Reaching & Influencing Public Officials

 

We should be praying for, influencing, and witnessing to public officials in all levels and branches of government, especially at local & State levels. While one believer cannot reach everyone, together we can influence all men for good. (I Timothy 2:1-4; Matthew 5:13-16; Mark 16:15; Psalm 119:53, 136, 158; etc...) 

Consider making a list of names and addresses of your public officials in all levels and branches of government and occasionally sending Gospel Tracts or giving Christian books or gift subscriptions to Christian magazines and including a Gospel Tract with Greeting Cards at Christmas time.

Consider writing to public officials about issues of concern. Here are a few guidelines to remember when writing to public officials:

•        A personally written or typed letter sent through the mail is normally more effective than an email, a petition, or a form letter.

•        Limiting each letter to one subject gives each subject a better chance of getting needed attention.

•        Be courteous, make complimentary remarks or express appreciation, do not use sarcasm, and avoid saying anything that may sound threatening.

•        When writing to a State Governor, State Legislator, US Congressman, or a Judge you should address the envelope to “The Honourable (Full Name).”

•        Include a Gospel Tract with each letter; this serves as a reminder that there are Christians in their constituency as well as witnessing to those who are unsaved.

 

          For contact information visit the public library or this website:

How to Contact Your Elected Officials

 

US Intrusions Into Race Relations In The South

 

The liberal media and public schools often try to make it appear that centralised US government and US government intrusions into race relations were and are needed by pointing to examples in Southern history. But when the whole story and each side of the issues are considered, those examples usually illustrate the evils of big government and the importance of limited constitutional government.

Consider the slavery issue. In 1776 slavery existed legally in every state of the Union, and when the US Constitution was ratified it was neither a pro-slavery or anti-slavery document. After the American War for Independence the northern states began to progressively remove their slave populations for the sake of profit, as slavery was not very profitable in the north, and to reduce their black populations and not for principles of morality as so many have been led to believe. The northern States always protected the property rights of northern slave owners and none of the northern States ever passed a law emancipating anyone who was already a slave. It is important to note that the end of slavery in northern States was gradual, usually through selling slaves to Southern States or the Caribbean, and there is no credible argument that the institution of slavery in the Southern States would have survived into the twentieth century without the armed invasion of the CSA.

It is easy to look back and make a blanket condemnation of slave states and southern slave owners without considering the whole situation, and it was hypocritical of northerners to condemn southern slavery while condoning deplorable conditions in northern factories. Slaves in the southern states often lived under better conditions and better treatment than white factory workers in the north, and in many cases the conditions in northern factories were worse than the worse southern plantations. Slavery did not give slave owners an economic advantage over northern factory owners: northern factory owners paid meager wages and were indifferent toward working conditions and the lives of employees as employees were easily replaced while slave owners had to take care of their slaves and slaves were expensive to replace.

Why didn't the Bible prohibit slavery? All men are equal in creation and redemption, but at the same time all men are unequal in abilities, talents, social station, etc. While all humans are of equal value as persons in creation and redemption the Gospel does not change our positions in life. For example, becoming Christians does not mean that a married couple cease to be married or that either one has a change in gender or that the roles of headship and helpmeet are nullified, and the existence of abusive husbands does not make marriage evil. (Galatians 3:28) Consider also that making slaves of war captives and certain criminals was more merciful and advantageous than killing them; the absence of black slavery would have meant death and not freedom for most who became slaves, and the black slaves were already slaves enslaved by black Africans before they were brought to America. (Of course, that is a broad statement made to be brief, and further research is encouraged.)

I do not argue for a return to slavery, and I do not know of anyone who does; the point is that the abolition of slavery was not the reason the USA invaded the CSA and the existence of slavery in the CSA did not justify the armed invasion. During the American War of Independence all thirteen States had slavery and England had already abolished slavery, British interference with the institution of slavery was among the reasons for secession from the British Empire outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the British insisted that the Americans just wanted to keep their slaves, and the British actively recruited slaves that belonged to patriot masters; does this mean the American War of Independence was fought over slavery? The USA invaded the CSA because of lust for money and power, not a desire to free slaves, and the Confederate States fought because their country was invaded. Incidentally, when Italy invaded and conquered Ethiopia in 1935 Benito Mussolini freed the slaves and abolished slavery there, so why isn’t he honoured and celebrated in Ethiopia?

Arguments that US intrusions were justified by racism in the South tend to be one-sided and hypocritical. For example, you have likely heard that Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that the negro is not equal to the white man and subordination to the white race is his natural and normal condition, but were you aware that Abraham Lincoln and other US leaders made similar statements?

In the decades preceding the War of Northern Aggression and subsequent abolition of slavery numerous southern statesmen, clergy, and southern abolitionists warned of dangers in the sudden emancipation of all slaves (and naturally nobody in the South wanted a repeat of what happened in Haiti), and those predictions came true. The US government abolished slavery for political purposes and not for moral principles or humanitarianism, and this became obvious during the so-called Reconstruction of the South. During the so-called Reconstruction of the South (1865 – 1877) US intrusions, US extremes, martial law, political corruption, and the excesses of the Republican Party, the Union League, and the Freedmen's Bureau, and increasing black-on-white crime, provoked reactions and attitudes that lasted for generations. The Fourteenth Amendment was used to keep white southrons from voting or holding public offices and the Fifteenth Amendment made illiterates the overwhelming majority vote in the South, and this enabled carpetbaggers, scalawags, and other radicals to take advantage of a bad situation, use and exploit freed slaves, and win elections with unrealistic and outrageous campaign promises. (Southern Legislatures and statesmen tried in vain to persuade the US Congress to delay ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment until the freed slaves learned to read and assimilated into free society.) The US government gave black people special rights and discriminated against white southrons, and enacted laws and programs obviously meant to pit whites and blacks against each other, and all of this was enforced through martial law. (An old trick of tyrants and empires is to keep ethnic groups pitted against each other to keep them from recognising their common enemy.) The US government tried to remove white southrons from the political life of their communities and states and establish black dominance in the Southern States at a time when whites and blacks in the South were the most dissimilar cultures in the world: white southrons came from a background of Anglo-Celtic culture that had been influenced by Christianity for centuries and black people in general were just a few generations from African heathenism and barbarism.

The murder of Emmitt Louis Till in Money, Mississippi (August 28, 1955), was an early catalyst for the so-called Civil Rights Movement. The murder of Emmitt Till was used to justify US government intrusions and is still used to demonise the South. In school I was taught that Emmitt Till was in Mississippi visiting relatives in 1955 and was lynched just for whistling at a white woman. Looking at details of the case and considering the accounts and statements of friends and relatives who were with him when he flirted with a white woman makes me think the case got so much media coverage because northern liberals and southern scalawags saw an opportunity to stir up racial tensions and further demonize the South. Consider: Suppose a group of white boys were in a black neighborhood in Chicago (or Atlanta, Detroit, etc.) and one of them, a white teenager from another State, on a dare flirted with a married black woman, taking her hand and then putting his hands on her waist while using vulgarity as he propositioned her and bragged to her about fornication with other black women and then whistled at her as a friend or cousin pulled him away from her. Could this arouse any negative reactions in the community? Is it possible that a jealous black husband might decide to deal with him personally and could even become violent?

In the decades preceding and during the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s numerous southern statesmen and clergy warned of dangers in the race-mixing movement and racial egalitarianism and those predictions came true. Look at the years and decades since and seriously consider: Did racial egalitarianism and coerced racial integration produce racial harmony or foster civil unrest and increasing black-on-white crime (which the liberal media tries to censor) while infringing on State sovereignty and increasing US government power? The US intrusions involved were reminiscent of the so-called Reconstruction of the South. The attempts of social engineers to change hearts through legislation and court decisions are self-defeating and social programs purported to alleviate racial tensions and produce racial harmony, such as through racial egalitarianism and Ex Post Facto Laws, usually have the opposite effect. During the so-called Freedom Marches of the 1960s, which were often held without a court order or a parade permit (which helped the media put the police and southern communities in a bad light when the police did their duty and enforced the law), demonstrators smoked marijuana, spat on or assaulted police officers, and fornicated in the open, and afterward the local authorities were left with the problem of dealing with the tons of garbage that was left by demonstrators, which included used condoms, drug paraphernalia, and feces; by not covering those aspects the news media was able to make many Americans believe that race was the only reason white southerners objected to the Freedom Marches coming through their towns. During the so-called Civil Rights Movement, media censorship of increasing black-on-white crime, sensationalized and distorted news reports and docudramas, and other distorted media portrayals of the South, fostered white guilt and bleeding hearts, and the US government instituted policies and programs that may have appeared noble at first glance but were obviously designed to expand US government power, and pit blacks and whites against each other to prevent them from recognizing their common enemy. Consider just a few examples:

The Pleggy VS Ferguson decision of 1896, which made racial segregation the official US policy for over fifty years, was repudiated in the Brown VS Board of Education decision of 1954, and both US Supreme Court Decisions were based on interpretations of an Amendment (Fourteenth Amendment) that was never ratified by the states and therefore is not lawfully part of the US Constitution. The Brown VS Board of Education decision of 1954 was a means to expand US government power. For example, efforts to use the National Guard to block enforcement of Brown VS Board of Education were countered by deploying federal troops and federalising the National Guard of a resisting State, and in these and other ways the US government violated the US Constitution to enforce a power not delegated to the US government by the US Constitution.

All-white colleges in the South (e.g., University of Mississippi & University of Alabama) were not merely required to racially integrate; they were forced to enroll black students who previously would have been rejected if they had been white because they did not meet the required standards. This was not about the right to a college education as there were black colleges throughout the South.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not give non-whites equal rights as racial equality was already the law of the land; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required racial egalitarianism, special rights for ethnic minorities, racial quotas, and discrimination against white people.

If black people were not allowed to vote in Alabama and other Southern States prior to the Voting Rights Act, then how do you explain the black counties and black cities in Alabama and other Southern States with black public officials and all-black electorates prior to 1965? Prior to 1965 the state of Alabama and other Southern States required basic literacy and a basic knowledge of the US Constitution and state government to be eligible to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not give non-whites the right to vote as they already had the right to vote for almost a century; it secured voting privileges for illiterates who would have been ineligible to vote prior to 1965 if they had been white. (While universal suffrage may sound like a noble cause, this inevitably results in a majoritarian democracy, mob rule, that gives unchequed government power to charismatic personalities.)

In 1967 the US Supreme Court held State Miscegenation Laws to be unconstitutional, in the Loving vs Virginia decision, which was an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Beginning in 2013 Loving vs Virginia has been cited as precedent in US federal court decisions that held state laws restricting same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, and this should not have been a shock or surprise to anyone. It is interesting that those who argue that miscegenation laws and restrictions against same-sex marriage violated civil rights by restricting the choice of a marriage mate and are therefore unconstitutional do not always apply the same argument to other marriage laws that restrict the choice of a marriage mate. What about state laws that limit the number of times someone can divorce and remarry? What about state laws that raise the age at which teenagers can marry even with parental consent?  What about state laws prohibiting first cousins from marrying? (The USA is the only country with restrictions against first cousin marriage, and those States that restricted it did so based on claims and data that were later disproved.) Why don’t they challenge the constitutionality of those laws? Have you considered the possibility that liberals just did not consider those other marriage laws to be issues as useful or effective in centralising government? (The modern racing-mixing movement was sponsored by globalists who said over the years that humans will be easier to control when they are all the same colour. Personal research is encouraged.) Whether you agree or disagree with miscegenation laws, it is obvious that this issue should not have been decided by the US government as it was a violation of the Tenth Amendment for the US government to intrude in such matters. As with many other US Supreme Court decisions, the Loving vs Virginia decision did not actually protect a constitutional right but did expand US government power and the power of US federal courts especially. (If you research Loving vs Virginia some aspects of the case might arouse questions and suspicions about how and why it became a criminal case, went to trial, and went to the US Supreme Court. E.g., the lack of evidence that Mildred Loving had any black ancestry; Mildred Loving was American Indian and marriages between white people and American Indians were not illegal in Virginia.)

This is not saying that black people have always had it good, this is simply saying that the way things were handled or accomplished was often wrong and often caused more problems than were solved. (You do not have to take my word on this. I encourage you to research these things on your own.)

Patriarchy

 

Ignoring and confusing gender roles and distinctions has a negative impact on society in general and destroys relationships, while Biblical patriarchy utilizes the differences between the sexes to the best advantage. The normal portrayal of patriarchy in modern media associates it with the oppression of women, and the normal portrayal of feminism associates it with the liberation and freedom of women. However, patriarchy enables the sexes to complement each other while feminism fosters a competitive spirit between the sexes and works against the best interests of women. The egalitarian socialism of feminism causes frustration, confusion, and resentment by ignoring the reality of natural differences, while biblical patriarchy recognizes the compatibility between functional subordination and equality of being. Equals do not complement each other; equals compete. The assertiveness and defiance of women encouraged by feminism arouses the insecurities and defensiveness of men while ignoring the natural weakness of men for the respect of women.

Feminism encourages women to trade their complementary role for equality and mimic the sexual attitudes, behaviour, and aggressiveness of men and thus relinquish their natural power, while Biblical patriarchy makes women the civilizing and stabilizing influence over men. While immodesty and promiscuity make women cheap and disposable and encourage abuse, raising women to the status of moral superiority over men compels men to respect women. Promiscuity reduces the female body to a worthless trinket and gives women the same status as community towels instead of compelling men to cherish women.

Feminists continually portray male conveniences as advantages for women. Artificial insemination reduces women to the status of incubators and eliminates paternal responsibility instead of making motherhood honorable. Birth control diminishes the necessity of commitment and stability in a relationship and keeps sexual intercourse from being seen as sacred and beautiful. Abortion eliminates the responsibilities of fatherhood while leaving women physically and emotionally scarred, while respect for life encourages commitment. Feminism makes abortion, birth control, and other male conveniences important to discourage female inhibition and encourage licentiousness and thus supposedly empower women, while biblical patriarchy condemns such practices which tend to degrade women and reduce or eliminate male responsibilities.

The myth about male and female sexual equality makes women more vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and neglect. While each gender has just as strong a libido as the other, and both sexes desire sex and affection, their responses and priorities tend to differ. As a general rule, men trade affection for sex and women trade sex for affection.

Replacing patriarchal marriage with egalitarian partnership creates dissatisfaction and frustration for both husbands and wives by denying a woman's natural need for a father-figure and a man's need to feel respected. Biblical patriarchy appeals to a man's need for respect and thus compels a man to love, cherish, and please a woman, and encourages a woman to respect a man by appealing to her need for love, affection, and esteem. While feminism pits husband and wife against each other, biblical patriarchy compels a husband and wife to complement and depend on each other.

Numerous movies and TV shows have portrayed patriarchy and other Christian values in a positive light and provided good examples of what husbands and fathers ought to be. (e.g., "Father Knows Best," "Leave It To Beaver," "The Andy Griffith Show," "Little House On The Prairie," etc.) But all too often Hollywood promotes feminism by associating patriarchy with abuse and oppression or depicting the father in a family show as an inept boob who needs the leadership or headship of his wife, and often even the children are portrayed as wiser and more capable. Modern entertainment often presents men with bad examples which teach a man to be immature and emulate bad character and call that masculinity. The heart is trained and moulded by what is continually fed into the mind and a lot of modern entertainment trains a woman's heart to prefer immature boys in the bodies of adults over respectable Christian gentlemen. For example, all too often the storyline (especially in soap operas and romance novels) is about a man of bad character who just needs the love of a good woman to reform him and make him whole, and women are thus taught to prefer men of bad or questionable character that they hope they can change. This affects men as young men are naturally prone to emulate that to which women are strongly attracted. Thus, the importance of the roles of headship and helpmeet is lost. The entertainment media also promotes feminism through talk shows and pop psychology, and it is amazing that so many are quick to assume that any expert opinion, documentary, or media presentation is an honest, unbiased, and objective viewpoint and above scrutiny.

Patriarchy is not greater than other Bible doctrines, but it is being actively attacked by both unbelievers and professing Christians as a major part of the attack on the family, and this has bred false doctrines and seduced many believers. (Isaiah 3:12; Jeremiah 5:31; 6:10, 16) Have you been affected? You might be surprised. Try applying questions like these to specific beliefs and issues concerning gender roles and distinctions: What does the Bible say about this, and what Bible truths or principles are involved? (Psalm 33:4; 119:105,130; 146:3-6; Proverbs 2:6; 3:5-7; Colossians 2:8; II Timothy 2:14-16; 3:16) Was this true in the distant past and will this still be true in the distant future? (Psalm 33:11; 119:89; Proverbs 19:21; Ecclesiastes 1:9-10; James 1:17) Can you verify this with Scripture, or do you find it necessary to use the arguments of the world to defend or justify your beliefs and choices concerning gender roles and distinctions? (Psalm 33:10; Romans 12:2; I Corinthians 1:20; 2:5; Colossians 1:9; 2:8)

The egalitarian socialism of feminism is a curse. (Isaiah 3:12; Jeremiah 31:22) God designed and ordained the man to be the Lord's representative in the home, church, and society. (I Corinthians 11:3-12; Ephesians 5:23-25; Joshua 24:15; II Samuel 10:12; I Kings 2:2-3; etc....) The man is the image and glory of God in terms of authority while the woman is the glory of man. While both genders are of equal value as persons in creation and redemption, God ordained distinct gender roles for male and female and patriarchy was established in the beginning before sin entered the world and is reaffirmed in the New Testament. (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18; Romans 7:2; I Corinthians 11:3,7-9; Ephesians 5:22-28; I Timothy 2:12,13; I Peter 3:1-6) The God ordained sphere of dominion for a woman is the home and that which is connected to the home; as the helper and representative of her husband (or father, if single), this may include activity in the community. (Genesis 2:18; Proverbs 31:10-31; Titus 2:4-5) Even though an unmarried woman has more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling her exceptional situation of singleness should not redefine the social roles of men and women. (Genesis 2:18; I Timothy 5:14; etc.) Certainly, there are women who are wise and capable, but the issue is not who qualifies, the issue is obedience to the Lord's arrangement and standards. (Psalm 33:4,10-11; Proverbs 2:6; 13:13; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14; Matthew 4:4; II Timothy 2:14-16; 3:16)

It is generally bad for church and society and destructive to relationships when gender distinctions are ignored or confused. (I Corinthians 11:3-12) For example, the Nineteenth Amendment (female suffrage) created a gender gap, encouraged women to transfer dependence from husband or father to the government, encouraged men to neglect or forsake their duties and responsibilities as men, and encouraged grown people of both sexes to act like spoiled teenagers dismissing reality in pursuit of utopian dreams.

It is important to proclaim patriarchy as an essential part of God's design for society and relationships and oppose the anti-family/anti-reproduction/anti-life mindset that is infecting the society in which we live. (Genesis 1:28; 2:18; Psalm 127:3-5; 128:3,4; Proverbs 24:11-12; Jeremiah 29:6; I Corinthians 11:3; I Timothy 4:1-3; 5:14; etc.)

The Connection Between Evangelism and Gender Issues  

Hopelessly Patriarchal

SCIENTIFIC PATRIARCHY

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 

Recommended movies:

Concerns About The Air Force & The United Nations

 

Have you ever considered the possibility the United States Air Force was not formed as a branch of the US Armed Forces separate from the Army & Navy, instead of a component of the US Army, in 1947 for the sake of national security? Have you ever considered that this made as much sense as it would to make the Marine Corps an autonomous military service separate from the Navy instead of a component of the Navy?

 

The National Security Act of 1947 created the Department of the Air Force and established the US Air Force within the Department of the Air Force by transferring the facilities and personnel of the Army Air Forces to the Department of the Air Force. The US Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and thus the Commander in Chief of the Army Air Forces but does not make him Commander in Chief of the US Air Force established within the Department of the Air Force, nor does the US Constitution provide for the Air Force as an autonomous military service separate from the Army and Navy. Why should this be any cause for concern? The Air Force is an autonomous military service separate from the Army and Navy for the sake of the United Nations. Read between the lines: "In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, members shall hold immediately available national air force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined, within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee." (Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 45)

 

The USA being part of the United Nations obligates the USA to support globalism and support any decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations with military force. "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee." (Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 46) "The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council." (Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 49) "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security." (Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, Article 39)

 

Can You Trust The Holy Bible?

 

The Holy Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God, God's message to mankind. Those who do not believe this are challenged to study for themselves and examine the evidence honestly and objectively to see that the Bible is accurate and reliable. Bible-believers should not be afraid to examine the evidence or worry that this will weaken their faith. Examining the evidence will strengthen your faith. (Especially Biblical Creationism and the evidence of the Noachian Deluge.)

This is what we are told to believe instead of the Genesis account of creation: Hydrogen was produced when nothing exploded, then heavier elements were formed when the explosion of hydrogen stars caused hydrogen atoms to jam together, and from these elements stars and galaxies were formed and the whole universe became intricate and ordered by accident. Some exploding stars left a swirling disk of cosmic dust which formed our Solar System with the matter in the center just happening to achieve enough mass to produce nuclear fusion (the Sun) and Earth just happening to be in just the right place for the sustainment of life. Eventually a molten blob (Earth) cooled enough to form water and a chance combination or mixture of chemicals produced a living cell and a series of extremely fortunate events just happened to occur in the right sequence to change that first one-celled organism into modern man and modern animals and plants in defiance of science. In other words: Nothing became hydrogen and hydrogen became people over eons of time.

How well does the theory of evolution harmonize with genuine science? Consider: If Creationism is merely religion and not science because it involves faith, and the Theory of Evolution is genuine science, then what is the hard evidence supporting Evolution that does not have to be accepted by faith? What hard evidence is there that an uncontrolled explosion can produce something as intricate and ordered as the universe? What hard evidence is there that a chance combination or mixture of chemicals can produce a living organism? What is the hard evidence that a series of thousands of extremely fortunate events just happened to occur in the right sequence to change a one-celled organism into modern man and modern animals and plants? What is the hard evidence that any rock, geological stratum, or fossil is millions of years old? How can a mutation result in a change from one species into another since mutations take away from a genetic code but never add to it? How do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the DNA Code Barrier, Gene Depletion, Natural Selection, and Thermodynamics? Why does the theory of evolution lose credibility in the absence of logic fallacies? Basic science relies on observation, fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Observation means describing or measuring what is observed, a fact is based on repeated observations that can be confirmed, a hypothesis is a statement that can be tested so the conclusions or inferences can be explained, a theory is a general explanation into which facts and experimental conclusions can be incorporated, and a Law is a functional generalization that has stood the test of time and is reliable. The theory of evolution relies on these presuppositions: A gradual change over unimaginable eons (many different and often conflicting explanations are offered to explain how), the organizing force for life is internal and dependent of random chance, and time, chance and natural processes are responsible for material reality without intelligent design. The theory of evolution does not meet the requirements of basic science or withstand application of the scientific method that is accepted by evolutionists and used by evolutionists to denounce opposing views (e.g., creationism) as non-science.

Atheism originates in the heart, the emotions, and not in the mind or intellect. (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)

Why do the earth and the universe look so old? God created everything with the appearance of age. For example, when He created man He made a full-grown man and not a baby, when He created fish and fowl He made grown birds and fish and not eggs, etc.…. (Genesis 1)

How could light be produced on the first day if the sun, moon, and stars were not created till the fourth day? We should consider that God is infinite and omnipotent and does not need the sun and stars to provide light. (Consider I John 1:5 & Revelation 22:5) Consider also that verse two and subsequent verses do not indicate or determine whether light had already existed elsewhere or if God removed or changed a condition that prevented light from reaching the globe or regions of the globe. (E.g., dust cloud, rarefraction of gases in the upper atmosphere, change of the polar axis, etc.)

Why is the Genesis account of creation so important? It is not possible to understand Jesus Christ and New Testament teachings without the Old Testament. (John 5:39; II Timothy 3:16) The Bible does not separate the knowledge of God the Redeemer from God the Creator, and the Genesis account shows the depravity of man, the effects of sin, and man's need for atonement. (Consider Romans 5:17-19; I Corinthians 15:45)

To disprove or discredit the Bible, many insist that man has been on the earth longer than six thousand years, but this does not disprove anything. Theories of modern Bible-believers about the time of Adam's creation or the time of the world-wide Deluge could be off by hundreds or thousands of years due to the difference in the way ancient historians recorded genealogies. Ancient Hebrews often listed the most important son or the legal heir first, not necessarily the eldest son. For example, Genesis 11:26 says "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran," but a comparison of Scripture passages reveals that Terah was at 130 years old when Abram was born. (Genesis 11:32; 12:1-4; Acts 7:4) Apparently Genesis 11:26 means that Terah was 70 years old when he begot his sons, of whom Abram was the legal heir or the most important. Modern writers like to include every name in a genealogy, but ancient writers just included the important names and often skipped several generations at a time. For example, Genesis 11:12 says "And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" even though Arphaxad was the grandfather of Salah. (Luke 3:35-36) In listing his own genealogy Ezra gives the names of only sixteen generations between himself and Aaron even though his list covers about a thousand years. Ezra evidently just listed the officially reckonable names. (Ezra 7:1-5) Matthew 1:8 says "Joram begat Ozias," but according to the Old Testament Joram was the great-great-grandfather of Ozias (Uzziah). Matthew evidently means the officially reckonable generations when he speaks of generations. (Matthew 1:17) The original writers and the first readers understood why certain names were included and others were omitted, but we come to wrong conclusions when we assume that Bible writers recorded genealogies like western or modern historians and then interpret their writings accordingly.

Do dinosaur fossils discredit the Genesis account? No. Note that there is no hard evidence that any fossil, rock, or stratum is millions of years old. Scientists have been able to examine the DNA of dinosaur bones and dinosaur bones with rotten flesh have been discovered, which would indicate that the bones are hundreds or thousands and not millions of years old. What happened to dinosaurs? Post-Deluge climatic changes, diseases, insufficient food, and activities of man caused many animals to die out.

Is the Bible scientifically accurate? Certainly, the Bible contradicts numerous theories and opinions held by many scientists, but this does not disprove the Bible, it merely proves that scientists are human after all. When a scientist says that the Genesis account of creation is wrong or that the miracles of the Bible could not happen he is not stating a scientific fact, he is expressing an opinion. Studying and comparing the theory of evolution and the Genesis account of creation reveals that it takes far more faith (or credulity) to believe the theory of evolution than it takes to believe the Genesis account of creation or the miracles of the Bible. Not only is the Bible in harmony with true science, the Bible is scientifically accurate on matters that scientists discovered only later. (Genesis 1:11,21,5; 9:4; Leviticus 11:6; 17:11; Job 19:20; 26:7; 28:2; 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:2; Isaiah 40:22; I Corinthians 15:39)

Consider the Mosaic Law. Moses said the Law came from God. (Deuteronomy 4:7-8, 12, 14) If he had said that the Law came from his own mind that would have really been outrageous. How could his mind have managed to produce the Law? Look at his background. The Law contradicted Egyptian science, medicine, philosophy, and religion. How could Moses have anticipated the discoveries of modern science, medicine, hygiene, conservation, sociology, and economics?

Is the Bible historically accurate? The Bible is filled with references to specific people, places, and events which have been confirmed by secular history and archaeology, and archaeologists continue uncovering more evidence to verify the Bible record. For example, for centuries skeptics pointed to Bible references to the Hittites as evidence of inaccuracy because no evidence of such a people had been discovered, and then in 1906 the Hittite capital was discovered.

We still observe evidence of the Noachian Deluge in mankind's collective memory. A cataclysm like the Noachian Deluge would never be forgotten by the survivors, who would tell their children and their children's children all about the experience. (Genesis 8:15-17) As people scattered abroad it was only natural that stories of the Flood would pass from generation to generation. (Genesis 11:9) The fact that there are stories about an earth wide global destruction of life by water, with a place of refuge for a few survivors, and a seed of mankind preserved, in the traditions and folklore of ancient or primitive peoples the world over is strong proof that those people had a common origin and that their ancestors shared the Flood experience in common. The Flood occurred on the seventeenth day of the second month (Heshvan), which corresponds to November 1. (Genesis 7:11) Various primitive peoples preserved a remnant of traditions about the Flood by observing a 'feast of the ancestors' at this time of year. The Hindus celebrate this festival on the seventeenth day of November, and the Egyptians on the seventeenth day of Athyr (the day they say the Flood began). The Celtic year ended October 31 and November 1 was the Celtic New Year, and the Celtics celebrated the Eve of Samhain, the Celtic Lord of the dead, the evening of October 31, and this is the origin of Halloween in America.

Incidentally, movies and cartoons about Noah’s Ark often depict adult animals in the ark, which is unrealistic. If they were adult animals there would not have been enough room for all of them, but there would have been room for baby animals, and being in darkness would have slowed their growth and kept most of them in hibernation most of the time. (Further research is encouraged.)

The unity and consistency of the Bible is evidence of divine inspiration, which is why skeptics are quick to point out so-called contradictions. Does the Bible contradict itself? It is inevitable that the Word of God will contradict the theories and sentiments of men, and it is easy for man to assume that something is wrong with the Bible because of what is wrong with man. (Psalm 33:10-11; Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 8:7; I Corinthians 3:19; Galatians 5:17) But the Bible does not contradict itself.

Most so-called contradictions are cleared up through further study of the Bible, such as the supposed contradiction between the promise to destroy Israel and the promise to preserve Israel. (Leviticus 26:44; Deuteronomy 28:20) The prophet Amos clears up the misunderstanding: God would destroy the kingdom of Israel and preserve the people of Israel. (Amos 9:8) When the Assyrians conquered the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel they carried its people into captivity and they were never heard from again, and so the ten-tribe kingdom is often called the lost ten tribes. But were the people of Israel lost? After the ten tribes broke away to form the northern kingdom of Israel they lived in idolatry and never had even one godly king. King Baasha fortified the border because the God-fearing people in the northern kingdom wanted to immigrate to the Kingdom of Judah that had the Temple in Jerusalem to preserve true worship. (I Kings 15:17) Over time the God-fearing people in the north migrated to the southern kingdom so that only the dregs of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel were lost. (II Chronicles 15:9; 19:4; 34:9)

Where did Cain get his wife? When Cain went to the land of Nod did he find humans that were not descended from Adam as some speculate? The Bible gives no indication that anyone already dwelt in the land of Nod or that it was called the land of Nod before Cain went there. (Genesis 4:16) Adam had both sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:4) If Cain married his sister would this mean that God condoned sin as some argue? Marriage to a close relative, such as a sister, disrupts the moral and social order of the family as ordained by God but this would not have been a problem for the first generations of mankind. After the first generations it would have been possible to marry a cousin, and marriage between cousins (even first cousins) is not immoral or dangerous.

Numbers used in Scripture often present problems, causing thinking people to look at a text of Scripture and note that the numbers given appear to be unrealistic or contradictory. It must be noted that the ancients often used round numbers in an approximate sense. We still do that to an extent, such as when someone says he just had a two-week vacation or holiday when in fact he had been gone thirteen, fifteen, or sixteen days. For example, in certain contexts dealing with local government, "ten," "fifty," "hundred," and "thousand" were administrative units and not exact numbers, and in the Jewish army a regiment was called a thousand. The English rendering of a word may not always be the only possible rendering, and a closer study of the context and setting is often needed. In English we have many words with multiple definitions which depend on the context in which a word is used, and this was also true of ancient Hebrew and Greek. For example, the Hebrew word for "thousand" (eleph) also means "family" and is translated as "family" in Judges 6:15; the number of Israelites who crossed the Red Sea, and the size of the army of Israel, was possibly much less than what is often assumed.

Some apparent contradictions are due to misunderstandings of idioms. (E.g., Deuteronomy 5:3; Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13; 12:7) Foreigners always have trouble with idioms, and we are the foreigners where the Bible is concerned.

Many apparent contradictions are just a matter of different points of view. Different writers portraying the same things can be expected to describe them differently. Police compare the different accounts of the same event to find similarities as well as discrepancies, because if different witnesses to the same event describe or word everything exactly alike this is a good indication that they conspired together to lie.

Was Ahaziah twenty-two or forty-two when he began to reign? (2 Kings 8:26; 2 Chronicles 22:2) Ahaziah was made king while his father was alive and was confirmed king after his father's death when he was forty-two.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? (2 Kings 24:8; 2 Chronicles 36:9) Jehoiachin became a king with his father when he was eight, but he did not take complete control until he was eighteen.

Did Christ use the term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven? Mark, Luke, and John quote Christ as saying kingdom of God while Matthew usually quotes Christ as saying kingdom of heaven. Christ and His Disciples spoke Aramaic and the four Gospels are written in Greek. The Book of Matthew was written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. The issue was not the exact words used but how to translate those words from Aramaic into Greek, or from Aramaic into Hebrew and then into Greek.

When Christ rode into Jerusalem did the Jews cry hosanna or glory? (Matthew 21:9; Luke 19:38) The Jews probably used the Hebrew word hosanna. But Luke was writing for Greeks, and "glory" is what hosanna meant from a Greek point of view.

When Christ met and healed blind Bartimaeus and his unidentified companion was Christ leaving Jericho or headed for Jericho? (Matthew 20:29-30; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35) At that time Jericho was a double city, and the old Jewish city of Jericho was about a mile from the Roman city of Jericho. Apparently, Matthew and Mark refer to the Jewish city of Jericho while Luke refers to the Roman city of Jericho.

What about the difference in wording of parables that appear in several Gospels? (e.g., the parable of The Sower) Obviously, Christ would have used the same parables on different occasions and worded them differently each time.

Why do the Gospel writers appear to disagree on the wording of the superscription of accusation nailed to the cross of Christ by Pontius Pilate? (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) The superscription was written in three languages, and apparently one writer is giving an exact quote of the Greek inscription while the others are giving translations of the Hebrew inscription or the Latin inscription or possibly a mixture of the two. (John 19:20)

What about the apparent contradictions in the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament? This misunderstanding is due to differences between ancient and modern literary customs. Today we use quotation marks to make a distinction between a direct quotation and an indirect quotation, and we use a row of dots to signify that words were removed to shorten a long quotation. But punctuation was not yet invented when the New Testament was being written. In many cases the writers combined quotation and exposition in one. This was following the literary customs of their day, and their method did have the advantage of using fewer words. First century Christians were accustomed to all this and were much more familiar with Scripture than most modern Christians and needed less explanation.

From beginning to end the Bible claims to be the infallible word of God, and this claim is either true or it is not. If this claim is not true then none of the Bible is reliable, there is no basis for faith, and there is no foundation or support for Christianity. If this claim is true, then Christians are obliged to accept the entire Bible to be what it claims to be, and no compromise is logical or even possible.

We must always remember that any knowledge that any of us has is incomplete and the Holy Bible is the final authority. (I Corinthians 8:2; Psalm 33:4; 119:130; Proverbs 2:3-6; 3:5-7; Jeremiah 9:23-24; II Timothy 2:14-16; 3:16)

 

 

 

 

 

Why you can believe the Bible www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1XJ7DeR5fc

 

Creation Today www.creationtoday.org 

 

Institute For Creation Research www.icr.org

 

Associates For Biblical Research www.biblearchaeology.org 

 

Tornado in a junkyard : the relentless myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff www.archive.org/details/tornadoinjunkyar00perl

 

Why is it important to believe in biblical inerrancy? www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html

 

More Evidence that Dinosaurs and Man Co-existed! www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html

 

Isn’t the King James Bible Too Difficult to Understand? www.wayoflife.org/database/isnt_the_king_james_bible_too_antiquated.html?fbclid=IwAR1KYMMCT6qw1LZMi1e8VC73Cn6opuO3R_7KnnQq0GV83myw25RRcbSk_x4

 

God Wrote Only One Bible God Wrote Only One Bible - Jasper James Ray : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

 

 

Nothing Is Really New, Just Revivals Of The Old

 

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

“The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.” (Psalm 33:11)

Perhaps modernism should be called something else, as modernists (whether secular or religious) never manage to introduce anything that is genuinely new. The Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries provided many examples of ancient paganism being introduced as something new by changing titles and dressing: If a fruit looks, smells, and tastes like an apple it does not become an orange no matter how dogmatically you call it an orange.

The theory of evolution did not originate with modern science, it has been part of pagan religions and occultism for thousands of years.

The New Age Movement is merely a revival of ancient paganism.

Humanism is a revival of the pagan concept of the godhood of man.

Socialism is often applied as communism or fascism; the difference between communism and fascism being that communism is a theory or system of ownership of all property by the state, and fascism allows private ownership of property while the state maintains control of property. Socialism makes man (corporate man, the state) the measure of all things and the standard of truth and is merely a modern version of ancient paganism.

Feminism is not new. The historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament mention this form of paganism corrupting God's people.

Abortion is the sacrifice of a living child to the god of self, and who is the god of self, the god of the flesh? The Devil. Abortion, and the pro-choice movement, is a form of Devil worship. (Psalm 106:37-38) Incidentally, murder is always a “choice.”

For a long time liberals have referred to immoral trends (e.g., acceptance of promiscuity, illicit cohabitation, open marriage, homosexuality, etc.) as the "new morality." The irony is that whenever anthropologists study primitive pagan people who have been isolated from society and Christian influence for centuries they usually find that the so-called new morality has already been their culture for centuries. The "new morality" is merely a revival of ancient pagan philosophy and licentiousness. The Old Testament moral laws were initially addressed to Israelites who came out of Egypt, a wicked and sex-crazed society, and were headed to another land inhabited by a wicked and sex-crazed society, and we also read of times in the Old Testament when widespread licentiousness was a problem in Israel and Judah. Most New Testament books were initially written to first century Christians living in a sex-crazed society. Let's not pretend that widespread licentiousness is somehow unique to the time and the society in which we live or a "sign of the times".

More examples could be given, but these should suffice for now.

It is ironic when liberals refer to conservatives as old-fashioned.

Judgement Must Begin At The House Of God

 

"Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (I Samuel 2:22)

When Eli's sons were practicing vice, theft, and fornication, Eli mildly rebuked his sons but he did not oust them from office or otherwise hold them accountable, and through such negligence Eli shared the sins of his sons and was guilty of honouring his sons above God. (I Samuel 2: 27-30) The Eli Syndrome has infected many churches and is destroying Christian influence and soul winning power. Often people in church leadership and teaching positions who set a bad example or teach damnable heresies are not held accountable. Vice, sexual immorality, fraudulent business practices, and rebellious youths often go on unaddressed and unrebuked. Ministers and counselors often make a point of befriending and rewarding the unruly, the rebels, and the infidels while neglecting the dedicated believers. The rebellious, unruly, and incorrigible are often rewarded with activities and recreation in order to keep them, hoping that pacifying and pampering them will save them and expecting that we can somehow win competing against the world when it comes to fun and thrills while assuming that a little leaven will have no negative affect.

A censorious spirit is wrong and must be avoided. (Isaiah 29:20-21; Matthew 7:4) We must avoid being against so much that we are not for anything or become guilty of putting pet theories and preferences above God’s Word. (Romans 14:1,7-12; II Timothy 2:14-15) In dealing with the sins of others it is important to recognize one’s own humanness. (Galatians 6:1; Isaiah 42:19) God always wants to forgive more than we want to be forgiven, and we should reflect that attitude. (Psalm 103:8-14; Romans 5:8) For example, note in II Corinthians 12:21 that the main concern is not whether any church members have sinned but whether those who sinned have repented. But we must be careful to maintain a balance between compassion in reconciling people to the fold and that of overlooking unrepentant sin, and we must promote and reward the faithful. (I Corinthians 5:12; II Corinthians 13:2; I Timothy 5:20; I Peter 4:17)

When Christians Sin 

12 Reasons Churches Don't Practice Church Discipline, by Chuck Lawless

Dealing With Sinning Christians: An Overview of Church Discipline

Old-Fashioned Values

 

Sex in modern music is not the real issue, the problem is the portrayal or description. In decades past parents had concerns about the sensuality in the music of Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, and The Beatles, but at least those musicians did sing about love, affection, tenderness, and commitment, which is preferable to the cold and demeaning (and sometimes violent or sadistic) sensuality pervading modern music.

Sex and violence in modern movies and TV is not the problem, the problem is the portrayal. Many classic movies and TV shows had as much (or more) sex and violence as modern movies and TV shows, but the portrayal was different. For example, in "Gone With The Wind," when Rhett Butler picked up Scarlett O’Hara and carried her up the stairs most knew what was about to happen next and the scene about the morning after made it obvious what had happened the night before, but a child in the audience too young and innocent to understand wouldn’t figure it out based on what was shown. Many classic war movies showed a lot of violence without violence for the mere sake of violence. (Incidentally, these were examples of how Christian influence can and did change things for the better. In the 1920s songs with sexually explicit lyrics were broadcast over radio during the day, and regular movie houses showed movies which featured immorality and full nudity, and some that portrayed homosexuality as acceptable, and a six-year-old with the price of admission was legally free to watch. What happened? In short, Christians took a stand and required standards. Later, in 1939 “Gone With The Wind” was almost considered too risqué to be allowed in regular theatres because of one bad word and a scene in which a husband picked up his wife and carried her upstairs to their bedroom. Think about it.)

It wasn't that long ago that a woman could breastfeed her baby in public without stigma or negative reactions, but pornography was not readily available. Today pornography is readily available on Main Street, at the gas station, on TV, and on the internet, while many think a mother should be ashamed to feed her baby as God designed because they don't know the difference between a mother nursing her baby and a harlot exposing herself. In the 1940s and `50s teenagers smoked cigarettes, but at the same time unwed pregnancy was disgraceful, abortion was an abomination and a crime, and homosexuality was a sexual perversion. Today we segregate smokers and put a sin tax on cigarettes, unwed pregnancy is not viewed as a social malady while teenage pregnancy is considered a crisis, in some States abortion is protected as a legal right, and homosexuality is considered a preference, an alternate lifestyle, and a civil right. (I am not condoning tobacco, just illustrating how our priorities and values have changed.)

What happened? In the ecclesiastical world Bible truths and standards were disregarded or rejected as irrelevant and old-fashioned and as the ecclesiastical world compromised Bible truths and principles the secular world followed. As Christians compromised truths and values to gain the love or acceptance of the world they lost respect and influence.

While it may not be intended as such, it can be taken as complimentary when someone says you are old-fashioned because of your beliefs and values: While trends and technology change continually, truth does not, and the truth will inevitably be considered old or old-fashioned. (Psalm 33:10-11; Proverbs 19:21; Ecclesiastes 1:9-10; James 1:17)

It is amazing how so many professed Christians so readily accept an unscriptural or anti-biblical teaching or theory as truth merely because it is considered new or modern or is endorsed by the world and how easily they dismiss a Bible teaching or standard as wrong or irrelevant if it is considered old-fashioned or unpopular. (Consider Proverbs 2:6; 3:5-7; Isaiah 55:8-9; Jeremiah 6:10, 16, 19; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8) The Bible provides guidance in every area of human existence and applying Bible teachings benefits both believers and unbelievers; the important difference is that for the unbeliever the Word of God is convicting and for the believer the Word of God is cleansing. While specific rules of necessity require periodic alterations and additional rules because of differing cultures and changing technology, the Bible teaches truths and principles that apply to every generation and culture. (Psalm 33:4, 10-11; 119:89, 152; Ecclesiastes 1:9-10; II Timothy 3:16)

Many dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant, which is a mistake. It is not possible to understand the New Testament without the Old Testament. For example, suppose a pastor were caught in the sex act with an animal and the church decided to dismiss him because a pastor must be blameless. What would be the charge? Fornication is clearly condemned in the New Testament but the English word fornication, and the Greek word porneia which is rendered fornication in the English text, simply means sexual immorality. How can bestiality and other immoral sex acts be identified as immoral using only the New Testament? Without the Old Testament the word fornication becomes vague and indistinct. Insisting that the Old Testament is irrelevant and that we only need the New Testament encourages and reinforces myths and heresies.

Do Old Testament laws have any relevance today? Yes. The laws are based on truths and principles, and while the application of the truths and principles may change those truths and principles are eternal. The Law awakened conscience and disciplined moral faculties. The ancient Israelites were like an heir being trained and prepared with a view toward adoption. (Galatians 4:1-5) Just as the head of a household must set standards for his family, God set standards to preserve His truths and principles, protect His people from evil influences, and distinguish them from the heathen; also, the Law, God's standards of righteousness, made the sinful carnal adamic nature manifest, thus showing the need for redemption and a redeemer. (Psalm 119:142; Romans 3:20; 3:31; 5:20; 7:7; Galatians 3:19, 24; I Timothy 1:9) The Law will always stand as God's standards of righteousness but the Law itself had no saving power. (Romans 3:31; 7:12; I Timothy 1:8; Psalm 119:142) Everyone is obligated to obey God. (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14) The Bible does not teach equality of sins; this can be seen in the differences in the severity of penalties prescribed in the Old Testament. However, one sin or violation of one law is sufficient to make one guilty before God and break fellowship with God. (James 2:10) How many sins did Adam & Eve have to commit to be expelled from Paradise? (One.) Everyone will be judged by works. (John 5:28-29; Revelation 20:11-13) But good deeds, good works, or right living cannot and will not save anyone. (Isaiah 64:6; II Corinthians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:8-9) Teaching God's holy law (standards of righteousness) is needful so that fallen men can see themselves as sinners in need of a savior. The Law served to manifest the sinful nature, man's depravity, and to pronounce everyone guilty before God and thus demonstrate the need for redemption and a mediator. (Romans 3:19-20; 7:7, 12-14; 8:3-4; Galatians 3:19, 24; I Timothy 1:9-11; Hebrews 7:19)

While the New Testament teaches a different application of grace, the New Testament echoes the truths taught in the Old Testament, reaffirms the moral principles or standards of the Old Testament, and you cannot understand the New Testament without the Old Testament. (Consider Acts 24:14; Romans 3:31; II Timothy 2:15; 3:16) For example, salvation has always been through blood, starting with the blood that was shed for Adam and Eve: Making a coat of skin required the slaughter of an animal. (Genesis 3:21) Abel sacrificed animals while Cain offered the product or fruit of his labors, and Abel's offering was respected. (Genesis 4:3-5; incidentally, Genesis 4 gives the first account of a liberal attacking a conservative.) The blood of animals prefigured the blood of Christ. Old Testament saints looked forward to the Cross and New Testament saints look back to the Cross. (Hebrews 10:1-12)

The Natural Use Of Women

 

Matriarchy and feminist egalitarianism are curses, not blessings. “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” (Isaiah 3:12) “How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.” (Jeremiah 31:22) “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” (Romans 1: 26) It is generally bad on church and society and destructive to relationships when gender distinctions are ignored or confused.

The movement to confuse the sexes and gender roles is not new and has always depended on lies, deception, delusions, and misleading propaganda:

·        When the US government started enlisting women in the armed forces in 1942, WACs and WAVES did jobs previously handled by civilian employees of the armed forces and the difference was the uniforms. Even today, the truth about women in the military is kept under wraps because disclosure of the whole story could incite public outcry against putting women in the armed forces. (Further research is strongly encouraged.)

·        For decades feminists have vilified feminine women and masculine men and (along with other social engineers) demanded that society and government ignore reality, support delusions, and enforce egalitarian socialism.

·        The media promotes distorted and evil values and philosophies through talk shows and pop psychology.

·        Movies and TV shows often portray different versions of the story of a husband that is such an inept boob that the wife is compelled to assume leadership in the home, and it is not unusual for the entertainment media to portray the children in a family as wiser than the husband and father.

·        Movies and TV shows (and romance novels) often portray different versions of the story of a man of bad character or extreme immaturity that just needs the love of a good woman to reform him, convert him, or make him whole.

·        Movies and TV shows often portray different versions of the story of a wife that divorces her husband because everything is not going exactly her way, or because she meets a wonderful man, and goes on to have a great career and a fulfilling life or a better marriage.

·        Movies and TV shows often portray different versions of the story of a woman of bad character or extreme immaturity that is either an ideal wife or a good example for adult women to emulate or both.

·        The theory that egalitarian partnership is the key to domestic tranquility and marital happiness has been a recurring theme in movies and TV shows for a long time. Replacing patriarchal marriage with egalitarian partnership creates dissatisfaction and frustration for both husbands and wives by denying a woman's natural need for a father-figure and a man's need to feel respected. Biblical patriarchy appeals to a man's need for respect and thus compels a man to love, cherish, and please a woman, and encourages a woman to respect a man by appealing to her need for love, affection, and esteem. While feminism pits husband and wife against each other, biblical patriarchy compels a husband and wife to complement and depend on each other. God's design for communities, organizations, and the family is hierarchy with a balance between equality of being and functional subordination.

·        Encouraging women to transfer dependence from husband or father to the government encouraged men to neglect or forsake their duties and responsibilities as men and encouraged grown people of both sexes to act like spoiled children dismissing reality in pursuit of utopian dreams.

·        The theory that illicit cohabitation is a good recipe for domestic tranquility and marital happiness has been a recurring theme in movies and TV shows for a long time, even though couples that live together before marriage usually end up divorced and a woman shacking up with a man without wedlock is far more likely to suffer domestic abuse than a married woman.

·        For decades feminists and the liberal media have encouraged women to trade their complementary role for equality and mimic the sexual attitudes, behaviour, and aggressiveness of men. In this way women relinquished their natural power as the civilizing and stabilizing influence over men that God designed them to be. While immodesty and promiscuity make women cheap and disposable and encourage abuse, raising women to the status of moral superiority over men compels men to respect women. Promiscuity reduces the female body to a worthless trinket and gives women the same status as community towels instead of compelling men to cherish women.

·        Feminists and the liberal media continually portray male conveniences as advantages for women: Artificial insemination reduces women to the status of incubators and eliminates paternal responsibility. Birth control diminishes the necessity of commitment and stability in a relationship. Abortion eliminates the responsibilities of fatherhood while leaving women physically and emotionally scarred, while respect for life encourages commitment. Feminism makes abortion, birth control, and other male conveniences important to discourage female inhibition and encourage licentiousness and thus supposedly empower women (and merely fulfill male fantasies and accommodate the baser instincts of men), while biblical patriarchy condemns such practices which tend to degrade women and reduce or eliminate male responsibilities.

·        What is the hard evidence that male and female think and feel the same about sex? The myth about male and female sexual equality has made women more vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and neglect. While each gender has just as strong a libido as the other, and both sexes desire sex and affection, their responses and priorities tend to differ. Normally, men trade affection for sex and women trade sex for affection.

·        What is the hard evidence that differences between the sexes are only physical?

·        Movies and TV shows in which the only white male that appears to be normal or a gentleman is homosexual, or in which same-sex couples appear to have better relationships, helped convince many that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable.

·        We do not see or hear much, if anything, about the homophobia, violence, domestic abuse, and infidelity within the homosexual community even though a homosexual is more likely to be murdered or assaulted by a homosexual than a heterosexual, a homosexual is more likely to suffer domestic abuse than a heterosexual, and people in same-sex marriages are more likely to commit adultery than married heterosexuals.

·        What is the hard evidence that there is such a thing as homosexual orientation?

·        What is the hard evidence that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic?

·        What is the hard evidence that homosexuality is an inherited trait and not distorted love needs?

More examples could be given, but these should suffice for now.

The natural use of the woman is that of helpmeet for the man. (Genesis 2:18-24) God designed the man to be the Lord's representative in the home and society and designed the woman for the complementary role. The Bible teaches both functional subordination and equality of being; while both genders are of equal value as persons in creation and redemption, the man is the image and glory of God in terms of authority and the woman is the glory of man. God ordained distinct gender roles for male and female, and patriarchy was established in the beginning before sin entered the world and is reaffirmed in the New Testament. (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18; Romans 7:2; I Corinthians 11:3-12; Ephesians 5:22-28; I Timothy 2:12-13; Titus 2:3-4; I Peter 3:1-6) Replacing patriarchal marriage with egalitarian partnership, women becoming warriors or soldiers, and women otherwise working alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion is changing the natural use of women. (Genesis 1:18; I Corinthians 11:8-9; I Timothy 5:14)