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.

God's Plan for the Gay Agenda

John MacArthur
© Copyright 2004 by Grace to You. All rights reserved.

If you’ve been watching the headlines over the past six months, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it’s at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That’s an indication of the success of the gay agenda. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality—calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)—they do so at the expense of many souls, perhaps even their own.

How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals and decry the sin? The Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual desperately needs.

Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality—and many of them know—they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens—as you come close, you see right through them.

God’s condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear—He opposes it in every age.

In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)

In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)

In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)

Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God’s fundamental design for human relationships—a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).
Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).

As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality—ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginning “made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

So, what is God’s response to the homosexual agenda? Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reason Romans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a “degrading passion.” It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul—and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

God’s plan for many homosexuals is salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul’s day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. Do they still struggle with homosexual temptation? Sure they do. What Christian doesn’t struggle with the sins of their former life? Even the great apostle Paul acknowledges that fight (Romans 7:14-25). But former homosexuals sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

Abortion, adoption and treatments

There are many people, particluarly those stereotyped as liberals, who believe abortion is a woman's health issue. This is not really their purpose in supporting abortion. Abortion's purpose is convenience.

Infertility treatments can cost anywhere from $50-$2000+ a month.

The typical adoption costs anywhere from $2000-$30,000. In adoption it depends on whether a child has disabilities, whether adoption is in the states or over seas. The major problem with adoption is there is very little oversight. Adoption in places like Russia is little more than human trafficing.

If a woman seriously worried about an unwanted baby she would consider a cheaper method that would ultimately help millions of couples who struggle with infertility and those who want to have more children.

There is a cheaper and far safer method...let the woman who doesn't want it carry it and then give it up immediately upon delivery. We're only talking 9 months of a woman's life....can she not take 9 months to give a child a good life? The government could work with insurance agencies so that an infertile couple could use their health insurance to help pay, or even pay for, the pregnancy.

The fact that "Women's Health" organizations would never sponsor such possibilities shows the true nature of abortion. Abortion is not about women's health it is about her convenience and simple conveniences have never been justified rights in the Constitution. Convenience is not an inalienable right.

Condoms: Are they really all that safe?

Thursday June 30, 2005 Detroit Free Press "Condoms: Are they really all that safe?" By Linda A. Johnson (no pun intended)Answer...Condoms are better than nothing but not nearly as safe as liberals want to tell our kids in the schools. Facts about condomns from the article:If used over an entire year: reduce pregnancy to 14% with "typical use".If used "perfectly" chances of HIV are reduced by 80%...so you still have a 20% chance.If used "perfectly" Genital herpes by 30-92%, Gonorrhea by 49-75% (men) 39-62% (women), Chlamydia by 26-90% (women) 33% (men), Pelvic iinflammatory disease by 55%, Trichomoniasis by 30% (women) with significant reduction in men, Genital ulcers by 18-23% and Syphilis by 40-60%Wow...sure hope people use condoms "perfectly"...those numbers are not all that great... I mean..if I had a 30-70% chance of getting into a car accident I think I'd stay home.

Senate Democrats Threaten Filibuster

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. Yet, the Democrats of today are already talking filibuster without seeing a single name.

With Sandra Day O'Connor's step down from her Supreme Court bench, President George W. Bush has the opportunity to nominate a replacement. 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. vote) in U.S. history. Some nominations have been pulled by either the President or the nominee him/herself.

http://www.theamericanpresidency.us/supremenominees.htm

Sandra Day O'Connor Nomination

With Sandra Day O'Connor's step down from her Supreme Court bench, President George W. Bush has the opportunity to nominate a replacement. 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).

When the citizens of the United State elected the President it was known that in his second term he was to appoint two Supreme Court justices. The President is a conservative and it will come as no shock that he nominates conservatives to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat, and any other seat that becomes vaccant. One responsibility the President has is to nominate qualified candidates.

Our Senate has a responsibility as well. They are responsible to thoroughly examin the nominees to ensure they are qualified. Each nominee should be given common respect for an up or down vote.