find a statitstical zero.

I don't know the reasons people post and make such comparisons but they are ridiculous and don't deserve the attention some people are giving. Due to the number of statements I see I figured I owe a bit or rational logic to the situation.

If you are interested in searching more polls I suggest the following key-word search on google:

"Muslim" + "Polls" + "Terrorism" + "Suicide Bombings"

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=17226#

Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD

JANUARY 30, 2004
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Islamic Extremism

Where is the Muslim outcry against terrorism? That is the question I have raised over and over again with my Muslim friends and other people. Let's look at a few basic assumptions. If a 'christian' were to bomb an abortion clinic and do so in the 'name of Jesus' I am certain of several facts. First, christians will distance themselves from this lunatic. Second, when issues like this come up pastors tend to preach against it on Sunday mornings. Third, christian talk radio and christian commentators will distance themselves and the christian faith from this type of christian fanatic.

If there were thousands of 'christians' killing abortion doctors, women who show up for abortions and perhaps even politicians who support abortion I am certain that the real christian community would speak out against these acts of terrorism.

So where are the muslims? If you hear crickets chirping you get it.

Right vs. Left and Moderate "bipartisans"

A pendulum swings both ways and what we don't need in democracy is for the pendulum to swing to far one way or the other. Yet, living in the middle is not where most people want to live. Define "bipartisan" as that person who is liberal and conservative but agrees with whatever position is most like ones own. No one likes a "moderate" who goes against their views.

People say they hate Bush because he sees the world in "black" and "white". I believe the reality is that virtually everyone sees things in "black" and "white". It's the definitions that create "moderations".

The Science of Evolution

People are not up front about their biases. The arguments one makes are best understood when biases are taken into consideration. If a person does not admit some form of bias I barely blink an eye at their opinion knowing that the entire frame of the argument may have false motives. It only makes sense then for writers to admit their bias at the outset--I am a Christian in the Presbyterian denomination.

Evolution is, according to Merriam-Webster, a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

As a definition, if this is the one scientists agree on, it seems legitimate but its application has been cemented into the mainstream as an appeal to common practice. It is taught as self-evident in the public schools and the universities. Religious explanations have no merit and no room in the popular scientific community.

But is science honest with their bias and with what they don't know? It turns out that on a grand scale they are finally beginning to admit just how much they do not know about evolution. The recent edition of Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org/ outlines 125 questions science cannot answer. Some of these questions are simple things like "Will we ever come up with another fuel source other than oil that meets the needs of humanity on a vast scale?" But what about the ones that directly relate to evolution?

Christians will answer every question saying, "God did it." This is of course an appeal to a higher authority and puts a burden of proof on science. Some scientists and people in the general population who do not believe in God often put the burden of proof on Christians to prove God created. All of these arguments are an appeal to a consequence of belief and, I hope is apparent when one sees the list of things science cannot answer, ultimately an appeal to faith. Finally, non-atheistic scientists do not necessarily discount the possible existence of a god. The following questions come from the recent Science Magazine and I have sprinkled in some biased commentary and questions, logical or not.

1. What drove cosmic inflation? In other words when the universe expanded in the Big Bang theory what drove the "charge"?
2. What is the biological basis of consciousness?
3. Why do humans have so few genes and why have humans not evolved in any increase in genes? No human remains ever discovered have anything but 100% of the same genes we have today.
4. How do/did the planets form? Planets, according to school textbooks, were formed from giant balls of dust, gas and ice. Why did the sun not devour all these particles..in particular those of Mercury? The fact that Mercury even exists seems to be unexplainable.
5. How do organs and whole organisms know when to stop growing? How do genes set limits on the rat heart so that it grows into the right sized ribcage?
6. What genetic changes made us distinctly human?
7. Why doesn't a prenant woman reject her fetus? A mother's immune system does not "realize" that the fetus is a foreign object though it gets 1/2 its genes from the father? This very concept was first introduced in 1952 by Peter Medawar and it still baffles scientists.
8. How did cooperative behavior evolve?
9. Why do we dream?
10. Why do people have a sense of morality?
11. What is the biological root of sexual orientation? (pg. 95) So here we see science confirming that they have no proof that people are "born" gay.
12. What is species? (p. 96) The definition of species must be very important if one considers that the concept of species is intricately woven in evolutionary theory.
13. How did flowers evolve? Evolution as a real working theory would need to explain this wouldn't it? Why would one form of life evolve and another simply "appear"?
14. Why were some dinosours so large? With this I add, how could they eat enough to maintain their size? Why did they not deplete the resources of the planet? What would happen if an iguana didn't stop growing? What might it look like? I would like science to build models of current reptiles with long term growth because after all, reptiles do not stop growing and dinosours were reptiles.

These are but a few of the questions science cannot answer. These questions run the gamut of all the sciences. Taken in part they do not seem like much but taken in whole suggests that we don't know as much as we think we know and yet many a scientist...and particularly an atheist evolutionist...hold great faith in it. What is the old saying, "sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one?"

How to Talk to a Christian

I have been pondering this topic since I began blogging and discussing issues on various political discussion forums. It seems to me that non-Christians genuinely cannot comprehend the mind of a Christian. There are many intolerant--near persecutory statements about Christians everywhere and my sense is that this persecution is growing. This does not surprise me as it does not surprise most Christians. Truly, there is an outrageous idea of Christian scholarship, as put by a Christian historian. It is as he asks in almost rhetorical fashion, "What is it about the dominant academic culture that teaches people they must suppress reflection on the intellectual implications of their faith?"

Before even beginning witha "How To" readers need to consider two sets of principles. These are not all the possible principles but they are a start for an honest discussion:

First Principles:

• "Even those who profess to be relativists treat other viewpoints as inferior to their relativism and try to convince others of their viewpoint. Indeed sometimes they are rather dogmatic."
• There is an idea that a Christian should not use any of his or her Christian principles in deciding anything political. Indeed, Christian politicians should be absolutely silent. This is like saying, "no gay person should teach gay studies, no feminist should teach the history of women and no musician should be allowed to teach an instrument that she herself does not play."
• Individuals often say that ones social location, orientation, family upbringing etc..relate to how one learns and plays a legitimate role in their intellectual discourse. However, strongly held religious views under the same pretext are extinguished and put off as foolish, irrelevant, false, based on lies, based on a book of contradiction, etc. I wish everyone approached their bias with "truth in advertising". "People do not benefit from those who pose as neutral observers when in fact their interpretations reflect a particular point of view."
• It is interesting that if we start with the presupposition that the universe is created by an "intelligent" being (I will call him God) it changes everything in the way one thinks about reality. But the popular culture seems to operate on the complete opposite statement without permitting any setting to discuss its antithesis. They say, "we will assume there is no "intelligence", so what can we make of reality." Despite calls for diversity, dialogue in the popular culture centers solely around purely "secular" terms. It seems that diversity has its own intolerance.

People fear the political right mostly because they do not understand it. In some ways the political right has become an over-correction of the secular humanism of the 20th century. But these fears fuel the prejudice against Christians and their views on social, political and spiritual order which leads us to a few realities in the second principles:

Second Principles:

1. The vast majority of Christians are committed to the rules of liberal politics in the public arenas. Almost all have adopted the virtues of tolerance and civility. But it is my belief that intolerance has now shifted to point directly at Christians. Christians have used the system to raise a collective voice just as all groups do and for this we are persecuted and told to return to the First Principles and all their errors.
2. Christian groups are hopelessly divided on a number of issues as is clearly visible by reading any yahoo.com discussion thread. There are some mainstream Christian ideas that speak to the dogma that all Christians believe...but then you have the liberalized voices keeping the balance. There is no fear of a United Theocracy of America.

So with that forward how does one talk to a Christian?

1. Know the Christian basics and by this I mean a) Jesus is the Son of God. b) The Bible is God's Word. c) All have sinned and fall short of God's Law, including the Christian with whom one is speaking. d) Jesus died for mankinds sin. e) Jesus forgives whomever wants to be forgiven and trusts in Him as Lord. f) Eternal Life in Heaven is the result of this relationship. g) Jesus is the only way. Knowing that these things are in the back of a Christian's mind will help one get some understanding where a Christian may be coming from. However, if one does not believe these things complete understanding of where a Christian is coming from may not be possible.
2. There are Christians who are smart, some very smart, some not so smart just like there are non-Christians who are smart, some very smart, and some not so smart. We will always run into someone who knows more than we do about a subject or a lot of subjects.
3. Some Christians are very outspoken while others are not..don't assume that person you respect as "intelligent" is a non-Christian.
4. Use the same tolerance definition and be sure to contrast this definition with acceptance. Tolerance: Open-mindedness, patient, fair, considerate Acceptance: Willingness to receive, affirmative answer to an invitation, agreeing. Tolerating something and accepting something are two different things.
5. Recognize that a Christian in spite of his or her beliefs, believing and knowing themselves to be capable of continued sin...probably will when emotions run hot.

There is obviously much more that could be written but here is at least a start.

Life is a special gift

Life is a special gift we have been given, with it we have senses to experience the beauty of our surroundings. Children playing, writing, and deepening their understanding of the world and what it means to them is something we should not take for granted. There is an old proverb that says, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” We get out of life about what we put into it. If we give nothing, nothing will be returned. We so often forget about the opportunities we have, and do not regret until those opportunities are taken away. Today I saw a number of opportunities. Some chose the opportunity to play tennis, baseball and lacrosse. These were life opportunities to become better athletes, becoming faster, more agile and smarter about the game. They are also opportunities for fun. I witnessed life’s blessings in the small things like bees and flowers, rain and sunshine. Without these small things life would not be as bountiful and enjoyable.

The world is an interesting place, because while I see life I cannot ignore places in the world that do not have life, or have a life very different from my own. I think about the children in Africa, Afghanistan and other poorer regains of the world and wonder, would one of them make better use of my life here in America? Am I worthy of my opportunities and experiences?

Losing An Argument

One loses an argument when they insult those they intend on trying to persuade. Often, the angrier the insults the more emotionally irrational an individual is and the more attune they are to their personal biases. While an argument such an individual makes may be valid, their emotional inconsistencies tend to push away those who are collectively considered "the mainstream". This leaves only those who already side with the emotionally charged individual on his or her side.

Lying Contradictions and the Iraq War

There are many who endeavor to suggest that Bush lied about the case for war against Saddam. This line of reasoning is intellectually dishonest. Notice this is for those who use the “lie” reasoning as the “fundamental” argument. There are many arguments people use and some of them are perhaps valid. I will concede one potentially good argument. However, those who use the “lie” argument repeatedly, as if it were their only tool, are the ones who need to consider the merits of this essay.

It goes without saying that no U.S. president in history has concocted a war on the principle of a lie. There have been poor decisions and there has been faulty intelligence but an outright lie is not only far fetched but conspiratorial fear mongering. There has never been a U.S president, no matter their moral depravity at the time, who would concoct a war for personal gain. Not at the expense of federalism, not at the expense of human lives and not at the expense of world security.

We must also consider the evidence used for this war and specifically who used it as justification prior to engagement. Simply put, everyone believed the evidence to be true but for effect one should see the individuals and groupings listed: George W. Bush, CIA, United Nations, France, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi—to name but a few. Each of the individuals or their representatives expressed publicly that Saddam possessed of weapons of mass destruction. Each received and viewed the exact same evidence and used it to draw their conclusions. The U.S. Congress voted to give the president the option to wage war. This is where the “lying’ argument is lost. If the president lied, then why did John Kerry and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, and Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and the French, and the Germans and the Russians and the Brits not also lie? The answer is simple. No one lied. The evidence was simply not what everyone believed it was. Let’s face it. John Kerry did not need the president or the Whitehouse to tell him how to read the evidence. He is John Kerry after all. If he could not figure it out on his own then he had no business being president. The facts are that all these individuals believed the evidence and agreed.

The argument is that if a person is going to call Bush a liar, based on any intelligence he used to decide for war, then every other person who (on their own or with their advisors) came to the same conclusion is also a liar. Each Congressman and Senator has a rather large force of advisors, runners, etc. Their job is to glean through massive bits of information on various bills, intelligence memos etc. For something as big as another nation WMD program. I would like to believe our elected officials in Congress take great care when reading through the evidence. Now, with that said all the individuals I listed made public statements about the WMD program in Iraq. And after those statements they authorized the use of force at the president's discretion.

One can argue that his discretion was wrong. But one cannot call him a liar without calling everyone else a liar as well. If one chooses to call the president a liar they need to be fair in the application of their judgment. The intellectually honest will consider these points and reply with a tone in kind. Only these will merit a response.

Choosing a Centrist for Supreme Court Judge

Democrats, particularly Liberal Democrats, seem to think that the President needs to nominate a "centrist" to replace exiting judge Sandra Day O'Connor. What a load of malarkey. Just who is their idea of a "centrist"? Why of course someone who agrees with their views. So, minus siding with a liberals views the person is a right-wing conservative. Without even looking at who the nominees could be the Democrats in Washington, and their puppy dog followers, are wagging their tongues in the slurring sound of "fillibuster". Who is the party of divisiveness? You guessed it, the Democrats. Let's look at our most recent history for the evidence.

George Bush Sr. was not the most loved President when he instituted taxes after promising not to--yet he is not considered a divisive President.

Following Bush Sr. Clinton became President. He became more and more divisive throughout his presidency. His lies concerning his relationships are perhaps most noted. And yet when he nominated Supreme Court justices that followed HIS political philosophy what did the Republicans in the Senate do? I mean...remember what Congress was doing during this time...we had impeachment hearings going on...they could easily have filibustered Clinton's nominees but they did not...in fact they overwhelmingly supported these left leaning judges.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated 96-3
Stephen G. Breyer was nominated 87-9

Why in the world did the Republican's in the Senate do this? Because nominating Supreme Court Justices is a President's perogative and the question is whether or not they will do their job and NOT whether they are liberal or conservative.

However Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean are foaming at the mouth that any conservative is going to be filibustered. This is basically what they are saying people and don't think otherwise.

There has only been one filibuster of a Supreme Court judge in American history...and rightly so. Abe Fortas was Democratic President Johnson's nominee.

You can read about the historicity of this filibuster at the US Senate website below.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/
Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm

The filibuster option was not invoked until after the nominee came forward. Upon closer scrutiny it was seen that Fortas acted questionably due to his very close relationship with the President.

With Sandra Day O'Connor's step down from her Supreme Court bench, President George W. Bush has the opportunity to nominate a replacement. And again, I cannot emphasise this enought, there are many who feel that the only logical choice for the President is to name a "centrist". I firmly disagree. The President has the right to nominate anyone that aligns with his political philosophy. Our last President, Bill Clinton, had no problem appointing judges attuned to his liberal philosophy (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer).

Our Senate has a Constitutional responsibility in this process too. They are responsible to thoroughly examin the nominees to ensure they are **qualified**. Each nominee should be given the respect of a "yes" or "No" confirmation vote. There has not been a "postponement" of vote since Fillmore's nominee George E. Badger and there have only been 12 nominations rejected (i.e. through a formal vote) in U.S. history. Some nominations have been pulled by either the President or the nominee him/herself and these withdrawls are technically considered "No" votes and this is where some people get the "20" number for the total number of "non-confirmations". But if you look throughout the complete history 20 "no's" is a drop in the bucket.

The President did not win a landslide but he won a majority and that means he has a responsibility to the majority to follow through on the promises of his campaign to nominatee individuals like Thomas and Scalia. If the Democrats attempt to use the filibuster I hope the Republicans keep their backbone and use the Constitutional Option.

The Pathology of False Teachers

The Pathology of False Teachers
by
John MacArthur
All Rights Reserved
1 Timothy 6:3-5 Tape GC 54-45

Introduction

In this passage Paul used medical terminology to describe false teachers, so I've entitled it "The Pathology of False Teachers." Pathology is the study of the nature and course of disease. False teaching is a deadly disease, and it has an observable pathology. The apostle Paul describes that pathology in 1 Timothy 6:3-5. Paul had already warned Timothy about false teaching in 1 Timothy 1:3-7, 18-20; and 4:1-5, and would say more about it in 6:20-21.

First Timothy 6:3-5 describes the internal deviations from spiritual normalcy that characterize false teachers. The pathological characteristics Paul laid out are not unknown to us, but we need to be reminded of them.

One of the duties every pastor, Bible teacher, or spiritual leader has is warning others of error. It isn't enough to be positive and help people see the good side of everything. Warnings run throughout the Old and New Testaments because God knows His people can be led astray by false teaching if they aren't properly prepared for it. Also false teaching victimizes those who have never embraced the truth because they come under the illusion that they have found it. We are thus reminded of the danger of false teaching.

Lesson

I. THE MARK OF FALSE TEACHERS (v. 3)

A. The Difference in Their Teaching

Verse 3 begins, "If any man teach otherwise." That's the first pathological characteristic of false teaching: it is teaching different. But different from what?

1. The revealed truth

First Timothy 6:2 says, "These things teach and exhort." That refers to everything Paul had taught in this epistle. In chapter 1 he spoke about a proper understanding of the law of God, the saving gospel, and the majesty of God. In chapter 2 he spoke on praying for the lost and on the role of women in the church. In chapter 3 he described what elders and deacons are to be like. In chapter 4 he taught about the source of false doctrine and gave principles for an effective ministry. In chapter 5 he instructed Timothy about how believers should treat older men, older women (particularly widows), and younger widows. Then he discussed how to treat the elders of the church. In the first two verses of chapter 6 he discussed how a slave should serve both a believing and unbelieving master. Paul wanted Timothy to teach the congregation to obey all those things because they were God's revealed truth.

2. The subversive element

So in verse 3 when Paul says, "If anyone teaches otherwise," he means anything that is different from what has been revealed through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

a) In the Ephesian church

We have already seen that men had infiltrated the church teaching bizarre fables, endless genealogies, and other things that weren't edifying (1:4). They wanted to be teachers of the law but didn't understand what they were teaching (1:7). They were teaching doctrines spawned by seducing spirits (4:1). They were hypocritical liars (4:2). They were teaching people to abstain from things that God put no such restrictions on (4:3). They were teaching "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called" (6:20).

b) In every church

So when Paul said, "If any man teach otherwise," he knew they already were doing so. Since he didn't mention any specific teacher or teaching, we can conclude this is a generic statement embracing all subversive doctrines and agents of Satan, infiltrating the church to infect people with their deadly virus.

False teachers were rampant in the ancient world. From the beginning, Satan, the father of lies (John 8:44), rebelled against God and began teaching lies. Since then he has been spawning other liars to attack God's truth. Whether facing the false prophets of the Old Testament or the false teachers of the New, the people of God have had to continually do battle against lies and errors. Any church, pastor, or Christian who is not aware of that has his head in the sand. Our Lord said false Christs would come. And Scripture is replete with such warnings (see pp. xx-xx).

B. The Tests of Their Teaching

1. What they affirm (v. 3a)

"If any man teach otherwise."

a) Revealing their error

You have to listen to what they say. Is it different from what you know Scripture says? The Greek word translated "teach otherwise" is heteros didaskalia, a heterodox teaching rather than an orthodox teaching. That means it's heresy--something that's different from what Scripture teaches. They don't get their teaching from the Word of God--they use something other than the Bible. They may base their teaching on some vision, some revelation, some psychological insight, some self-generated doctrine, or some interpretation contrary to Scripture.

b) Recognizing their error

Since false teachers are marked by teachings that differ from Scripture, we can spot these carriers of spiritual virus and deadly infection by knowing Scripture. First John 2:14 speaks of those who know Scripture as young men, saying, "Ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one."

When I began my pastorate at Grace Community Church, two verses set the course for my ministry.

(1) Acts 20:27--Paul said, "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." For three years he spent his time night and day going from house to house publicly, and in the meetings of the church on the Lord's Day, teaching the Word and warning the people (v. 31). In verses 29-30 he says why: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Then he said, "I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up" (v. 32). The only way we can be protected against error is to know truth. False teachers will bring destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1) and teach hypocritical lies (1 Tim. 4:1). Those who recognize them are those who know the Word of God. The primary task of the shepherd is to feed the sheep a proper diet so they won't be tempted by the noxious, deadly weeds that grow on the fringes of their pasture.

(2)Ephesians 4:11-14--God has given to the church "apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive." We are to know the Word so that we might be able to discern error.

Ephesians 6:17 says to take "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." A believer must have the sword to be able to defend himself against the attacks of Satan. In 1 Timothy 4:6 Paul says that a good minister will be "nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine." In verse 16 he adds, "Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." When you and your people know good doctrine, you're protected from the deadly virus of error. The only antibiotic we have against false teaching is the truth of God. Paul reiterated the same truth in his second epistle to Timothy: "Hold fast the form of sound words .... That good thing which was committed unto thee keep" (1:13-14). "The things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2:2). "Preach the word .... For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but, after their own lusts, shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (4:2- 3).

False teachers are marked by heresy. They affirm things that are different from what Scripture says. They even add things to Scripture.

2. What they deny (v. 3b)

"If any man ... consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The verb translated "consent not" is in the present tense: the false teacher is not presently in agreement with Scripture. Specifically, they disagree with the "wholesome words of ... our Lord Jesus Christ." That does not simply refer to what Jesus said in the gospels, but to all He has said as the author of Scripture. Colossians 3:16 calls Scripture "the word of Christ" and 1 Thessalonians 1:8 and 2 Thessalonians 3:1 calls it "the word of our Lord." Second Thessalonians 3:1 calls it "the Word of the Lord."

Scripture provides wholesome, healthy teaching. Peter said, "As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that ye may grow by it" (1 Pet. 2:2). But false teachers don't heed the life-message that comes from our Lord because they're not committed to Scripture. They may talk about Jesus and God, but the heart of their ministry will not be the Word of God. They will add to it and take away from it.

3. What they produce (v. 3c)

"If any man ... consent not ... to the doctrine which is according to [related to] godliness."

The ultimate test of a doctrine is whether it produces godliness. Since false teachers ignore God's word they don't have godly life-styles. Only the Word of God produces healthy spiritual behavior. That's why 1 Timothy 4:7 says, "Exercise thyself rather unto godliness." Error can never produce godliness.

The term "godliness" speaks of reverence, piety, and Christlikeness. False teaching, heresy, and error cannot produce those virtues. Only the truth of God can.

a) An examination of false teachers

(1) Conduct

The life-style of false teachers is telling. In Matthew 7:16 Jesus says, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Take a look at their conduct. Do they take pleasure in wickedness? Are they lewd, (2 Pet. 2:10)? Are they prideful? Are they concerned with prestige, power, and popularity? Are they self-centered and self-indulgent? Such characteristics are not produced by truth but by lies.

(2) Creed

Listen to what false teachers say. Are they calling their people to repentance and holiness? Are they urging people to abandon their self-indulgence and be broken over their sin? Or are they teaching doctrines that accommodates the carnal mind and feed the fallenness of man?

b) A description of false teachers

(1) By Peter

Second Peter 2 describes their godlessness in vivid terms: they "indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (v. 10, NASB). They are daring and self-willed (v. 10). "They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, having eyes full of adultery and that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children" (vv. 13-14, NASB). "They entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality" (v. 18, NASB). "It has happened to them according to the true proverb, `A dog returns to its own vomit,' and, `A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire' (v. 22, NASB).

(2) By Jude

Jude said they are "ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness" (v. 4, NASB). They "defile the flesh" caring only for themselves (vv. 8, 12, NASB). Their own shame billows the waves of the sea (v. 13).

II. THE ATTITUDE OF FALSE TEACHERS (v. 4a)

"He is proud."

False teachers are marked by an attitude of pride. The Greek word translated "proud" (tuphoomai--also used in 1 Tim. 3:6) speaks of being engulfed in smoke. Here the perfect passive form is used, which means they're in a settled state of being engulfed in their own smoke.

False teachers are invariably arrogant. When someone claims his teaching is superior to the Word of God, that is the epitome of arrogance. An arrogant person is inflated with his own sense of self-importance. Peter says false teachers are so arrogant, "they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:10, NASB). Rather, they speak "out arrogant words of vanity" (NASB). Jude says they reject authority (v. 8) and speak arrogantly (v. 16). Anyone who puts his teaching above the Word of God is arrogant. False teachers refuse to accept the straightforward truth of God. They may try to pass themselves off as humble, meek, and self-effacing, but it is the height of arrogance to affirm things contrary to the Word of God. Should we expect any less with Satan as our example? In his arrogance he chose to be greater than God, and as a result has spawned a generation of sinners with the same desire? For example, Simon, the sorcerer, purposed that he was great person (Acts 8:9). People who are inflated with their own sense of self-importance are nothing more than deviants revealing the pathology of their virus.

III. THE MENTALITY OF FALSE TEACHERS (v. 4b)

A. In Principle

"Knowing nothing."

It doesn't matter how many Ph.D.'s or how much training such people have; they still don't know anything (1 Tim. 1:7). But they are inflated over what they think they know. They parade their imagined intelligence, scholarship, superior understanding, deeper insights, and religious acumen, but the truth is they are ignorant.

1. Characterized

In 1 Corinthians 3:19 Paul says, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." False teachers don't have insight into any matter of spiritual truth. They have wisdom that is not from above, but that which is earthly, sensual, and demoniacal (James 3:15). They may claim to have some new truth or insight, but they don't.

The Lord has chosen to hide "these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matt. 11:25). God has hidden His truth from the self-promoting minds of this world and given it to those who believe His Word.

2. Classified

a) By Peter

Second Peter describes their ignorance in strong terms. Verse 12 says false teachers are "unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge" (v. 12; NASB). Verse 17 calls them springs without water--they promise to quench your thirst but are as dry as a sandpit.

b) By Jude

Jude says they are "clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars" (vv. 12-13 NASB).

B. In Practice

"Doting about questions and disputes of words."

The Greek text could be translated this way: "Having a sick craving for questions and word battles." They have a disease--a morbid preoccupation with useless questions and word battles. They make a fuss about terminology. The Greek word translated "questions" (z[ma]et[ma]esis, means "idle speculations." It is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual theorizing. They make a fuss about theory instead of the truth of God's Word. So much is written about Scripture from a liberal or neo-orthodox viewpoint. It's easy to get lost in all the verbiage and speculation. Yet all you need to do is accept the plain truth of God's Word.

They also get into "disputes of words" (Gk., logomachia, "word battles"). They battle each other over terminology. Their minds know nothing, so they engage themselves in battles over semantics that won't get anywhere.

IV. THE EFFECTS OF FALSE TEACHERS (vv. 4c, 5a)

"Of which cometh envy, strife, railings, evil suspicions, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds."

Godliness is the ultimate test of truth. But there's a second one: unity. That which unites believers is a common commitment to the truth.

A. The Perversion of Unity

False teachers teach their own thing--whatever is right in their own eyes. They will either add their material to Scripture, or they will deny Scripture in favor of what they teach. Because each ego-motivated doctrine becomes their own particular standard, they became pitted against each other. And that results in discord and chaos. When students go to schools that teach false doctrine, or sit under that kind of teaching, they became confused because there's no uniformity among error.

B. The Path of Discord

1. Envy

Jealousy is inward discontent over someone else's popularity and prosperity. One teacher teaches one false doctrine, another teaches his, and they're both jealous over each other's success.

2. Strife

Strife describes the ensuing battle between them.

3. Slander

Insults and slander are a by-product of strife and jealousy.

4. Suspicion

A factious person tends to suspect others of evil motives.

5. Bickering

The Greek word translated "perverse disputings" (diaparatribai) speaks of something in constant friction. In his homily on 1 Timothy 5:2-7 fourth-century church father John Chrysostom said it was like infected sheep coming into contact with others and thereby spreading their disease.

The legacy of error is chaos--one errorist pitted against another, jealously fighting, blaspheming, insulting one another, suspicious of one another's motives, creating nothing but constant friction. They produce nothing good at all.

C. The Product of Error

1. According to Peter

Peter said that because of them "the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words" (2 Pet. 2:2-3, NASB). They will entice unstable souls. They promise freedom but are the slaves of corruption (v. 19).

2. According to Jude

Jude said they are like unreasoning animals who follow their depraved instincts to destruction (v. 10). They rush headlong into error, traveling the path of self-centered disobedience, and are perishing in their own rebellion (v. 11). Verse 12 describes them as "hidden reefs" (NASB).

False teachers cause chaos because error can never produce unity. Only truth unifies.

V. THE CAUSE OF FALSE TEACHERS (v. 5b)

"Men of corrupt minds."

False teachers have unregenerate minds--minds that have never been transformed. In Romans 8:7 Paul says their "carnal mind is enmity against God." It's filled with earthly wisdom that fights against God (James 3:15; 4:4). In Romans 1:28 Paul says, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Their mental faculties don't function in the moral or spiritual realm. They do not react positively to truth. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 Paul calls them natural men who "receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." The pathological source of their disease is a corrupt mind. The deadly virus of ignorant, damning words comes out of an evil mind. They don't understand God and they can't understand truth. Ephesians 4:18 says their understanding is darkened, and is alienated from God. Colossians 1:21 says they are "alienated and enemies in [their] mind by wicked works."

False teachers possess alienated, wicked, darkened, and corrupt minds. They've never been transformed. They have not received the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). They may have many theological degrees, and may be involved in religious activities, but their minds are corrupt.

VI. THE CONDITION OF FALSE TEACHERS (v. 5c)

"Destitute of the truth."

A. Destitute of the Truth

False teachers are bereft of the truth. The Greek word translated "destitute" comes from a verb that means "to steal" or "to deprive." False teachers have been deprived of the truth.

1. In the middle voice

The word could be in the middle voice, which means they have deprived themselves of the truth. The forms of the word are the same. If used as a middle-voice verb it would say they were in contact with the truth but willfully deprived themselves of it. That doesn't mean they were ever saved, but they did know the truth and moved away from it.

2. In the passive voice

The word taken in the passive voice means that someone took the truth from them. Perhaps they came under the influence of someone who pulled them away from it. It is important that we warn people to be careful who they listen to and what they read so they don't become victimized.

These false teachers once had contact with the truth. But now they had been deprived of it, or had deprived themselves of it. They could be "those who were once enlightened" (Heb. 6:4), but then abandoned what they once knew. So we would call their condition apostasy--they departed from the faith.

B. Departed from the Truth

Whom have these men been listening to? The father of all lies, Satan himself (John 8:44). Second Timothy 2:18 says they have erred concerning the truth, being "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith" (3:8).

VII. THE PROGNOSIS OF FALSE TEACHERS

Their prognosis is implied in the statement "destitute of the truth": judgment. Anyone who is bereft of the truth is headed for judgment. Hebrews 6:6 tells us that if anyone turns away from the truth, there's no hope of his ever being saved. Hebrews 10:29 says that those who trample under their feet the Son of God and consider the blood of the covenant an unholy thing are headed for a disastrous and eternal judgment.

A. By Peter

Second Peter 2 says they bring "swift destruction on themselves.... Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah ... when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly, and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes ... then the Lord knows how ... to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment" (vv. 1, 3-6, 9, NASB).

B. By Jude

Jude is very direct. It says they were "of old ordained to this condemnation" (v. 4). Verse 15 says that God is going "to convict all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The prognosis of false teachers is judgment. They will experience the severest hell because after having seen the truth, they apostatized from it.

VIII. THE MOTIVE OF FALSE TEACHERS (v. 5d)

"Supposing that gain is godliness."

The King James Version adds the phrase "from such withdraw yourself," but earlier manuscripts don't include that. False teachers teach their doctrines to get money. They have the audacity to presume that their "godliness"--their false piety--is a way to make money.

A. Shunning the Temptation

In Acts 20:29 Paul says, "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you." Then in verse 32-33 he says, "I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them who are sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel." Why? Because false teachers were in the ministry to fleece the people, not feed the sheep. Paul wasn't like that. He told the Corinthians that he didn't expect anything from them (1 Cor. 9:4-18). He told the Thessalonians he didn't want to be a burden to them so he worked with his hands to provide his own living (1 Thess. 2:9).

B. Succumbing to Temptation

In 1 Timothy 3 Paul says that an elder and a deacon cannot be covetous and a lover of money because the potential to use religion to make money has always been the motivation of false teachers (vv. 3, 8).

1. Balaam

Second Peter 2:3 says, "In their greed they will exploit you" (NASB). Verse 15 says they have "followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness" (NASB). Balaam was a prophet who would give a message to the highest bidder. Jude says, "They have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam" (Jude 11, NASB). They flatter "people for the sake of gaining an advantage" (v. 16, NASB).

2. Simon

In Acts 8:18-19 Simon wanted to buy the Holy Spirit. He would have paid anything he could to buy the power he saw revealed. He knew if he possessed that power he could make back what he spent and a thousand other fortunes. Religious charlatans are a steady parade in this society, and are in it for the money.

Stay away from people who teach doctrine contrary to Scripture. Stay away from those who deny the truth. Stay away from those who are not Christlike and godly in their conduct. Don't listen to those who are arrogant, ignorant of spiritual reality and make useless speculations. Those things generate word battles that lead to chaos, confusion, disorder, and disunity. Stay away from those with corrupt minds who have forsaken the truth and are headed for eternal judgment. Stay clear of those who are desirous of personal enrichment at your expense. They are diseased, and the prognosis for them and those they infect is terminal.

Focusing on the Facts

1. How does pathology relate to false teachers (see p. 1)?

2. What is the first pathological characteristic of a false teacher (see p. 1)?

3. What things did Paul want Timothy to teach and exhort (1 Tim. 6:2; see p. 2)?

4. What does the phrase "if anyone teaches differently" embrace (1 Tim. 6:3; see p. 2)?

5. What do people in the church continually face (see p. 3)?

6. How can a believer spot false teachers and their teaching (see p. 3)?

7. What are the "words of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. 6:3; see p. 5)?

8. What is the ultimate test of any doctrine (see p. 5)?

9. What two things should a believer examine when trying to determine if someone is a false teacher (see p. 6)?

10. Describe the arrogance of a false teacher (see p. 7)?

11. How did Paul characterize the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 3:19; see p. 8)?

12. According to 1 Timothy 6:4, what is the preoccupation of false teachers (see p. 8)?

13. What is another test of truth in addition to godliness (see p. 9)?

14. What is the path to discord? Explain (see p. 9)?

15. What kind of minds do false teachers possess (1 Tim. 6:5; see p. 10)?

16. What is the condition of false teachers (1 Tim. 6:5; see p. 11)?

17. What is the prognosis for false teachers (see p. 11)?

18. What motivates a false teacher to perpetuate his false doctrine (1 Tim. 6:5; see p. 12)?

Pondering the Principles

1. A crucial test of anyone's doctrine is whether it produces godliness. When people live their lives based on the truths of Scripture, they will live godly lives. If someone were to examine the conduct of your life, would he or she conclude you are committed to the truths of Scripture? Read 1 Timothy 4:7-8. What kind of effort must you give toward living a godly life? Are you putting forth that effort? According to verse 8, what should motivate you to be godly? Examine your own motivations. Be honest with yourself. Is there anything you're holding onto that is preventing you from becoming more godly. If there is, let go of it. Ask God to forgive you, and begin from this day forward to discipline yourself for godliness.

2. False teachers typically display wisdom is earthly, sensual, and demonic (James 3:15). Believers should be exhibiting wisdom from above. Read James 3:17-18. List each characteristic of heavenly wisdom. Next to each one, evaluate yourself on how well you exhibit that particular characteristic. Choose one that you manifest the least. Look up other scriptures on that particular characteristic. Then pray about it. Ask God to show you what you need to do to better exhibit that characteristic of wisdom in your life. Once you know what you should do, be faithful to do it.