Liberalism, Conservatism and Christianity

Liberalism

Conservatism

Christianity

Abortion

Most liberals are pro-choice. In fact for many liberal feminist groups, this is their core issue far more than anything else. This helps to explain why so many feminists not only disagree with Sarah Palin, but they despise her.

Conservatives are generally pro-life. This has been a point of debate among Republicans (some do not like have social issues as a part of the Republican platform). Conservatives, on the other hand, are more agreed on this issue and are very anti-abortion.

Because abortion was not really an issue when the Bible was written, some think that the Bible is silent on this issue. Ex. 21:22–25 present a situation where a child is caused to be aborted and punishment is assessed, depending upon the outcome.

The general belief of many Christians is, God breathes life into each person at birth. However, even many Christians who believe this also believe in respecting this entire gestation process designed by God.

The abortion issue is nearly always presented dishonestly by the left. They will cite cases of rape and incest to support the woman’s right to choose between killing or not killing the baby (fetus) in her; however, in any given year, virtually every child is aborted for the convenience of the parents. Abortions from rape and incest make up 1–3% of the abortions at the very most. This is very common for liberals to sell their ideology based upon a tiny percentage. They will also cite back alley abortions and coat hanger abortions, which, again, represented only a tiny percentage of pregnancy terminations, when abortion was generally illegal. See The Bible and Abortion: The Exegesis of Exodus 21:22–25 in the Addendum.

Let me also offer the argument that, if you are not 100% convinced that you know exactly when a fetus becomes human, then you ought to err on the side of life. One of the fascinating contradictions on the liberal side is, people can argue theologically that a child is fully human at conception or at birth, but liberals do not have that luxury (unless they are Christian). But from a biological standpoint—apart from any religious view—the fetus is completely human and completely defined biologically as a human being at conception. The building plans (the DNA) are defined at that moment. Therefore, those who do not believe in God have to ignore their own god, science, in order to take the position that every woman ought to be able to abort her fetus if she so desires. Or they must resort to a philosophical argument that the fetus has less inherent value than that of a baby. However, that is simply not science.

The argument that a child is not independent in the womb does not hold water, because no child outside of the womb is independent either. The argument that the mother can do with her body whatever she wants is also unsound. Biologically speaking, the fetus inside the mother is a different DNA than the mother and all of his or her physical characteristics have already been determined. Therefore, although dependent upon the mother, the fetus is a different person altogether, biologically speaking. That child can have a different blood type, a different hair color, different eye color, a different gender and he or she can even have a different body type from the mother. So, despite the DNA contribution of the mother, her child is a different person, genetically speaking, from the moment of conception. From a purely biological standpoint, it is hard to argue that a mother’s abuse to a fetus (aborting and killing it) is substantively different than a mother killing her child at age one.

Liberals often offer up education as a solution for many problems; however, in the realm of abortion, most liberals disapprove of providing additional information to those who are thinking about having an abortion. Conservatives have suggested that an abortion candidate ought to see an ultrasound of their growing child prior to making a decision to abort; and conservatives believe that all of the alternatives to killing the fetus be explained to the expectant mother. Conservatives would like such mothers to perhaps hear some of the philosophical arguments or see a video of children whose mothers decided not to abort them. Places like Planned Parenthood get money based upon the abortions that they do, so they don’t want any of this information being offered to mothers-to-be.

Anti-Semitism

Although liberals do not see themselves as anti-Semitic, many believe that Palestinians have just as much right to that tiny piece of land as Israelis do (and many liberals believe the Palestinians are the rightful owners of that land).

Conservatives recognize Israel as the greatest ally that the United States has in the Middle East, and see Israel as important an ally as Great Britain, South Korean and Japan. Many conservatives see the Palestinians as the cause of most of their own problems.

God warns all of mankind that He will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews (Gen. 12:2–3). God gave that particular plot of ground to Israel millennia ago (Gen. 12:7 13:14–17).

Atheism

Percentage-wise, atheists are more likely to be liberals. Washington state is often associated with liberalism and huge pockets of atheism.

There is a higher correlation between faith in God and conservative values; as in the religious right.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1a).

Although I have not seen any recent statistics, a Gallup poll from 2004–2007 66% of Republicans who believe religion is very important; and 57% of Democrats who believe this (I would have thought a much larger gap than this).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27889/Abiding-Relationship-Republicans-Religion.aspx

Change

Until communism or socialism has been instituted in a country, the left seems to be in a constant uproar of demanding change and progression in that direction.

Whatever change is desired, to move toward the right, is often done in small increments, so that things are not dramatically upset.

The Bible recommended to the believers in Corinth that ought not to look to make great changes in their personal lives (1Cor. 7:5–40). This would suggest that, when a believer can affect political change, that ought not to be taken lightly nor approached boldly.

This was an issue portrayed very dishonestly in our presidential election of 2008. Unless one followed the election carefully, it was never clear what sort of change candidate Barack Obama was offering (apart from bipartisanship, more openness from Washington, and less corruption). No one expected a government takeover of a car company, portions of the insurance industry, the medical sector, 90–95% of home mortgages and virtually 100% of school loans (which things may have pleased the far left, but were a surprise to the many moderates who voted for Obama).

Climate Change

Liberals are extremely worried that we will destroy the planet by putting too much CO₂ into the atmosphere.

Some conservatives believe that climate change is occurring (well, obviously, it is occurring); but few attribute this to man’s doing.

Although the Bible clearly encourages man to change and manipulate his environment; there is no indication in the Bible that God is worried that man will destroy the planet. Although it is not out of the question that some things in Revelation are a result of man’s doing, the book is a prophecy, not a warning. Furthermore, when the Bible prescribes action that should be taken, it is related to our thinking, to our relationship with God, and our moral actions.

See Global Warming.

Conservation and Nature

Liberals believe in conservation and nature. Those are the far left will place it on a scale equivalent to or above man.

Although most conservatives believe in and enjoy conservation and nature (and many love to hunt when in nature), there is no confusion with one’s scale of values when comparing nature and man—man is far more important.

God gave man control over all nature. We are not subservient to nature; nature is subservient to us (Gen. 1:28). There is no such thing as animal rights in the Bible (and certainly not, animal rights lawyers). God had men sacrificing innocent animals simple to illustrate a spiritual point.

It should not require a great deal of thought to realize that, having clean air and water is beneficial to mankind overall, and that there is a tradeoff when it comes the production of goods and the environment. The believer, in charge of his environment, determines the tradeoff. This in no way means that reducing CO₂ in the atmosphere is good for the planet, as it is not poisonous and it is good for plants.

In California, which has become one of the great liberal bastions of the United States, killing one’s own human fetus is not just legal, but seen as a civil right. I know Californian women who vote Democratic for this reason alone. They want all women to have the right to abort their own child. However, if you destroy the egg of a bald eagle, expect to do jail time. This is their scale of values.

On a related matter, if a conservative saw the faithful family dog and a stranger drowning, and he could only save one, the choice is easy and obvious. This would pose a moral dilemma for many (not all) liberals.

The Death Penalty (Capital Punishment)

Liberals are against the death penalty, and they give several reasons: (1) It is inhuman; (2) It does not deter; and (3) Innocent lives are taken.

Those who support the death penalty tend to be conservative, believing that it does deter evildoing. Many conservatives believe that there is too long a period of time between the commission of a serious crime and execution of the criminal.

Furthermore, the execution of a criminal insures that he will not murder again.

Rom. 13:3–4 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. The sword is used for executions.

I should add that, throughout the Mosaic Law, criminal acts and their punishment are clearly defined, and the Bible sets forth the death penalty for a great many acts of evil. A list of the acts can be found at the Christian Bible Reference Site. Although I hesitate to offer Wikipedia as a reference, they also have an article on the required use of the death penalty in the Old Testament. Got Questions.org has a better article when it comes to capital punishment and the New Testament.

The Bible even speaks to the issue of not carrying out the final sentence in a timely fashion. Eccles. 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil.

Education

Liberals tend to favor free education, often including free day care, going back as young as is possible. They tend to be against private schools and home schooling. Many liberals would like to see college made free to all. Most liberals oppose the teaching of the Bible in any public school.

Activist liberals understand that, you can reach and mold the minds of children using public education. The further back education goes, the easier this is to do.

Originally, schools in the United States were established to teach the Bible and to train up pastors and missionaries.

Conservatives often favor home schooling or private schools because (1) they do a better job than public schools; (2) they do it for far less money; and (3) there is less likely to be agenda-driven curriculum in a private or home school (e.g., an introduction to homosexuality via sex education or a bullying program). .

The Old Testament places a great deal of emphasis upon parents teaching their children the Law of Moses (Deut. 6:6–9). There is no public education of any sort presented in the Bible. It is clear that men like Paul, Solomon and Moses were very well-educated.

This is an area where many conservatives and Christians abdicated their responsibility. When the schools began to promise, “We’ll teach your children sex education;” many parents of all stripes breathed a quiet, collective sign of relief, because, what is more embarrassing than to talk to your own kid about sex? However, this was the camel’s nose under the tent for liberals. Many schools now, as a part of sex education—and this goes back to junior high school and younger—teach the 3 kinds of sexual intercourse. That is, homosexual anal sex (which is unhealthy and dangerous) is taught as normal and equivalent to heterosexual union.

Today, in some schools, in 2015, questioning one’s own gender is presented as normal and it is encouraged.

What is being taught (graphic); from watchdog.org; accessed October 4, 2015.

Eminent Domain

Some liberals favor government coming in, by eminent domain, taking land from one entity and giving it to another who can be taxed more for that same land.

Conservatives are morally pained when the government takes a piece of land from a private citizen and then give it to a corporation which may start a business on the same land, producing more taxes.

When Israel took the land of Palestine, one of the most important things to be done next was to divide the land up between the tribes. The buying and selling of land is presented throughout the Old and New Testaments. Joshua 13–20 .

Conservatives certainly understand that, when building something which are going to be used by a vast number of people (e.g., a road or freeway), eminent domain is generally seen as reasonable.

Environmentalism

Although there have been environmentalists on the left and the right, liberals have championed environmentalism louder and have taken it further than have conservatives.

A slight increase in CO₂ is considered to be pollution by most liberals.

Conservatives like clean water and clean air. They don’t want to go to a beach covered in tar.

Most conservatives do not consider CO₂ to be a dangerous gas.

God gave man control over the earth and was told to subdue it (Gen. 1:28). In other words, we are not subservient to the earth, but we are to do with it what we will.

This was quite apparent by the various demonstrations which occurred in Washington D.C. in 2009 and 2010. In gatherings of liberals—who are generally identified with the environmental movement—there was generally a huge mess left behind (papers and trash were simply thrown on the ground). Conservative TEA party demonstrations, while being larger and with a less centralized organization at the top, left the Washington grounds virtually spotless. In fact, these rallies of conservatives shamed a later rally (the restoration to sanity rally) to make certain that the grounds got picked up, after the attendees left. However, organizers were the ones who took upon themselves this responsibility; it was not inherent in those who attended.

Subduing the earth would include making an environment in which we want to live. This would include building, farms, houses, roads, cars to drive on these roads, gas to put in those cars, etc.

In central California, water has been shut off to farms in this area because it is believed that continuation of water provision is going to possibly destroy the delta smelt in that area. Generally speaking, liberals like such bureaucratic decisions (this was done by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation) and conservatives do not. Although conservatives would like to see the preservation of all animals, they do not want any particular area throw into a depression in order to preserve a small fish (and it is questionable whether this preserves the delta smelt, as these farmers have been irrigating with this water for decades and the smelt is still there).

There are many scientists who believe that CO₂ has actually been helpful to the earth’s environment. This, of course, is a subject of debate.

Plant Growth and CO₂ Graphic from Plants Need CO₂; accessed October 4, 2015.

Evolution

Liberals tend to believe that we evolved from primates, which evolved ultimately by water and chemicals which was possibly struck by lightning or something.

Many conservatives believe that we are ultimately created by God. I personally believe that God created mankind directly, as is found in the Gen. 1–2. Many conservatives believe in theistic evolution, which teaches that Gen. 1–2 is not to be taken literally, but that this simply is evolution divided into its various stages.

If one takes the Bible literally, then God literally created Adam and the woman and placed them into His garden. Prior to the fall, there is no indication of death and there is no suggestion of some type of evolution in the early chapters of Genesis. Gen. 1–2

Clearly, there are liberals who believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve and Conservatives who are atheistic. Many who believe in creationism were not simply so brainwashed by their parents. I, like many other Christians, came to this viewpoint having been raised to believe first in evolution and then later in theistic evolution (both concepts I have since rejected). See Some Arguments Against Evolution in the Addendum below.

Ape to Man Graphic; from telegraph.co.uk; accessed October 4, 2015. This image (and ones like it) is the most iconic evolution image, found in millions of textbooks and museums. Even evolutionists disagree with a chimp (which is what the first creature looks like) evolving into a man, however.

The Family Unit

The left often denigrates the basic, natural family unit or tries to replace it with something else (gay marriage, the state, the school system). Liberals will disparage marriage, citing dishonest divorce rates. They will fight to have food stamps or school meals as being the primary source of food for the family. They will claim that gay couples raise children every bit as well as the natural parents do.

Conservatives usually have great respect for the family unit, and see it as far superior to other ways of bringing up children.

Marriage is the 3^rd divine institution; and family is the 4^th divine institution. God designed the family to be the basic building block of society. It is in the family unit that training, education and discipline all take place.

Free Speech, Free Press

Liberals believe in a government supported press, like NPR. President Obama attacked FoxNews as not really a news organization on several occasions.

When conservatives say something which can be attacked, liberals will use the internet and often go after sponsors in order to remove that voice from the airways.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Those on the right believe in a free press and believe that the press ought to vigorously challenge all of those in power, from either party, knowing that power and money corrupts people of all beliefs.

On many occasions, the prophets of the Old Testament challenged the kings and their behavior—usually directly to their faces in their courts.

The challenge to authority also occurred in the New Testament as well, as John the Baptizer challenged one of the Herod’s and his second marriage (Mark. 6:14–29).

So there is no misunderstanding, there has never been a movement in the Bible in favor of free speech and free press, but prophets and other believers challenge political authority on many occasions.

Gay Rights, Homosexuality

Gay relationships are fundamentally no different from heterosexual ones. Homosexuality is not a sin.

Most conservatives do not want to see any sort of a gay agenda or gay sexuality introduced into the public education system at any age. Gay relationships are not equivalent to marriage. There is some toleration for private homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is a sin. The Bible does not promote homosexuality nor does it tolerate it. There is no such thing as gay marriage or gay relationships in the Bible. Gen. 19:1–7 Lev. 18:22 Rom. 1:24–27 1Cor. 6:9 1Tim. 1:10 Jude 7

It is not up to the Christian to reform society. This is outside of our area of responsibilities. Whereas, we ought to be in favor of Biblical morality and vote that way (where voting is a part of the national responsibility), it is not our job to spend our lives reforming society. In fact, if a non-committed parent happens to accidentally comes upon a gay pride parade with his child, and there are floats where men are simulating intercourse with other men, and men dressed up in very peculiar ways (Deut. 22:5), this sometimes makes a parent think about church and morality and right and wrong. When confronting such obscenity head-on with one’s own child, sometimes issues and choices become more clear. See the Doctrine of Homosexuality (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) for further details.

2014 Gay Parade Photo from Fagabond.com; accessed October 4, 2015.

Global Warming

Many liberals believe that this is the defining issue of this century, and if we don’t start changing the light bulbs in our houses, start driving electric cars (or use public transportation) and severely taxing energy consumers, then we will all die because of global warming and we will destroy the earth.

Most conservatives either do not believe in global warming or they do not believe that man is a significant cause of global warming.

On the other hand, conservatives often enjoy and support clean water and clean air.

Although God does speak of the earth wearing out, God will be the One to replace it with a new heavens and a new earth. Isa. 51:6 65:17 66:22 Rev. 21:1–2

Government Regulations

The government ought to provide great oversight and regulation.

The government ought to be limited in its authority over private businesses.

Although there were some regulations in the Pentateuch, they were quite limited.

Conservatives like to point to the SEC and Bernie Madoff, who took money from investors and pretended to invest it, but really spent it. The Securities Exchange Commission is oversight provided by the government in order to protect people from having people like Madoff steal from them. The SEC received numerous inquiries and complaints about Madoff from legitimate and well- known investors and economists. Madoff ran his Ponzi scheme for about 2 decades without investigation or interference by the SEC. Over the past few years, it has come out that a number of people in the SEC spend much of their company time surfing internet porn. Most of them got of with reprimands. In the private sector, they would have been fired so quickly, their heads would spin.

Bernie Madoff Graphic from FoxNews.com; accessed October 4, 2015.

It is very important to a private business to maintain a good reputation. If 2 or 3 people pick up a hamburger at MacDonald’s and die from eating them; that is problematic for MacDonald’s and they lose millions of dollars. Even though WalMart and Home Depot are dedicated to providing products at low prices, if these products are taken home and they fall apart, shoppers will stop going to these places. Proctor and Gamble were rumored to have some kind of connection with Satanism (this is a false rumor), and their business suffered greatly as a result. Therefore, most businesses self-regulate.

Housing in Texas and in California are good examples of little or no regulation versus heavy regulation. One can build a house in Texas sometimes without any state, county or city inspections. In California, it is typical to have 5 or more inspections (I have heard of as many as 10 inspections on one renovation project). In general, construction in California houses is superior to that in Texas; however, houses in Texas tend to be more affordable. Do people take advantage of this? Of course. I know one builder (not personally, but I have spoken to him on the phone) who built about 20 or so shoddy houses, with all kinds of problems. He was looking to make a quick buck. He did. However, he owns a lot of land where he built these shoddy houses and I can guarantee you that he is unlikely to build any more houses, shoddy or not (he was out of that business for about 10 years). He got away with this simply because of the market being what it was (artificially inflated due to government action). The end result was, his homes were abandoned, and fell to a legitimate price, just as houses throughout California suffered a more dramatic drop in value. Had the buyers of these houses been educated to recognizing that they needed an inspection, they would have been advised against buying these homes. Most business owners do not want to simply make a quick buck. Most business owners want their products to be praised and exalted, which allows them to make a lot of money over the long haul.

Picture of Faulty Roof from StructureTech1.com; accessed October 4, 2015. He writes: When valleys dump next to a wall, or even worse, in to the back side of brick veneer siding, you’re asking for trouble. These roofs are designed to fail.

Guantanamo Bay Prison for Enemy Combatants

Those held in Guantanamo Bay do not belong there, for the most part. They need lawyers and trials and most ought to be released (at least this was the attitude during much of the presidency of George W. Bush). It was widely believed that we simply picked up scads of people who were in the wrong place and the wrong time and we threw them into Guantanamo Bay prison. Therefore, this off-shore war prison needs to be shut down.

Much of the attitude of the left concerning Guantanamo Bay has to do with the idea that they believe that acts of violence committed by Islamic radicals ought to be treated as a law-enforcement issue, including violence on the battlefield.

Many believe that the existence of Guantanamo Bay prison is a recruiting tool for radical Islam.

Most conservatives believe that Guantanamo Bay Prison (affectionately known as Club Gitmo) is the perfect solution for our current conflict with radical Islam. Most have no problem with those taken in war spending the rest of their natural lives at Club Gitmo, until radical Islamic attacks subside (which could take hundreds of years).

The idea of systematically freeing numbers of Guantanamo Bay prisoners so that they return to the battlefield is anathema to almost all conservatives.

Some, like myself, believe that Guantanamo Bay Prison is too easy on its prisoners and too accommodating toward their religion. If the practice of radical Islam got them to this point, then allowing them to continue practicing this religion is a mistake.

Incarceration, although found in the Bible (Gen. 39–41 Judges 16:21, 25 Matt. 25:26 Acts 5:16–25), is not found, to the best of my knowledge, in the Mosaic Law. Many of infractions of the Law resulted in death, a monetary payment or temporary enslavement. However, there is nothing in the Bible which specifically forbids or discourages imprisonment (and if anyone could have written negatively about imprisonment, Paul could have).

When dealing with war with a nation, David killed ⅔^rds of their soldiers; when dealing with a revolution, David’s top general, Joab, killed all of their leaders and many of the revolutionaries. In some instances, God prescribed total destruction of some groups of people.

Although Jesus certainly told His followers to “Love your enemies;” the context was clearly not that of national security, but of personal affronts. President Obama’s obsequiousness toward Islam and yet his angry rhetoric toward conservatives (calling us hostage takers) has the Biblical approach exactly backwards. We need to be unrelenting in our attacks against our enemies in war; but non-confrontational if possible to those in our periphery with whom we disagree. See the section on War below.

Gun Control

Although liberals often use the words sensible gun laws or sensible gun control; whenever it is possible, they try to ban all weapons, including handguns.

Conservatives tend to prefer as few restrictions as possible on the acquisition of any sort of gun, based upon these reasons: (1) most restrictions on guns (like the assault weapons ban; or additional background checks) do not have any affect on crime; and (2) these restrictions of often then used to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a weapon (either for hunting or self protection).

Luke 22:36 He [Jesus] said to them [His disciples], "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. (ESV) The disciples were going to become more mobile and face possible persecution. A sword would be used for self-protection.

Whereas, vengeance is not allowed to the Christian (Rom. 12:19), there is nothing wrong with self-protection and self-defense (Ex. 22:2–3 Luke 10:30 11:21–22 22:36).

Buying a gun in New York city is a monumental task. Individuals must appear in person to file a 17-page Handgun Purchase Authorization Form and pay $340 for the application and $89.75 for fingerprinting. They must provide an original Social Security card, birth certificate, two recent color photographs and other documents. It is difficult to purchase a weapon in Hawaii as well: In hawaii, your first step is to take a 6-hour training course. Then, you can pay for a firearm, but you'll only walk away with a receipt. Next, you file an application with the Honolulu Police Department and wait for a thorough background check. At least 14-days later, if your permit is approved, you can pick up your gun. But, you'll still have to go back to the police department to register it.

Homelessness

If a person wants to live out on the street, he should be allowed to. Government ought to set up housing projects, even for alcoholics. We need to send these people a check.

People are on the street for a variety of reasons. Those with mental illnesses ought to be locked up. Those who are vagrants ought to be locked up for repeated offenses. Allow private missions to deal with these homeless people. Those who cause problems for businesses ought to be locked up for vagrancy.

If anyone does not desire to work, neither let him eat (2Thess. 3:10). Provisions in the Bible for the homeless are essentially the same as those for the poor (the Bible does not specifically deal with the problem of homelessness). Fields are not completely harvested in Israel so that the poor can come and harvest them in order to eat.

The #1 reason why people are living in the streets is substance abuse—drug addiction (58%) and alcohol addiction (62%). After this would be mental illness (57%; obviously there is an overlap—approximately 90% of the homeless are there for one or a combination of those reasons). Both those suffering from mental illness and those who are substance abusers have shown themselves, at times, to be dangerous to the general population. Although there are some on the street temporarily because of job loss or the loss of one’s house, this is far less likely a reason for a person to be living on the street (the eviction process for losing a house takes 5–6 months and longer in some places, which usually allows people to save enough to find a house to lease in that time period or to make other provisions for their future). Liberals who portray homelessness as a result of job loss are being dishonest. Those people who end up on the streets solely due to job loss make up a very small minority of homeless people. 10.1% went from a home that they rented onto the street and 2.1% went from a home that they owned onto the street. One of the interesting statistics is, 80% of homeless people are homeless for less than 3 weeks, so that this is, to a large degree, a self-correcting problem.

Homosexuality

Liberals believe that people are born homosexual (or not); and that there is nothing a homosexual can do about this. It is not sinful, it is not wrong, it just is what it is. Most liberals mistakenly believe that about 10% of people are homosexual. They do not believe that there is much real difference between homosexual and heterosexual behavior.

Conservatives vary here. There are libertarian conservatives who believe in live and let live and could care less about homosexual behavior and even homosexual marriage. However, some libertarians would be against homosexual marriage as being institutionalized because that would result in a huge number of additional laws and court cases.

Religious conservatives understand homosexuality to be a sin. Now, just how far religious conservatives are going to take this, is a whole other matter.

The Bible teaches, in both the Old and New Testaments, that homosexual acts are sinful. Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God (1Cor. 6:9–11). Because of this [rejection of the truth], God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for even their females changed the natural use to that contrary to nature. And likewise, the males also forsaking the natural use of the female burned in their lust toward one another, males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving back within themselves the reward which was fitting for their error (Rom. 1:26–27). See also Lev. 18:22 20:13.

I have been to dozens of pro-homosexual sites which intentionally distort and twist the clear teaching of the Bible. Peter warned about the ignorant and unstable who intentionally twist and distort Paul’s letters, which distortion results in their own ruin and eternal destruction (2Peter 3:15–16). As I mentioned in the introduction, such people are liberals and/or homosexuals first; and the Bible is simply used for propaganda purposes. Not 1 homosexual in 100 will read over the verses in the Bible about homosexuality and change their minds. They may attempt to redefine the words found in the verses, or find some alternative meaning for this or that word and insert it; but they will not accept the teaching of the Bible at face value (which is, homosexuality is sinful). Their personal lusts are more important to them than the Word of God.

There are a number of things that you need to know. Men are men are men, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Because of the way men are built, it is not unusual for them to desire many sexual partners. A man who has lust for other males is going to indulge this far more often than most of us realize. Having 500 or 1000 sexual partners is commonplace for homosexuals. Monogamous relationships as most men and women have are virtually unknown in the homosexual world, even among those who consider themselves partners. Also, it is not out of the ordinary for a homosexual male to have had sex with women. Finally, the number of homosexuals in a population is under 2%. Those who have engaged in homosexual activity at one time would be higher—perhaps 5%.

It is also important to know that, even though there is undoubtedly a genetic factor in homosexuality, it is not determinative (no more than a genetic predisposition to alcoholism is determinative). A study of identical twins where one twin is homosexual showed that half of their twins were homosexual. This is much higher than average, indicating an undeniable genetic component; but it ought to be 100% if homosexuality is genetically determined.

What virtually every homosexual does not grasp is, the relationship between a man and a woman, although it has the component of physical attraction, is primarily an attraction of souls. Men and women’s souls are very different, and it is this difference which is a part of the soulish attraction (and a part of our frustration with the other partner as well). God designed the male and female souls to mesh, to fit together. In a family, the relationship between father and son, mother and son, father and daughter and mother and daughter are all unique. I learned things from my father than I would have never learned from my mother, and vice versa. It is not that they were different people as much as different genders, each revealing different values and expectations for me.

How do we, as Christians, relate to homosexuals? Quite obviously, every person that you know is a sinner, so you do not avoid homosexuals simply because they are sinners (if this is your area of weakness, then you would avoid them, as recovering drug addicts would avoid other drug addicts). Jesus Christ died for the sins of every homosexual, and salvation comes to them by faith in Christ, not by renouncing homosexual behavior.

What about the law and homosexuality? This is something which every society decides. God, in the Old Testament, made homosexual acts punishable by death. Although the Bible teaches that homosexual acts are depraved in the New Testament, at no time does Paul or Peter or James say, “And such people ought to be stoned to death!” Personally, I liked the approach to homosexuality in my youth, where it was illegal, socially unacceptable, but very few people were ever prosecuted for homosexual acts.

What is absolutely wrong is, the infiltration of homosexuals into the classroom, which is something they have been attempting to do for decades. Their approach is fundamentally dishonest, giving great support to “bullying programs” which focuses on homosexuality and presents it as a normal and natural lifestyle. California recently (2011) passed a law where gay, lesbian and transgendered types must be presented in history books. Homosexuals know that, children are at their most vulnerable when going through puberty, and that many children have a same-sex attraction at one time or another. If there can be enough influence exerted to present homosexual behavior as normal and healthy, that can affect the early sexual behavior of millions of children. I have discussed such issues with various homosexuals on the internet and most will say, “We want nothing to do with children.” However, one of the people who said this over and over again, let it slip that he believed in mentoring young homosexuals to be good homosexuals (or words to that effect).

As is true with liberals, it is very difficult to find a homosexual who is honest, because they nearly always consider what they do and say and the political consequences of this being known.

That homosexuality is tremendously degenerate is revealed in the number of sexual partners a gay man has and their behavior in Gay Pride parades. The actions of many homosexual on floats, in public reveals their depraved desires. Even though, such public acts are not committed by all homosexual, you cannot find a conservative cause where conservatives touting this or that issue engage in any form of lewd behavior.

Many studies have been done on the health and life expectancy of homosexuals, suggesting that, because of AIDS, the left expectancy of a male homosexual is 8–20 years less than that of a heterosexual male. In fact, one of the studies I read, and am unable to find now, shows a remarkable comparison between homosexuals and alcoholics in many aspects of their lives, which regards to mental and physical health, life expectancy, human relationships, recovery, etc. See the Doctrine of Homosexuality (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) for further details.

Income Inequity

Liberals tend to be quite concerned when a CEO makes more money in a second than his lowest-paid employee does in his entire life. Most liberals do not speak of limiting the income of movie stars or sports figures.

I have yet to hear a strong liberal push for equality between male and female movie stars, despite the fact that there is a great disparity there.

Most conservatives have no problem with a person making what he makes, as long as he is functioning within the law and not cheating others. Rich people tend to spread their wealth around in a variety of ways. They establish foundations, they give to hospitals, art museums, to schools; and their spending money in the economy provides jobs for a myriad of people.

In the Old Testament, in Israel, there is some income leveling. Every 49 years, land was returned to the original owner. Every 7 years slaves were set free.

Although there is a passage in Acts about the church of Jerusalem sharing all that they had, this was not commanded by God, it was a very difficult time for those in the church, and this led to long-term poverty for this church, so that other churches had to send them money.

The New Testament says nothing about this, apart from warning that those overly concerned with acquiring wealth often ignore their own spiritual needs. However, the Bible does not present government as the solution to this (that is, even though James tells some rich to howl in misery, he does not recommend that the poor plunder them or that the government come in and confiscate the wealth of a rich man.

Rush Limbaugh just recently used himself as an example here. Although he did not give a number to his staff, he suggested—and rightly so—that he revived AM radio. Because of its limited quality, AM radio was dying when Rush came along. If you wanted to listen to music then, you listened to FM radio. What was found on AM radio was so limited that listenership was dropping year by year (personally, I think that I went for 2 decades without hearing AM radio). Rush revitalized this industry, providing thousands upon thousands of jobs (new radio stations, new radio station employees, new talk show hosts, new advertisers). When it comes to income, Rush makes more money than I can imagine. However, with his income, he has generated far more wealth and far more jobs than any government entity could do.

I have a younger brother who has his own small business, and he makes a lot of money and has around a dozen employees. He also spends a lot of money. Now, I don’t know how much he makes or what he pays in taxes, but I am sure that he is a target for higher taxes. Now, is the economy where he lives going to be better or worse if the government gets him to spend, say, and additional $10,000 in taxes? My brother would spend this money in his business or he would give a higher Christmas bonus or he would invest it or he would spend it on himself and his family. In any case, that money moves the economy around him up. If the California government gets that money, they would simply promise an even higher retirement to another useless and unproductive state worker.

See the Doctrine of Socialism (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Income Redistribution

Many liberal programs are designed to redistribute income. The 2010 Healthcare Law, climate change legislation, unequal income tax rates all redistribute wealth.

Opponents to the Bush tax cuts, being debated in this year 2010, often cite wealth disparity as a moral problem.

Moderate conservatives will sign on to a moderate income redistribution, such as graduated tax rates. Personally, I am one of those conservatives that believes everyone ought to pay taxes and that the highest tax rate ought to be a multiple of the lowest tax rate (say, 3x). I would also sign on to a consumption tax only (not in addition to an income tax, but instead of an income tax) which exempted unprocessed foods and milk from being taxed (so that there is no paperwork sent to Uncle Sam).

The Bible does provide, in the Old Testament, for a forgiveness of debts and a remission of Israelite slaves in the 7^th year. However, if one argues in favor of this, then one must also allow for temporary slavery to pay off debts (one Israelite usually became enslaved to another Israelite over indebtedness).

On the 50^th year, there was to be a reversion of the land to original owners. However, that needs to be understood in the context of this land being given by God to the Israelites permanently (Israelites did not, every 50 years, give any of their land back to the Canaanites). Lev. 25 Num. 36:4

However, on the other hand, there are numerous examples of believers in Y^ehowah Elohim being materially blessed, yet God never came to them and told them to give away their money. Abraham (Gen. 13:2–4); Isaac (Gen. 26:12–14); David and Solomon (1Kings 10:14–29).

One needs to be careful in citing the Bible to support the leveling of income. Even though there was a forgiveness of debts, this was between Israelites, who are all God’s people. No particular nationality, apart from the Jews, are God’s people. A Jew could continue to collect on debt from foreigners (Deut. 15:1–3).

Inheritance Tax

Some liberals do not like wealth and despise the idea that a person, by virtue of birth, might inherit millions of dollars without having to pay the government any portion of that.

Conservatives would prefer a small inheritance tax (say 10–15%) or none at all. In the case of a business or family farm, many would be in favor of taking into account the cash flow of that business or farm.

Although the Old Testament does have a return of the land to original families every 49–50 years, this is specifically for Israel and a similar approach is never suggested in the New Testament. Again, Israelites were not required to return any land to the Canaanites from whom they took the land.

This is an another area where liberals are very dishonest. When they rail against the passing down of a large inheritance, they speak of trust fund babies, which represents a minority of wealth inherited. However, very often, that which is passed down is not a wad of cash, but a business or a farm, which value may be in the millions, but which most often does not have the cash flow in order to pay a large inheritance tax. In many cases, businesses and farms have had to be fully or partially liquidated in order to pay taxes on it.

Islam

Liberals do not tend to see Islam as a serious problem as a religion. They tend to see radical elements of Islam as an aberration and a small element of the entire movement. Reasonable accommodations at home (e.g., foot washing at airports; the Ground Zero Mosque building) are acceptable to many liberals.

Tough diplomacy abroad as well as the shining example of America’s justice system are seen as the best approaches to reaching Muslims overseas.

Although most conservatives operate on a live and let live basis, Islam is not just a religion, but it is a subversive political system which organizes hundreds of attacks each week and has specifically declared war against America and against Israel. Conservatives recognize this declaration of war, and have no problem with locking up combatants until this war with Islam is concluded, which may be centuries from now.

Islam is a large world-scale political movement disguised as a religion (although there certainly many nonviolent adherents to Islam).

Conservatives tend to believe that Islam is a far greater threat to freedom than global warming is to the environment.

When dealing with recalcitrants, King David laid an army down and killed 2 out of 3 men, so that every man left alive felt the blood of two fellow soldiers spray him (2Sam. 8:2). When Ammon insulted David’s foreign ministers, David went in and declared war on this country, and defeated them (2Sam. 10:1–11:1).

When Israel was strong and independent, it met all of its enemies with force and allied itself with noble countries. When Israel was weaker and spiritually down, then God expected them to buckle under the country which conquered them.

Until they have Sharia law and their critics have been silenced, Muslims continue to be in an uproar. Muslim populations which are less than 2–4% tend to be quite docile wherever they live, although clearly separate from the rest of society. There are some great videos on this, which Muslims work to remove from the internet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI3uOvzmtsI (or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60A3mw2XgQ). Also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96hRV6XPUog and every week or so, go back to this page http://thereligionofpeace.com/ in order to see what Muslims are currently up to.

Islam and Child Sacrifice

Liberals: “I have no idea what you are talking about.”

Conservatives who know what is happening in Islamic countries are concerned about the indoctrination of Muslim children who are taught from the earliest age to hate Jews, to hate Americans and to desire to die for Islam.

On many occasions, Jews were told to completely wipe out this or that population, and often these groups had been tied to child sacrifice (the offering of their own children into the burning hands of Molech). Even though these are not Muslim populations, they represent a dangerous concentration of people who are filled with hatred and degeneracy. Deut. 2:34 7:2–3 20:16–17 Joshua 2 6 9:24–25 10:28, 39 11:14 1Sam. 15:3, 8, 18–19)

One of the outstanding movies which deals, in part, with this is Obsession; Radical Islam’s War Against the West. There are several trailers to be viewed at http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/ The destruction of the souls of young children in Arab countries is truly frightening and Muslim ideology puts America in the crosshairs for an all-out war.

Land Ownership—National

Liberals—and this is usually due to communist propaganda—have this idea that land truly belongs to the second-to-the-last owner. So parts of Texas and Arizona and New Mexico really should be given back to the Mexicans; much of the western United States should be returned to the Indians (or reparations made).

Conservatives understand that the nation which takes a plot of land in a war now owns that plot of land. The idea that Mexico or the Indians own any land in the United States is foolish. They took this land from someone else, who took it from someone else. There is virtually no land in the world occupied by descendants of the original settlers of that land.

God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews and they took this land by military force, as God had commanded them. However, this was done after the iniquity of the Amorites was full; that is, the Jews were told to take the land once the owners of that land sunk to a particular level of degeneracy.

In the end, the land of Israel was privatized, which is found in Joshua 13–19.

Once the land had been taken from the Canaanites, it was distributed as personal property to the tribes of Israel. The government did not retain large chunks of land to administer.

Land Ownership—Personal

Liberals often like to see government hold and control land.

Most conservatives like national parks and wildlife refuges, and have no problem with government control of such areas. However, land in the hands of private citizens is also seen as a good thing.

After Israel took Palestine (as ordered by God), then the land was divided up amongst the tribes, which further divided the land up between the families of that tribe.

Marriage

For many, traditional marriage is an old, worn-out institution, and is reasonably replaced with living together or with homosexual unions. This is one of the many fascinating dichotomies of liberal thinking: if a man and a woman love one another, then it is reasonable to them to live together without benefit of marriage. They do not need a piece of paper in order to show their love for one another. However, when it comes to a homosexual union, that piece of paper is a basic human right guaranteed by the constitution.

Conservatives see marriage as the bedrock of our country, and the ideal environment for the raising of a child. Most see a mother and father as providing protection and guidance for their children. Most conservatives see marriage as the norm and the ideal.

When a law is made outside of the realm of criminality, to give specific or special benefits to one class of people (e.g., tax breaks for married people), it is done for the good of society as a whole. Normal heterosexual marriage has been shown time and time again to be a good healthy building block for society, and is, therefore, encouraged. Other so-calked family groups (communes, homosexual unions) should not have special laws for them (neither are illegal at this point in time).

Marriage is found in the Garden of Eden under perfect environment as well as after the fall of man. Even though aberations of marriage are spoken of historically in the Bible, they are never encouraged or supported. Kings of Israel were actually disallowed numerous wives (Deut. 17:14–20). Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh (Gen. 2:24). Jesus quotes this particular passage.

Furthermore, all New Testament passages deal with one husband and one wife (1Cor. 7:2–4, 10–11 Eph. 5:28–31 1Tim. 3:2, 12 Titus 1:6 1Peter 3:1–7). See also Prov. 12:4 31:10 Eccles. 9:9–10

See The Third Divine Institution—Marriage in the Addendum.

The Military

In the 60's, the left was very anti-military. Today, it is the far-left which is very anti-American military (although they do not seem to oppose communism revolutions and present these as the uprising of the people).

Liberal politicians have made the most radical comments about our military from time to time. Both John Kerry and Barack Obama have accused our military of striking out at Muslim citizenry for various reasons and Harry Reid had announced from the Senate floor that our war in Iraq was lost.

Conservatives have always been very pro-military and have shown a deep respect for the gallantry and the professionalism of our military.

Although the Bible does not have a list of the greatest pacifists or the greatest social reformers, it has the list of the greatest military men under David (2Sam. 23 1Chron. 11).

If Christianity is correct, then we would expect to find man almost continually at war. In the past 200 years of recorded history, I do not believe that there has ever been a single year with fewer than 5–10 wars occurring during that year. See: Some Points on War and What is a Justified War? Both of these studies come from 2Sam. 8 (HTML) (PDF). Also see The Doctrine of the Military (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Also see http://www.spokanebiblechurch.com/powerpoint/WarandGod.pdf, which is a slide show presentation of the Doctrine of War in a pdf format.

Missionary Activity

We ought not to force our religion onto other people. If a country bans missionary activity, we ought to respect that ban. We should allow the people of various countries to practice the religions they are brought up with and not to interfere with this.

Although missionary activity is less favored by conservatives today, General Douglas MacArthur called for Bibles and missionaries to be sent to the lands that we had conquered. South Korea is know not only for its robust economy but also for its missionary activity, which comes as a result of being evangelized.

Believers are commanded to evangelize the world. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matt. 28:18–20).

Our greatest mistake in our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was not to insist upon complete religious freedom for the population (when we had our greatest political influence there). Furthermore, our armed forces have wrongly clamped down on some soldiers evangelizing the local population (by handing our Arabic Bibles). George W. Bush could have learned a lot of General Douglas MacArthur in this regard.

General Douglas MacArthur photo from larrynevillie.org; accessed October 4, 2015 (this is one of the many photos of MacArthur which are found everywhere).

In his letter of March 1, 1950, to the American Bible Society's President Eric North, MacArthur wrote:

Dear Dr. North: I have read your report that the American Bible Society, working in conjunction with the Japan Bible Society, has made possible the distribution of more than 4,000,000 copies of the Scriptures since the beginning of the Occupation. My Chaplain.., tells me that people of fifty-one denominations in forty-eight States have contributed to this project. That your expenditures have now passed the $1,000,000 mark is an indication of the great generosity of the American people and represents a very gratifying achievement. You are well on the way to reaching the goal of 10,000,000 copies which I requested. I confidently believe you will succeed...

Sincerely yours, DOUGLAS MacArthur.

Another 1950 telegram from General MacArthur went to Chicago to the Gideon’s as follows:

"I have publicly stated my firm belief that Christianity offers to Japanese a sure and stable foundation on which to build a democratic nation. Japanese are becoming increasingly aware of fundamental values of Christian religion and appreciative of its spiritual and moral blessing. Your assistance will be of inestimable value.

Copies of Holy Scriptures, especially New Testaments, both English and Japanese, are essential for success of Christian movement as basis for study and acceptance of the faith. Japanese texts more in demand and can be read with fuller comprehension by more people. Your representatives are welcome to come to Japan as missionary to make firsthand survey of situation. Information being furnished you by airmail will be helpful for your planning. I assure you of my deep appreciation of your interest in spiritual rehabilitation of Japanese people."

Douglas MacArthur 

Morality

Although liberals and conservatives both believe in morality, it is less of a factor in the life of a liberal. Studies have shown that there is a higher correlation between liberalism and pornography, premarital sex, homosexuality than there is between conservatives and those things.

One tool of the left is to get those who are poor and middle class to resent those who have lots of money (which is a violation of the 10^th commandment).

Again, there is not a huge gap, but conservatives are going to be more closely associated with traditional morality and traditional American values (for instance, the moral majority). Bill O’Reilly, a FoxNews commentator, often stands up for traditional American values and is constantly castigated by the left.

Morality is not designed for Christians. Morality is the glue which holds a society together. The final 6 commandments are very nearly universal.

See the Ten Commandments and Morality and Divine Establishment in the addendum below.

National Threats

Liberals will see global warming as a serious threat more than conservatives. The Democrat approach to radical Muslims is to treat this as a crime problem more than it is a national problem.

Conservatives will see radical Islam as a greater threat than do liberals. Conservatives see this as a national threat and believe that we are at war with this faction of Islam.

Israel had allies and enemies. Their enemies tended to be as much against the God of Israel as they were against Israel. God used Israel to destroy some nations completely, when their degeneracy became too great. Nowhere in the Bible is there a concerted back-to-nature movement, except by some of the heathen.

President George Bush treated our clash with radical Muslims as a national crisis and as a war, creating the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Bush went on the offensive after 9/11. Presidents Clinton and Obama have treated the attacks of radical Muslims as more of a law and order problem, to the point where terrorists and war combatants are to be tried in civilian courts. See What is a Righteous War? in the addendum.

Nationalism versus Internationalism

Liberals tend to favor the institution of the United Nations and they like the idea of a consensus formed between nations. If it suits their philosophy or ideology, then they approve of foreign or international law being cited in court cases as precedents.

Many conservatives would just as soon see the U.N. removed from the United States. Foreign law ought never to be cited in a court case, no matter what the facts of the case are. The idea of establishing some international ruling body or some international court is anathema to most conservatives.

Nationalism is the 5^th divine institution established by God. Acts 17:26–27a “And God made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.”

See The Fifth Divine Institution—Human Government and Nationalism in the addendum.

Nuclear Disarmament

We ought to be working towards eliminating nuclear weapons from this planet. Many liberals see this as a realistic world goal.

Nuclear weapons will be a part of man’s history. Therefore, the United States ought to have the best technology in the realm of nuclear weaponry and nuclear weapon defense capabilities. Conservatives believe that our great nuclear capabilities has discouraged the Soviets and the Chines from attacking and plundering the United States.

Obviously, the Bible does not specifically address nuclear weapons directly, although there is a prophecy which seems to suggest something greater than nuclear weaponry (Psalm 97:5 Amos 9:5 Nahum 1:5 2Peter 3:10–12). However, when it comes to protecting one’s house, being strong and able to protect your home is the best defense (Matt. 12:29).

Disarmament or reduction of the military is never suggested in the Bible for Israel. During Israel’s golden age (under David and Solomon), David’s many wars provided for the long peace that Solomon enjoyed.

Patriotism

Candidate Obama wavered back and forth about wearing a flag lapel.

Conservatives tend to see America as the greatest nation in human history.

Both Paul and Peter spoke highly of the law and order provided by the Roman government, even though these were both Jews in Judæa, a land ruled by Rome (Rom. 13:1–7 1Peter 2:13–17).

If anyone was to have a legitimate reason to oppose the Roman government, it would be Paul and Peter, who were both unjustly locked up at different times (Acts 5:17–29 12:1–12 16:20–31). Although neither Peter nor Paul wore SPQR flag lapels, neither of them spoke against the Roman empire and Paul used his citizen ship to appear to Cæsar (Acts 25:7–27). Paul appealed on several occasions to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25–30 23:24–35). Furthermore, Paul clearly had no animus against the Romans in general (Rom. 1:7).

Conservatives and believers in Jesus Christ both appreciate the great religious freedom and heritage of the United States. Most recognize that our heritage is profoundly religious and that our laws and constitution are originally based upon Judeo- Christian values. Many historians have claimed that Isaiah 33:22 (For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; He will save us.) is the inspiration for our 3 branches of government.

Isaiah 33:22 Graphic from Heart Light.org; accessed October 4, 2015.

Political Activism

Because many liberals are not believers in Jesus Christ and many others have a distorted view of Him (e.g., the teachings of Liberation Theology), they tend to become very involved in government and changing government.

Liberals, communists and radicals have made it a concerted effort to find there way into positions of influence in education, governmental bureaucracy and news organizations.

For the most part, many conservatives are fine living their own lives, even in a democracy, and showing little involvement in political affairs. Had President Obama not taken the country so dramatically to the left, with such huge deficits, there would have been no TEA party.

We are to obey the rulers over us. There is no call in the Bible to be politically active or to petition the government to do anything. Nowhere do the Apostles or Jesus call upon people to gather and organize and make their needs known to the government. Even though Israel was a nation guided by God, the primary focus during the Age of Israel was individual responsibility, individual thinking and individual actions Proverbs Mal. 1:6–8 2:1–3 Rom. 13:1–7

In the United States, we live in a Democratic Republic, so we therefore ought to vote and ought to have some basic knowledge of the issues (as well as understanding Christian values).

If one does not have a profound faith in God and a trust in His overriding will, then what remains is to depend upon man and government, which is typical of liberals.

Population Growth

Limiting population growth has long been a goal of liberalism. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), a catastrophic vision of population growth causing the collapse of society has formed an important part of the culturally pessimistic outlook. Back in the eighteenth century it was predicted that population growth would lead to famine, starvation and death. Today's pessimists have raised the stakes further: they denounce population growth as a threat to biodiversity and to the very existence of the planet. Twenty-first-century Malthusians are not so much worried about an impending famine: they're more concerned that people are producing and consuming too much food and other commodities.

Paul R. Ehrlich is a famous liberal who warned about the great population explosion that would destroy the quality of life.

Today, the amount of pollution caused by a person from death to age 80 has been calculated, because people are seen by many liberals to be polluters.

Liberals also tend to be pro-abortion and one recent liberal in Texas was given accolades for filibustering a bill in Texas which would restrict abortion access. This filibuster might even be her pathway to run for governor, although she has no experience, insofar as I know, of running anything.

Conservatives are generally very pro-family (which is one father, one mother and x number of children); and many are pro-large family. Conservatives often like pro-growth policies, which includes population growth as well.

Conservatives tend to be anti-abortion.

Children in the Bible are seen as blessings from God. Gen. 22:15–17 Psalm 127:3-5 John 16:21

The nation Israel, when it grew to a large population, despite being in slavery, this was seen as blessing from God (Deut. 1:11).

God also told the beginning population to reproduce (Gen. 1:28 9:1).

See the topic Abortion.

It is said that everyone in the world could move to Texas, and they would be less crowded there than in New York City. This suggests that population growth right now is okay.

Poverty

Even in America today, there is far too much poverty, and we ought to be giving even more money to starving Americans. No one ought to be poor in America. No one ought to be without food, clothing, housing and medical care. Some take this further to say that cell phones and cars should be a part of what the poor get from the government (i.e., the rich taxpayers).

We give far too much money to those in poverty as it is. The United States’ welfare system has structurally incorporated generational poverty into the lives of millions.

The Bible clearly teaches that nation Israel ought to be cognizant of its poor and to make provision for them. However, Jesus also promised, “You will have the poor with you always.” Similar, the Mosaic Law states The poor will never ceased to be in the midst of the land (Deut. 15:11b).

The Old Testament did have a poverty program. 10% was collected every 3^rd year for the poor and land owners were told not to harvest all of their crops, but to leave unharvested portions of their field for the poor. For those who have trouble with math, that is 3⅓%/year for the maintainence of the poor. By contrast, perhaps ¾t^hs of the United States budget is aimed toward the poor.

In the New Testament, there is never a call for some sort of national poverty program. However, James says you must act personally on behalf of the hungry and needy; and that should be a part of your ministry (which includes the gospel of Jesus Christ).

There is a method in the madness of the left. The more people who are dependent upon big government, the more people who will vote for liberal candidates (as conservative leaders may cut off their free money from the government). Recall what a fit was thrown with President Bush suggested privatizing social security? This would have put the money into the people’s hands and made them less dependent upon government. That is the last thing that a liberal wants. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM

See God and the Poor; Is God Really a Liberal? (HTML) (PDF). Some time ago, someone gathered up many of the verses in the Bible which speak of the poor and then wrote sort of an essay which contained these verses. This contains the full text of this article along with the correct exegesis and context of these passages.

Racial Issues

Because of our history of slavery and racism, it is important to give the Black man a hand up.

Children brought here by illegal immigrant parents need to be given particular privileges, including a relatively easy path to citizenship, because of their illegal status.

Most conservatives would do away with any racial quotas and affirmative action. They do not want to see individuals or companies sued over such things, as that will result in more discrimination, not less. Every person has difficulties to overcome, and, in some cases, this is belonging to a certain race. The notion that someone being of a particular ethnicity or gender and being elected or appointed to this or that office is not that important.

There is little in the Bible about racial preferences, apart from the Jews being God’s people. The purity of the Jewish race was generally a matter of religious purity; racial purity is never an issue. Moses’ second wife was an Egyptian woman, and probably very dark-skinned. King David had a muli-racial, multi-ethnic army. Race is never treated as a special issue; however, heathenistic practices among some groups resulted in God calling for their destruction. A race being black, brown or white is never an issue; a group that sacrifices their own children to Baal—that is an issue to God.

We do not know what the mark of Cain was (some have claimed it is Black skin). Most of the people of the Bible would have been considerably darker than most Americans or Europeans, including Jesus.

Reparations

There are a few liberals—many of those in the Black caucus—who believe that American still owes a debt to descendants of the slaves, which is known as reparations.

Most conservatives would agree to reparations for a people who have been recently injured, so that the reparations go directly to those who were injured or to their children. Therefore, many conservatives would have supported reparations to former slaves in 1865 and remuneration to the Japanese-Americans (and others) who were robbed of their property by the government in WWII.

God expected Egypt to repay Israel for enslaving the Israelites (Ex. 11:1–2 12:35–36). Those who were actual slaves received reparations. However, this was the end of it. That is, God did not encourage Israel to continue to seek revenge against Egypt. This was a clean break and a complete end to the matter.

The Old Testament clearly taught immediate reparations to enslaved Israelites in Deut. 15:12–15 If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you send him out free from you, you shall not let him go away empty. You shall richly bestow on him from your flock, and from your grain floor, and from your winepress; with what Jehovah your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah your God redeemed you. Therefore I command you this thing today. However, this is an option that such a one could choose to remain your slave in Ex. 21:2–6 Deut. 15:16–17.

An Israelite often became enslaved to another Israelite in order to pay off debts. However, debts and slavery were cancelled out in the 7^th year among fellow Jews.

It should be pointed out that we do not have any such New Testament laws or requirements; and no where in the New Testament are believers told to gather and petition their government for anything (including for reparations). One may argue, due to the nature of the United States government, that we have the right to petition our government for whatever we believe in; however, there is no Biblical support for reparations 150+ years after the fact (there are certainly a considerable number of black men who are descendants of slave owners).

There are 2 more points to be made when it comes to reparations: (1) for many, this is simply a matter of income redistribution (as is the recent healthcare legislation and climate change legislation). Many conservatives would oppose such legislation because it proposes to be one thing, but it is really something else. (2) It is 150 years later; who pays reparations to whom? Under this law, President Obama, who has no slave blood, would be required to pay reparations; his wife, who has slave blood, would be entitled to reparations. We are simply beyond a point where this makes sense.

Major General William T. Sherman found himself with a huge number of freed slaves, and the quickest way to deal with them was to issue them 40 acres and an army mule. Unfortunately, President Andrew Johnson reversed this order and restored these lands to the original southern owners. Despite this historic injustice, we are simply too far removed to correct it.

It is clear that any African American today is far better off that the vast majority of Africans. Furthermore, America being what it is, any person could choose to work and save and move to the African country of his choice within a year or two. Despite this being a real option, no person in his right mind would choose to do this.

Revolution

Sometimes necessary in some cases. Violence during a demonstration is sometimes necessary in extreme situations.

Political process, particularly in the United States, needs to be done through the accepted constitutional system, and never through revolution.

The Bible is very anti-revolution, and those who revolted against David’s government were eventually destroyed and David restored to power.

See the Doctrine of Revolution in the Addendum.

The Rich and the Poor

The rich are greedy; they make too much money; they are not paying the poor enough.

Free-enterprise ought to be the overriding factor.

The Bible indicates that there are rich and poor; and it will always be like this. There are systems, both private and public, set up in Israel, to take care of the poor (a far, far lower percentage of taxation for this—3⅓%—than is found in the United States today, where over two-thirds of our budget goes for various entitlement programs); and there also is the reversion of land back the original tribe (however, this does not appear to have a counterpart in the New Testament).

In this life, the rich need the poor and the poor need the rich. One set does not live without the other.

There needs to be a proper interplay between the rich and the poor in life. Not every one can be rich. If the rich have all of their income confiscated, they lose the incentive to work harder and smarter. If they pay the poor too little, the poor have little incentive to do quality work for their employers (the rich).

We have examples in all socialist and governmental jobs that, these positions often require little incentive of the workers. The quote I used to hear from my cousin was, If you’re not working for the state, you are working too hard. So, it is not the actual salary which is the overriding motivating factor among liberals. Too little payment or too few hours and they do not work hard; a state or federal job that pays well may not inspire them to work hard either.

Under socialism, the rich are the political class; and, whatever individuals they deem to favor. The more control a government has, the more they are in a position to determined who will become rich and who will remain poor. The greater freedom that there is, the greater chance there is for the poor to bring himself up.

In the United States, which began as a very economically free country, a very large group organically emerged—the middle class. There is no middle class in socialism. There are those favored by the state (the rich, the well-off) and those not favored by the state (the workers, the drones, the poor).

Because America began with a great deal of economic freedom, a great social change occurred in America--the rise of the middle class. No society can have all rich or all poor, no matter who is in charge. However, the freest society allows for those who follow a few simple social rules, to rise up to the middle class. These rules would be, get an education, a trade, avoid drugs and drinking, work hard, and pursue a normal man/woman relationship in the institution of marriage. Following these few rules will elevate any person or family into the middle class, no matter what.

In socialism, there is no middle class. There are the rich or well-to-do (the political class and those whom they favor) and there are the drones (the workers, the poor). As a socialist society progresses in time, resources from the lower class will be appropriated by the political and favored class, as they make all the rules. The workers do not make the rules in a socialist society.

Separation of Church and State

There should be absolutely no connection between federal or state government and anything to do with religion, including Christmas. Schools should not sing Christmas hymns; government buildings and offices should not display manger scenes, Christmas wreathes or representations of the separation of church and state is in the constitution. Ten Commandments. Obviously, this is the extreme view of the far left.

Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, but this phrase was dredged from some founding father correspondence and used in a court decision. Conservatives believe that we were founded as a nation of believers with a Judeo-Christian ethic, and that this ought to continue to be a part of our culture.

Although religion is clearly a part of nation Israel, there is nothing in the New Testament about either encouraging or discouraging government association with religion. In most things, we are to obey the dictates of the governing authorities; however, when it comes to evangelism and Bible teaching, we ought to obey God and not man. Acts 5:24–29 Rom. 13:1–7

As a conservative, I have no problem with the Ten Commandments being displayed in any courthouse (it is prominently featured at one of the entrances of the Supreme Court building). However, I do have a problem with government reimbursing churches and religious organizations for disaster relief. Government ought to be able to work hand-in-hand with such organizations and allow them to work in any disaster area; but the government ought not to take tax payer money and reimburse them for that. I believe that in our nation, the United States, we ought to respect our heritage (which is very Christian); it would be wrong to attempt to impose this on a foreign government.

Sexual Confusion

If you want to have sexual relations with the same gender, this is legitimate. Some accept adult males have sexual relations with teen males. A variety of non-traditional sexual behavior and notions are supported. Non-traditional marriages are supported; and businesses which do not recognize such unions as marriages may find themselves sued.

Whether we understand our sexual roles as from God, from nature, or even, to some extent, from nurture; relations are to be between 1 man and 1 woman; and a family is made up of 1 man, 1 woman and x-number of children. If you are born a man, then you cannot change that.

God created males and females; one man was designed to be with one woman. If you are a man, you are not to wear women’s clothing or have sex with other men.

God did not design man to have several coterminous wives. God prefers that men stay men and women stay women.

Gen. 1:27 5:2 Deut. 22:5 23:2 Psalm 139:13–16 Rom. 1:24–32 1Cor. 6:9–20 Jude 7

Christian Post has a good article on this. Dr. Becky published a very dishonest article on this, which is one reason women are not allowed to teach the Word of God as a pastor would (they are natural teachers to their own children and in Sunday school). In case you read Becky’s article and do not understand why it is dishonest, compare the language of Deut. 22:5 with that of 22:8–9, 11–12. V. 5 calls wearing opposite gender clothing an abomination (a word not used in the other verses). See Deuteronomy 22 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) for more information on these passages. .

Only liberals think that you cannot help who you love; that you cannot modify who you are sexually attracted to (despite all the evidence to the contrary); but that you can change your gender.

Socialism

Although few liberals will admit to being socialists, they tend to be for more government control, more government confiscation of wealth (particularly the wealth of those who make a lot of money). Many support high taxes on inherited wealth.

Those who believe in Liberation Theology teach that the ideal Christian church is socialistic, citing Acts 2:44–45 4:32–37

Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism, and conservatives believe in a capitalistic society (or, at least a modified capitalistic society where some consideration is given to the poor and helpless, which ought to be less than 5% of the population.

The book of Acts is a record of what the believers in the early church did, so when the church at Jerusalem shared all things in common, this is an historical record of what they did. God did not tell them to do this. The epistles actually lists the doctrine of the Church Age. At no time does Paul, Peter or James (or even the writer of Hebrews) encourage any sort of socialism.

On the other hand, those who are motivated by the accumulation of wealth individually need to have their interests redirected toward more spiritual things (1Tim. 6:10 Heb. 13:5 James 5:1–5).

With respect to the Jerusalem church being socialistic: this was an unusual time. Believers thought that Jesus was going to return to them while they were still alive; furthermore, they suffered great persecution; therefore, the sharing of wealth was a logical outgrowth of this. At this point in time, I may not be interested in sharing my wealth with my next door neighbor; however, if a tornado flattens his house, that would change things. That is, in a disaster, I am going to be more motivated to help those around me. This is, in many ways, the environment of the Jerusalem. However, it is clear that this was not a good long-term strategy because, within a few decades, their wealth was dissipated and Paul made collections for them among the Gentiles (1Cor. 16:1–3). In other words, voluntary socialism was a reasonable short-term solution for difficult circumstances. You would take in your neighbor during a local or national crisis; however, you would not expect them to live with you for the next 30 years.

Furthermore, those in Jerusalem could choose or not choose to participate in the sharing of wealth (Acts 5:1–10); just as Paul asked for a voluntary sharing of wealth from the Gentile churches (1Cor. 16:1–3).

In the Old Testament, there was at least one revolutionary movement which espoused social equality. When Absalom revolted against David, one of the things that he would do is, when someone would come to bow before him (this is while he was gathering up support), he would lift that man up and kiss him, making him an equal (2Sam. 15:5). In Psalm 62, which many associate with the Absalom revolution, v. 4a reads: No doubt, on account of his majesty, they took counsel to thrust [him] out. They delight in deception. There are several movements today which rail against the rich, the successful and the powerful; they rail against them on account of their majesty or their eminence, and they gather together in concert to take such people down, just as Psalm 62:4 reads. Today it is the (so-called) 99% movement or the social justice crowd. So, the packaging of communism, socialism and the social justice movement changes from time to time, but they use the same approach that Absalom used, espousing equality as if this is a realistic and desirable goal.

Many conservatives and believers (and there is, of course, an overlap here) voluntarily share their wealth (Henry Ford, Andrew Carnagie and Bill Gates are examples of this). The conservative would never suggest that we ought to take all over their wealth, liquidate it, and then distribute it to the poor. See the Doctrine of Socialism (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Taxation

Liberals are hard-pressed to put a percentage on how much taxes a person should pay—particularly rich people.

Most conservatives can give you a number or a range for taxes—and most will give you values between 10 and 30%. Some favor a flat tax, some favor a consumption tax, some favor a tiered system (but within those limits stated).

The Bible clearly teaches us to pay our taxes, does not teach that Christians ought to withhold taxes if they believe that they are being taxed too much. However, for the nation Israel, there was essentially a flat 23⅓% tax rate, much of which went to the support of the Levites, who provided for the spiritual needs of the people.

The reason that liberals are less likely to have a number in mind when it comes to a fair tax rate is, taxing is not always about income for the government. Often it is a matter of class warfare and income redistribution. Liberals are very concerned over income inequity. When candidate Obama was told that a lower tax rate brought in more money to the government, he stated that a higher tax rate for the more affluent was still more fair. A Biblical tax rate would be 10⅓% flat tax.

Taxing the Rich

Right now, most of the rich in the United States pay roughly 50–60% of their income in taxes, all totaled. About 40% of the population pays no taxes, apart from sales taxes, licensing and property taxes (if they own a home). Many liberals today (I write this in 2010) do not feel that the rich are paying their fair share and are demanding that they pay even more in taxes.

Conservatives do not believe in soaking the rich for more tax money, although many have no problem with the rich paying a higher tax rate. Many conservatives today favor a flat tax, a fair tax or a more equitable tax. I personally believe that everyone ought to pay taxes, and that the rich ought to, at worst, pay 3x the tax rate of the poor (and that if the taxes go up, they go up for rich and poor alike).

The Bible does not specify that the rich of Israel ought to pay a higher rate than the poor. The tax rate in Israel was 2 tithes and then a tithe paid every third year. That amount comes out to be a flat 23⅓% tax rate. This included support for the Levites, who performed religious duties for Israel.

All conservatives understand that government costs money. However, politicians tend to piss away money as if it is nothing or use it to buy votes or to return favors. Therefore, government ought to be limited in its expenditures (ideally, I believe that this ought to be somewhere between 5–20% of GDP). When our nation fell into a recession, government spending continued to increase. This makes absolutely no sense to the conservative and perfect sense to the liberal.

So that there is no confusion; money is a responsibility; so when God gives a believer money, he is to understand that God is entrusting him with responsibility. Therefore, he needs to make wise decisions (which, ideally speaking, are not government-coerced decisions. 1Tim. 6:17–19 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.

There are warnings for those who are rich who allow their own wealth to take precedence over spiritual issues. James 5:1–3 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. And to the wealthy unbeliever: Prov. 11:4 Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.

The Traditional Family

Liberalism generally takes the position that, if two people love each other, then that is all that is needed in order to establish a framework for marriage (although, certainly some would draw the line at love between 2 close relatives). Liberalism loves non-traditional families (homosexual couples, live-in couples, single mothers) and has petitioned to make homosexual couples no different from heterosexual couples. Liberals also believe in subsidizing single mothers and paying them more money each month if they choose to have more children.

Conservatives believe in the traditional family—a husband and a wife and they children which they produce. Conservatives are not against non-traditional families which develop out of necessity (the grandparents which must adopt or care for a grandchild; the widow with children; the divorced mother as a result of physical abuse by the ex-husband), but they believe the traditional nuclear family to be the best environment in which to raise children.

Although the Bible documents a myriad of family types (most significantly, polygamy), it clearly favors the traditional nuclear family. Adam and the woman were a couple in the garden of God and they were a couple after the Fall. When Paul or Peter give advice to involved men, women and children, it is clearly given to those in a nuclear family (Eph. 5:22–33 Col. 3:18–26 1Peter 3:1–6).

It is clear in the Bible with case histories like Kings David and Solomon, that polygamy did not satiate their sexual desires and that the resultant children were often poorly trained.

Studies have shown that children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to be criminals, drug-users, school drop-outs, pregnant out of wedlock, etc. Even though there are a disproportionate number of Blacks in our prison system, when a study is normalized to remove single-parenthood as a factor, and this disproportionality disappears. See The Fourth Divine Institution—Family in the Addendum.

Utopia Visions (Heaven on Earth)

Mankind can establish a near perfect environment with enough political and religious change (or through moving away from religious myths). Some far left people appear to have a worship of the earth which goes beyond mankind and his place here.

Utopian visions, heaven on earth, socialism, communism, and other radical systems designed by man are worthless and generally destroy freedom and prosperity.

We have numerous historical examples of this by pretty much every communist regime.

Jesus Christ upon His return will establish perfect environment this earth. Nothing in the Bible urges believers to be involved in political change and the radical reformation of the nation in which they live. Despite the persecutions of Rome, Peter and Paul would only disobey the government with regards to evangelism and teaching Bible doctrine (Acts 5:27–30 Rom. 13:1–7 Titus 3:1 1Peter 2:13–17).

Transgender Issues

If a person thinks that they are born the wrong gender, they should be encouraged to live as that other gender and even be physically altered by medical procedures to help better identify as that opposite gender.

A person who thinks they are the other gender are suffering from a mental condition and need therapy, but not genetic reassignment surgery.

God specifically made man male and female (Gen. 1:27 5:2). We are not to wear the clothing of the opposite gender (Deut. 22:5). We are not to be anxious about our bodies (Matt. 6:25). See also Lev. 18:22 Deut. 23:1.

Only a liberal thinks that a person can change his gender but not his sexual preference or modify his sexual behavior.

War

Although not all liberals are anti-war, many liberals believe that we, with tough diplomacy and sincere tolerance, can reduce the wars we engage in and possible even eliminate war from the experience of humankind.

At times, liberals will initially support a war (e.g., our going into Iraq), and then later, castigate those who support this ar and demand withdrawal. All of the Democratic candidates for president in 2008 called for an immediate (or nearly immediate) end to Bush’s war in Iraq.

Conservatives are more willing to go to war, and more willing to support our soldiers during a war. Conservatives are more willing to remain committed to a war which becomes unpopular.

This is one of the few places where conservatives will go against popular opinion. If we are at war, and the public opinion polls turn against this war, conservatives will generally want to follow the war out to a clearly successful engagement by the United States.

The Bible presents war as a necessary evil in this world and soldiers as men of great honor. You cannot find a list of the great pacifists in the Bible or a list of the great social reformers of Israel’s history, but 2 chapters of the Bible are devoted to recognizing the great military men who fought under King David (2Sam. 23 1Chron. 11).

Jesus told us that there will always be wars and rumors of wars until He returns; and, on at least 2 occasions, Jesus is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of men in war (Isa. 37:36 Rev. 14:19–20).

If Christianity is correct, then we would expect to find man almost continually at war. In the past 200 years of recorded history, I do not believe that there has ever been a single year with fewer than 5–10 wars occurring during that year. See: Some Points on War and What is a Justified War? See The Doctrine of War (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Also see http://www.spokanebiblechurch.com/powerpoint/WarandGod.pdf, which is a slide show presentation of the Doctrine of War in a pdf format, and much shorter than the doctrine links above.

(The Ethics of) War and Espionage

Candidate Obama and later President Obama saw Guantanamo Bay as a moral problem. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques were so offensive to him that he released almost all of the information about Guantanamo Bay Prison interrogation programs, and condemned water-boarding a torture.

In general, liberals have had difficulties with the idea of assassinating enemy leaders, with spies who do immoral things (like lie, steal, and murder).

It ought to be simple: what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.

Although some conservatives are taken in by this, many believe that if, enhanced interrogation results are legitimate. In fact, there are some conservatives who would go so far as to shoot off the head of one terrorist to get information from another terrorist who witnesses the shooting.

Many conservatives—not all—approve of CIA dirty tactics: lying, misrepresenting themselves, killing, torturing, and committing acts of immorality in order to prey on the weaknesses of the enemy.

If killing is a necessary part of war, then other acts, like lying, stealing, and assassinating in espionage are legitimate and moral.

At this point, many would think, Christianity is going to line up with the liberals: what is right, is right; and what is wrong, is wrong. And you would be wrong.

First of all, killing in war is not simply a necessary evil; it is honorable to kill in war. As previously pointed out, the Bible nowhere lists the greatest pacifists of this or that era; but it does list the greatest war heroes of David’s era.

Secondly, we have at least 2 instances of people who lied as a part of warfare or counterinsurgency, and God honored their lying. First is Rahab the prostitute in Joshua 2, who betrays her own city so that Joshua could defeat it. Secondly, we have the story of Hushai the Archite whom David employed as a spy. Because of Hushai’s deceit, we read: And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, “The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.” For Jehovah had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that Jehovah might bring evil on Absalom (2Sam. 17:14). This was done through lying to Absalom.

One of the recurring themes of liberalism is lying and distorting their position. I have heard dozens of times liberals discuss enhanced interrogation and say things like, “If I water-boarded you, you would confess to just about anything” or “You can make a man say anything when being tortured.” This is a completely dishonest argument. Water-boarding was never used in order to get people to confess to this or that evil act; water-boarding was used to get intelligence. This was done very methodically; and it was clear when someone had been pushed to the point of speaking the truth. Kalid Sheik Mohammed’s guilt was never at issue; what he knew was the issue. Furthermore, it was discovered that, Mohammed merely needed the excuse to be pushed beyond his capacity to resist enhanced interrogation, and then he was morally free to tell what he knew.

Wealth Inequality

Liberals are clearly against this, but they are not quite as clear about what the legitimate ratios are or the maximum tax rate should be or the mechanics of redistributing the wealth.

Economic freedom trumps economic inequality. Most conservatives are against the government becoming involved in helping some businesses to become successful, while not helping their competition.

The Bible clearly tells those with land and wealth to consider the poor. There is even a 3.3% yearly tax in Israel for the poor. However, very successful men were not instructed as to how to pay their workers (or slaves).

Wealth inequality is basically an argument advanced by communism/socialism in an economically successful nation.

Welfare

There is not enough welfare. Children are going to bed hungry and people are living out on the streets. We need to have more compassion. More welfare benefits need to be distributed; therefore, more taxes need to be collected to pay for this.

Our welfare, food stamp, section 8 and free lunch programs need to be revamped and reduced dramatically.

If you go to a poor part of town, one thing that you do not find are staving children. What is more often the case is, people are overfed.

For nation Israel, the Bible clearly required money to be taxed and used for the poor—3⅓%.year was used for helping the poor, the Levites and the foreigners. This means that 1–2% of a person’s income was taxed and used for the poor. Private subsidies for the poor was encouraged as well (farmers were told to not harvest the corners of their field and to allow the poor to come in and do this).

A socialized system was tried in the early church in Jerusalem and it turned out that it did not work. Other churches were required to financially help the Jerusalem church out. Two points should be made: (1) that a private socialistic approach did not work was certainly because of persecution that the early church faced; and (2) this was a small, private, 100% voluntary agreement.

The Bible teaches If anyone does not desire to work, neither let him eat (2Thess. 3:10). Our welfare should not be extended to those who are healthy and able to do work. Food should not be provided for those who do not work for it and are able to afford it. The idea that someone ought to be give welfare for decades, when that person is fully able to work, is simply vote buying and it destroys the divine institutions of work, marriage and family (as people who are not married are far more likely to be given welfare benefits).

In the Old Testament, those who were poor worked for their needs. Farmers were supposed to leave portions of their field unharvested, and the poor would be allowed to come in to these fields and harvest for themselves. There poor, therefore, may not have had fields of their own; and this allowed them to come onto the fields of successful farmers after a harvest and take for themselves. Lev. 19:9–10 23:22

The Divine Institutions:

1.The human soul; the function of the soul; the use of one’s free will. Gen. 2:15–17

2.The concept of work. Man worked in the Garden of Eden and he worked after the fall. It is harmful to the human soul to not work.

3.Marriage is the lifetime alliance of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. The man is the head of the household. Gen. 2:22–24

4.Family is one man and one woman along with “X” number of children. The parents are the authority in this institution. Gen. 4:1

5.Human government and nationalism. God designed for groups of men to bind themselves together with one another under a cohesive, geographic unit. Gen. 9:1–17 11:7–9

The Work Ethic

It does not appear to be a problem to the left that a permanent dependent class is being created of people who do not work. Unemployment benefits have been extended for years now (I write this in 2010) and social security benefits is given out like candy to those with real and alleged disabilities.

Although conservatives do not want to see people dying in the streets, they believe that self-worth can be much more easily attained by a person who is working rather than one who sits at home and receives a check.

Conservatives would prefer to see those with disabilities working for a living. Obviously, there are some limitations here.

If anyone does not desire to work, neither let him eat (2Thess. 3:10b). Work is a divine institution, designed for man in the Garden and after the Fall. Although there is welfare set up for the widow and the orphan, the Bible nowhere suggests that we classify reasonably healthy people as substandard and send them a check for the rest of their lives.

God sets Adam to work almost immediately when still in innocence. Work is also required—even more so—of man outside of the garden (after the Fall—Gen. 3:17–19). The Bible always speaks highly of work. Eccles. 5:12 Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep.

Even though the Bible does not disparage the wealthy, it does have a few words to say about get rich quick schemes (which reasonably, could include gambling and playing the lottery): Prov. 28:20 A faithful man will abound with blessings, but whoever hastens to be rich will not go unpunished. Prov. 13:11 Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it. (ESV)

Many people find their productive niche in life when confronted with their own shortcomings (Rush Limbaugh, popular conservative talk show host, would certainly qualify for disability pay based upon the level of his deafness).

Work is a divine institution, which means it is designed for both believers and unbelievers. See Work as a Divine Institution below.

I believe that there is only one passage in the Bible which addresses abortion directly.

The Bible and Abortion: The Exegesis of Exodus 21:22–25

Scripture

Text/Commentary

When men get in a fight, and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely, but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman's husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.

The text here sets up a scenario where 2 men are fighting, and a pregnant woman gets into the action somehow. In the commotion, the woman is struck and she gives birth prematurely.

The Hebrew word for injury means harm or injury. No injury here indicates that, despite the premature birth, both the mother and child are okay. The judge is to determine an appropriate fine.

If there is an injury, then you must give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound.

There is literal and then there is literal. The concept of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is appropriate and equivalent punishment.

Because the person who is injured is not specified, I would reasonably apply this to both the mother and her aborted child. Even Christians who believe that this child is not fully a child until God breathes life into it; recognize that an aborted child may take a breath before dying (and the Bible here does not distinguish here between the aborted child who takes a gulp of air and dies and that which is aborted dead).

If we are only speaking of injury to the mother, then this passage would make little sense. It would be like giving the example of what you would do for a redheaded person who is injured in a fight and then repeating this for a person with blond hair. What makes this passage different from any other passage where harm is caused is, this woman is pregnant. If the child’s injuries or death are not relevant to the punishment, then God the Holy Spirit would have specified this, to indicate that the death of an aborted fetus is no big deal.

R. B. Thieme, Jr. taught that soul life begins when God breathes life into a child when it is born. This is also a very traditional view of life among many Christians and Jews (one which I agree with). However, Bob extrapolated this out to allow for abortions as a decision between the mother and the doctor. Although Bob was quite clear on these 2 points, it was never clear to me how far Bob was willing to take this. Did he really have no problem whatsoever with abortion as retroactive birth control? Logically, following this view out, could one not make a reasonable argument for abortion on demand up until the day before giving birth?

In any case, this is one of the few places I part company with Bob, particularly on the application of this doctrine. Although I have no problem with a person having complete soul life at birth, when God breathes life into the child, I also believe that the gestation process needs to be respected. This is how God chose to perpetuate the `human race and I see no reason to interfere with it, apart from the very rare situation where the woman’s life is seriously endangered.

It is important to recognize that, for the unbeliever, this is not a Biblical issue. Unbelievers have absolutely no rational reason to support abortion, apart from personal convenience. When a fetus begins to form in the womb of a woman, that fetus is fully and totally a human being from a medical point of view. It is composed to human tissue; regardless of how it looks at any stage in the pregnancy. What is in the womb, scientifically speaking, is 100% human. One can only dispute the meaning of this collection of human cells with a unique human DNA philosophically; one cannot dispute its life or its composition scientifically. It is alive and it is human. This child is completely dependent upon the mother in the womb, and, for at least a year or 3, will be completely dependent upon the mother (or another adult) outside of the womb. The dependence of the child upon its birth mother is no more a reason to allow for the killing of that child in the womb than it is a legitimate argument to kill an infant outside of the womb.

Therefore, a Christian can make a credible theological argument in favor of abortion (although I would disagree with that argument); however, the unbeliever has no credible argument in favor of abortion. If God is not breathing life into this child at birth, then why is this collection of human tissue outside of the womb one minute, appreciably different from that same collection of human tissue inside of the womb, a minute previous to birth?

Morality is necessary for the perpetuation of the human race.

Establishment and Morality

1.        Morality is the observation of the laws of divine establishment. Therefore, morality is for both the believer and unbeliever.

2.        The laws of divine establishment include various established authorities and the last 6 commandments of the Ten Commandments.

3.        Morality includes obedience to established authorities and obedience to the final 6 commandments.

4.        Since sin is an attack on establishment, morality is the antidote and is commanded for both believer and unbeliever.

5.        Because we possess an old sin nature, it is our desire to resist the authorities over us and to disobey certain of the commandments. This may help to explain why there is such a strong movement to remove the Ten Commandments from in or around any courtroom—that movement is a reflection of the old sin nature.

6.        Therefore, morality is not Christianity, but is the human race functioning under the laws of divine establishment.

7.        Morality is not the monopoly of Christianity. Christians in civil responsibility have moral responsibility. Anything an unbeliever can do is not the Christian way of life. Believers have great responsibility to their nation to obey the laws of divine establishment.

8.        Morality is defined as right conduct and excellence in the function of the laws of divine establishment. This includes obedience to authority and willingly obeying the final 6 commandments.

9.        Morality is conformity to the laws of divine establishment, which has as its basic tenet: live and let live (which is freedom respecting the freedom of others). This overlaps with the royal family honor code.

10.      While Christianity is not morality but a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, Christianity demands morality from the royal family of God. We are not exempt from certain civil responsibilities.

11.      Therefore, the advancing believer is never anti-establishment or immoral. No mature believer is a socialist.

12.      The laws of divine establishment demand morality from both believer and unbeliever alike.

13.      Morality is the result of spiritual growth, but it is not living the Christian life. Living the Christian life is compliance with the royal family honor code.

14.      Living the Christian life is the filling of the Holy Spirit, maximum doctrine in the soul, positive volition to doctrine, and maturity adjustment to the justice of God. None of these can be accomplished by the unbeliever. Christianity is not morality, but this doesn't mean you can be immoral.

15.      Morality as an establishment factor protects human freedom, but it does not provide eternal salvation, Gal. 2:16 Titus 3:5 Rom. 3:20.

16.      Morality can and does protect human freedom. Immorality leads to anarchy, i.e., no recognition of authority. Christian dynamics includes morality but, at the same time, exceeds morality. Morality is the environment in which Christianity functions.

This is taken from the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF). See also the Doctrine of Human Good (HTML) (PDF) and the Doctrine of Morality (HTML) (PDF).

The Ten Commandments were not designed strictly for the Jews.

The Ten Commandments and Divine Establishment Laws

1.        Although the Ten Commandments were given specifically to the nation Israel, they provide an outline for the preservation of freedom.

2.        The first 4 commandments provide a basic spiritual code and the final 6 commandments provide a freedom code for believers and unbelievers alike.

3.        Paul tells Timothy: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. Understanding that the law is not laid down for the just [believers] but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane [all categories of unbelievers and out-of-fellowship believers], for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted (1Tim. 1:8–11).

4.        Therefore, the Ten Commandments are a freedom code which describe what freedom is within a national entity, which is divine institution #4. The final 6 commandments are designed to preserve divine institutions #1–3, and, inasmuch as they maintain an orderly society, #4. These final 6 commandments also codify the Godly concept of private property.

5.        The first 3 commandments define the legal relationship between God and man.

6.        Commandment #1: “You will have no other gods before Me.” (Ex. 20:3). For there is one God and there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5). God is preeminent; believers should put nothing before God. “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” (Luke 16:13). Obviously, this commandment is for believers only.

7.        Commandment #2: “You will not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You will not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Ex. 20:4–6). “Then being offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold or silver or stone, engraved by art and man's imagination.” (Acts 17:29). We cannot make something with our hands and then worship that. Again, this is for believers only.

8.        Commandment #3: “Do not use the name of Jehovah your God in a false, evil, vain or demeaning way. Jehovah will make sure that anyone who speaks His name in such a way will be punished.” (Ex. 20:7). Believers only.

9.        Commandment #4: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you will labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you will not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Ex. 20:8–11). This was a law to the Jews only, although there is application to us. Virtually all civilizations have a 7-day week, which is based upon God’s restoration of the earth in 6 days.

10.      The final 6 commandments define the relationship between men in a national entity, which are the essence of a code which provides freedom, protects private property rights, and protects and preserves divine institutions #1–4.

11.      With the 5^th commandment, we begin to get into the laws of divine establishment, which ought to be carried over into all nations and civilizations. Commandment #5: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.” (Ex. 20:12). Here, the relationship of the family is codified for all time, and the nation which obeys this commandment is assured of a longer continuation of the nation in which he is in. Paul affirms this commandment and adds that this is the first commandment associated with a promise of blessing from God (Eph. 6:1–2). This law is for all dispensations, and a nation which disobeys this is a nation which is on its way down.

12.      Commandment #6: “You will not murder.” (Ex. 20:13). This was one of the first commandments given to man after the flood (Gen. 9:6, where man was responsible to punish those who murdered with death). Murder represents the ultimate in the removal of another person’s ability to make free will decisions. This is an attack upon divine institution #1, and depending upon that status of that person, possibly divine institutions #2 and #3 as well.

13.      Commandment #7: “You will not commit adultery.” (Ex. 20:14). Adultery is forbidden in Rom. 7:2–3 and Heb. 13:4. It is an attack upon divine institutions #2 and #3.

14.      Commandment #8: “You will not steal.” (Ex. 20:15). Paul writes, in Eph. 4:28: Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. This commandment tells us that we have a right to own property. Private property is protected by Scripture.

15.      Commandment #9: “You will not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Ex. 20:16). Paul says that the law was designed for liars and those who perjure themselves in 1Tim. 1:10. Going to court can deprive a person of their volition or of their property; therefore, God expects for us to tell the truth in court.

16.      Commandment #10: “You will not desire to take your neighbor's house; you will not desire to take your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.” (Ex. 20:17). This commandment is repeated in the New Testament. Jesus said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses." (Luke 12:15; see also Eph. 5:5). If a nation respects commandments 8 and 10, then there will be no welfare state and no socialized anything. Obviously, there would be no communism.

17.      Commandments 6–10 represent establishment law for any orderly society and apply to both believers and unbelievers alike.

This is taken from the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Before Adam sinned, God gave him 2 jobs (to name all of the animals and to take care of the Garden of Eden). After the fall, God promised Adam that he would have to work hard in order to eat.

Work as a Divine Institution

The Second Divine Institution is Work

1.        Before and after the fall, man was designed to work.

2.        Before the fall, God made man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to work. And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden. And there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. The tree of life also was in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden. And from there it was divided and became four heads. And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it (Gen. 2:8–10, 15).

3.        After man sinned, God gave Adam ground that was more difficult to work and He warned man that he would work hard in order to eat. “The ground is cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat of it all the days of your life. It shall also bring forth thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken.” (Gen. 3:17b–19a).

4.        Although the earliest professions were farmer and rancher (Cain and Abel), early man quickly developed a number of vocations: builder (Gen. 4:17), musician (Gen. 4:21) and metal-worker (Gen. 4:22). Early man also engaged in criminal activity, even before this activity was clearly defined (Gen. 4:23–24).

5.        Work is an integral part of man’s existence. Even though man works hard, he will also receive personal satisfaction from his work. Eccles. 9:9 speaks of two things which are to bring enjoyment in life: a man’s right woman and his labor. Since this passage refers to him as under the sun, this refers to believers and unbelievers both.

6.        God expected even the poor to work. God told the farmers in early Israel not to harvest everything in the field, but to leave portions of the field unharvested. This was so that the poor of the land and immigrants could come through and harvest this themselves. Lev. 19:9–10 23:22 Deut. 24:19–21

7.        One of the great stories in the Bible is about Ruth, a Moabite, who moved to Israel, but was quite poor. Therefore, she worked the fields of Boaz for that which he had not harvested. Ruth 2:2, 15

8.        Nowhere in the Bible is there some sort of welfare system recommended where a man or a woman sits at home and receives a check. Instead, hard word is presented as honorable. Prov. 6:6–12 10:5

9.        However, the poor were not to be ignored or abandoned. “If there is among you a poor man of one of your brothers inside any of your gates in your land which Jehovah your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother. But you shall open your hand wide to him, and shall surely lend him enough for his need, that which he lacks. For the poor shall never cease out of the land. Therefore, I command you saying, You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor, and to your needy, in your land.” (Deut. 15:7–8, 11).

10.      There was a national fund for the poor, which amounted to 10% every third year, which averages out to 3⅓% per year. “When you have finished paying all the tenth of your produce in the third year, the year of the tenth, you are to give it to the Levite, the foreign resident, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.” (Deut. 26:12).

11.      Personal happiness for believers and unbelievers is associated with working(and with marrying your right woman). Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going (Eccles. 9:9–10; ESV).

12.      Hard work is always presented as admirable; and laziness is spoken of as a personal failing. Prov. 24:30–34 Eccles. 5:18–20 Eph. 4:28

13.      Ideally speaking, if you work hard at your job, there are going to be times that you gain some satisfaction from this; and you tend to appreciate your time of rest even more.

14.      Even Paul writes to the Thessalonians and tells them, if they don’t work, then they should not eat. 2Thess. 3:10

15.      When it comes to work, there are systems of authority. Sometimes, this system of authority is within the human soul. You know what you must produce, you understand the seasons, and you recognize what you must do in order to preserve your food in order to eat when food is not growing.

16.      Most of us go to a job where we work for someone else. The owner, manager, boss, department head, shift manager is the authority over us; and the larger the organization, the greater the organization and the more layers of authority there are. These authorities are for believers and unbelievers alike.

17.      Satan has attacked this with the welfare state, section 8 housing, and food assistance programs. One of the things which has stuck in my mind, over the years, is a mother and daughter who rented a house from me, and section 8 paid the rent for them. Every morning, their job was to get up, sit on the couch, break open the smokes, and watch tv. Now, you might think that, having no job, their house would be clean and their kids well taken care of. Not a chance. The kids ran around unsupervised and the house was one of the filthiest houses I had ever been in.

18.      Satan also attacks the divine institution of work with unfair business owners and with unions. Although the owner of a business gets to call the shots because he owns the business and has made all of the investments, his choices are important. If he exploits his workforce, there can be a backlash of union activity, which completely distorts the system of authority (however, the owner of the company chose to distort his own authority first). There have been a number of companies which have been successful and part of their strategy has been to treat their workforce with dignity and respect (Coors, HEB, Whole Foods, Starbuck’s, and Wal-Mart come to mind).

19.      Union leaders have figured out that, they can organize public employees—even when these employees are well remunerated—and demand pretty much anything, as there is very little personal integrity when it comes to the management of public works (that is, they do not care what costs they incur; they simply ask the taxpayers to pay more money).

20.      So you see how these institutions are distorted. Bad employers caused unions to spring up, which, in turn, moved into the public sector, where salary and benefits were almost unlimited, even though there was no indication that the problems the unions originally fought to correct even existed in any form in the public sector.

This is a doctrine taken out from the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Essential to a society is the divine institution of marriage.

The Third Divine Institution—Marriage

1.        Marriage, the third divine institution, mixes freedom, privacy, authority and responsibility (and, unless otherwise indicated, these points apply to believers and unbelievers alike).

2.        Marriage is designed for the happiness of believers and unbelievers alike. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going (Eccles. 9:9–10; ESV).

3.        Monogamy, a permanent relationship between one man and one woman, is ordained of God to remind mankind that He has from the beginning a design called right man-right woman, Gen. 1:26:27 5:1-2 2:18-25 1 Cor 7:2-4.

4.        Marriage is the most basic and fundamental organization in the human race. Even the unbeliever, whose life is a total failure, can have great temporary happiness by marrying the right woman, Eccl. 9:9

5.        Under the authority of the laws of divine establishment, the right man-right woman relationship becomes the normal, legitimate expression of category 2 love, 1Cor 7:9 1Tim. 5:14 Eph. 5:22, 23, 28, 33 Heb. 13:4. Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

6.        The husband has authority and responsibility for his wife, and the wife has volition, which, in marriage, she has, at least at one point in time, surrendered to her husband. The husband has all the authority; there are no exceptions or rationalizations. Violations of a principle do not change the principle. Col. 3:18–19

7.        It is the husbands part to love his wife and the wife’s part to obey her husband. This does not mean that the husband has to sit around and work up emotional feelings for his wife; but he is to treat her with respect and care, as she becomes his responsibility in marriage. Eph. 5:25–31

8.        Marriage is the basis for stability in society and for the formation of civilization.

9.        The laws of divine establishment are designed to protect freedom and to preserve the human race; marriage both protects and preserves the human race.

10.      Marriage is a relationship analogous to our relationship with God. God has the authority and He has taken upon Himself the responsibility for us. As believers, we may accept or reject His authority, which affects the nature of the relationship. Eph. 5:22–26

11.      It is the stability of marriage—this applies to both believers and unbelievers—that allows for preservation of a nation, which in turn preserves the human race and human freedom.

12.      When a husband and wife pray to the same God, this is a corporate witness for God in the Angelic Conflict. Matt. 18:20 1Peter 3:7

13.      Satan, society and unbelievers attack the institution of marriage:

           1)        Satan attacks marriages from within, to try to destroy them.

           2)        Marriage is presented by society as a 50-50 proposition with no clear line of authority (as has happened in the era of the woman’s movement).

           3)        Satan and society attack the marriage unit with substitutes, usually attempting to exploit the sexual drive: promiscuity, sexual perversions, homosexuality, lesbianism, and various distortions of marriage (homosexual unions, polygamy, living together).

           4)        Homosexuality is one of the great attacks upon marriage in the time in which we live. Why is there this great move within education to present homosexuality as normal behavior? Why do homosexuals want to teach to children that anal intercourse between 2 males is equivalent to normal intercourse even before a child knows what that word even means? It’s not difficult. If you get to a young person before or at puberty, sexual function at that age can impact long-term sexual behavior. Teaching homosexual behavior as normal behavior leads to more homosexual behavior.

           5)        I mentioned the fundamental dishonesty of Satanic attacks against the divine institutions. No proponent of teaching homosexuality in the classroom will ever be honest about their intentions. They will never say, “We think that homosexuality as a behavior needs to be taught to children before they have reached puberty.” They will introduce it dishonestly, in the form of a bullying program or as an alternative children’s book.

This is a doctrine taken out from the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

The divine institution of family is designed for all societies.

The Fourth Divine Institution—Family

1.       The family provides the framework for maintaining order within a society. Children are taught establishment and biblical norms and standards, the clarity of absolute rights and wrongs, and authority orientation.

2.       Because we are born into this world as completely helpless, God has designed the family as the proper unit within which to raise a child and to protect the mother. Ideally speaking, this requires the child’s biological parents.

3.       With regards to family, the ideal is 1 male and 1 female believer, married, growing spiritually, and raising up children. Part of our growing process is learning from both the male and female of the species, whether we are male or female children.

4.       The ideal family for the unbeliever is 1 male and 1 female and their biological children.

5.       This provides protection for the souls and bodies of the children as well as guidance. The idea is to take this helpless thing and raise them so that they are able to make their own decisions as a grownup.

6.       Parental authority is the way of preparing children for a normal life. Permissiveness destroys this because the child learns how to use his volition, but he does not understand the importance of authority. There is certainly a place for the discipline of a child within the family. Prov. 23:13

7.       Parents who control nearly every aspect of their child’s volition until they leave the home also undermine that child’s need to learn how to make his own decisions. There is a happy medium to be found, somewhere between the parent who allows their children unrestricted use of their volition to the parent who is a drill sergeant. Prov. 29:15, 17 Eph. 6:1, 4 Col. 3:20–21

8.       The highest expression of parental love is to teach through the forms of discipline. Prov. 13:24 23:13

9.       Children are all born with sin natures. Therefore, in order to introduce this child into society, and we need for that child to behave responsibly—with respect for the volition, privacy and property of others. Prov. 22:15

10.     From age 0 on up to when the child leaves the home, the parent enforces specific decisions, teaching the child why such decisions are made; and gradually, these children are allowed to make their own decisions. It is like teaching a child to swim; you do not throw them into the deep end first day out and say, “Swim.” There needs to be a little more guidance and instruction before that occurs.

11.     Because of the old sin nature and a child’s natural rebelliousness, sometimes it takes awhile for good training to catch on. Prov, 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

12.     However, discipline and teaching; and the children responding by honoring his parents, results in a longer life for the child. Eph. 6:1–3

13.     There is an enforced humility which eventually yields to the adult child’s own personal humility.

14.     Parents must teach poise, objectivity, respect for police, patriotism, and willingness to serve to protect freedom. Believers are to teach Bible doctrine to their children. Deut 6:6-9, 7:9 Prov. 4:1 5:7 7:24

15.     It is the responsibility of parents to instill respect for the Word of God, the teaching of Bible doctrine, plus recognition of authority of the pastor-teacher. This is a spiritual responsibility over and above their establishment responsibility. Deut. 6:6–9 Prov. 22:6 1Tim. 5:1 2TIm. 3:15

16.     The parent is also to set an example for the child. Parents who act honorably in all things teach their children to do likewise, which is a blessing to the child. Prov. 20:7

17.     Nations in which marriages are crumbling are destroyed from within. One example of this is crime; a criminal is much more likely to have come from a single-parent home than from a nuclear family. This is one way that the disintegration of marriage affects all of us.

18.     Incidentally, race is not a factor with regards to criminality. When various races are normalized by looking at those raised in a 2-parent family, then there is very little difference between the races with respect to criminality.

19.     When parents do not fulfill their responsibility and children do not "honor" their parents, the nation suffers from insecurity, instability, and eventual loss of liberty. National disintegration begins in the family.

20.     This brings about internal decay in the client nation and in any nation.

21.     As an occasional watcher of Wife Swap, it is clear that the producers go out to find the flakiest of families, where the parents, for the most part, are terrifically unbalanced. However, no matter what a mess they have made of their lives, it is clear that they love their children, and a little exposure to someone who is just as wacky on the other side, often brings them to a more balanced approach to child-rearing (and it is clear, even in the case of unbelievers, that their desire is to do the best job they can in their marriage and in raising their children).

22.     There is a balance of free will and authority within a family: Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. And fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:1–4).

23.     When one generation fails to teach norms and standards, virtues and values, and authority orientation to its children, they become dysfunctional adults and their children continue the process of national decline.

24.     Statistics are mistakenly used to show that there are a disproportionate number of African Americans caught up on the wrong side of the law (as well as being more likely to use and/or sell drugs, to engage in underage drinking; to become pregnant out of wedlock). Even though this is true, it is not the color of a person’s skin which is the determining factor—it is the family unit, or the lack thereof. That is, if we examine crime statistics of the children of both Black and White nuclear families, there are no appreciable differences. The key for these negative factors in the lives of children is single motherhood, not race. The United States is a client nation to God, but it still makes a lot of stupid decisions. One corporate decision the United States has made is to encourage single motherhood among Blacks (when you subsidize something, you get more of it; when you tax it, you get less of it). We subsidize single black mothers in this nation, and the result is criminality on the part of their children. This is a good example of a client nation making a lousy corporate decision.

25.     Satanic attacks upon the family unit:

          1)       Just as before, Satan attacks the divine institution of the family with substitutes: single-mother households, gay-parent households, pre-school, public education (which attempts to undermine the authority of the home). As I write this, we have a school board in Montana which wants to introduce homosexuality and homosexual positions to grade school children, teaching it to be equivalent to heterosexual activity.

          2)       Satan also attacks with broken families, setting children against the parents or parents against their children.

          3)       One attack upon the family and upon the marriage is sex education. it is our fault, as parents, that there is sex education in the schools. The schools said, “Let us handle teaching sex education to your children” and most parents thought to themselves, “Whew; I no longer have to give the talk to any of my kids. Score.” Is htere anything more uncomfortable than a mother or father having to sit down, one-on-one, with one of their children, and tell them about sex? However, that is what God designed. Even if you are given the opportunity to abrogate your responsibilities as a parent, that does not mean the result will be beneficial to your child. It is this abrogation of parental responsibility which results in teachers telling your children that there is no difference between heterosexual or homosexual behavior.

          4)       Sex education even distorts normal heterosexual behavior; particularly when the teacher has the attitude that kids are going to have sex, no matter what we say or do. That exact same teacher, when looking at the drop-out rate of a school, would never say, “Kids are going to drop out. There is nothing you can do about it.”

          5)       Abortion is a result of a lack of natural affection, one indication that a society is on the decline.

          6)       Rom. 1:22–32 describes a number of areas where our negative volition and Satanic attacks overlap: Professing to be wise, they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things [any sort of idolatry]. Because of this, God gave them up to impurity in the lusts of their hearts, their bodies to be dishonored among themselves, who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing [any sort of creature worship, including that of Satan] more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Because of this, God gave them up to dishonorable passions, for even their females changed the natural use to that contrary to nature [lesbianism]. And likewise, the males also forsaking the natural use of the female burned in their lust toward one another [homosexuality], males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving back within themselves the reward which was fitting for their error. And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right, having been filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, iniquity, covetousness, malice, being full of envy [this includes this idea that we deserve this or that], murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, proud, braggarts, devisers of evil things, disobedient to parents [attack on the family], without discernment, covenant breakers [people who do not honor the contracts which they sign], without natural affection [including a natural love toward one’s own children], unforgiving, unmerciful, who knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also approve those practicing them. Such things are actually glorified. Have you ever heard of gay pride week?

This is a doctrine taken out from the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

God designed nationalism for mankind and not a one-world government.

The Fifth Divine Institution—Human Government and Nationalism

1.        The divine institution of national governments helps to preserve the freedom of peoples of the earth. It is God’s plan for there to be many nations. When a nation is negative toward the plan of God, it is isolated from other national entities. When there is a lot of positive volition within a nation, that nation protects the freedom of its citizens. Deut. 32:8

2.        This is made clear when God judges the Tower of Babel, the first United Nations building, where the descendants of Noah were divided by language in order to get them to spread out over the earth. Gen. 11:1–9

3.        A national entity protects human volition and allows for man to be evangelized. Acts 17:26–27a “And God made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him.”

4.        Divine institutions balance volition and authority. Rom.13:1–7 tells us the importance of the authority of the national entity (and other authorities within the entity): Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

5.        Nationalism also contains evil. Evil may grow and expand within a nation, but nationalism, for the most part, constrains this evil geographically. Nationalism similarly protects other sovereign nations from importing evil from another nation.

           1)        Throughout the world, there are now, in 2010, dozens of evil Islamic organizations which are looking to expand their influence.

           2)        Although these groups may be partially sponsored by this or that nation, they often move outside of the boundaries of that nation.

           3)        However, other national entities can keep these groups out, if they so choose.

6.        To perpetuate the human race and bring history to its logical conclusion, God has designed the nation to protect the freedom and rights of the people within this nation and to protect the other people on this planet.

           1)        This does not mean that all nations are free.

           2)        Under the concept, a people get the government that they deserve, some governments are going to be oppressive, intrusive and over-bearing.

           3)        However, there will be freedom in some nations, which is often where the gospel and Bible doctrine spring from.

           4)        Furthermore, people from the outside will be drawn to a nation where there are many believers. Furthermore, it will be drawn to its customs and culture (often, what they are expressing is positive volition toward the gospel). This is why some foreigners move to the United States and become Christians and that nation’s greatest patriots.

7.        Ideally speaking, a nation provides equality under the law and a maximum amount of economic freedom for its citizens. Both of these ideals will result in an inequality of outcomes.

           1)        There must be a system of common law which prohibits crime and thereby protects the freedom, rights, life, and property of individuals. It must be a system of law which does not overstep the law by using the law to try to solve social problems. Law, therefore, must always be objective. Subjective distortion of the law uses legislation to invade individual rights, to steal personal property, and to erode human freedom; all in the name of the common good.

           2)        A government should not try to favor one sort of people over another (although, a government can show preference to divine institutions over human institutions, to the point of even outlawing the latter).

           3)        People are not born equal, and it is not up to the government to try to make them equal.

           4)        People use their unequal abilities to work. It is not the government’s job to look at me and Donald Trump, who are in similar businesses, and take from Donald Trump and give to me, because he is slightly better off than I am, as a result of our work.

           5)        A government should protect the freedom of its citizens; and therefore, it should not take money or opportunity from citizen A and given that to citizen B.

           6)        When a government, political candidate or political party encourages us to disobey the 10^th commandment (we are not to covet the possessions of anyone else, even if they are rich), then we know that person or entity is wrong and they will lead our nation astray.

8.        There ought to be a common culture which reflects the spiritual life, morality, esprit de corps, nobility, patriotism, and integrity of a nation through its literature, art, music, and drama. One of the present weaknesses of the United States is, illegal aliens moving into the states and then maintaining their own national identity. Because of their illegal status, they make no attempt to enter into the American society. The same is true of Muslims in European society.

9.        There should be a system of government which functions under its power without abusing its power to destroy freedom and establishment. There should be an administrative body to represent the functions of taxation, law enforcement, honorable jurisprudence, maintenance of the military, and enforcement of law and order without the destruction of human freedom.

10.      Ideally speaking, the economy ought to be based on free enterprise and capitalism. Labor has no right to dictate the policy of management. Smart management always takes good care of its workers. Government, labor, or criminals do not have the right to superimpose their policy on management. The separation of business and state is an important distinction.

11.      Government ought not to disparage the divine institutions.

           1)        I have heard candidate Barack Obama and a number of Democrats talk about people working hard and yet not advancing in society as much as they think we ought to. Hard work is a good thing, and people who work hard, over time, will generally be successful in a free society.

           2)        Proposition 8, in California, was a definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. The arrogant Judge Walker overturned this decision of the people. It is up to society to determine, under our form of government, what constitutes marriage and what does not. This judge created a right (the right for homosexuals to get married) out of whole cloth. Studies have shown that there are a variety of factors involved in people choosing to engage in homosexual activity, many of which have nothing to do with genetics (although genetics is a factor, but not a determining factor).

           3)        When government shows a preference to single motherhood by providing a myriad of benefits to single mothers (with a threat to permanently remove such benefits if that mother marries), the government is deciding against the institutions of marriage and family. We have studies which show that single parent homes produce far more criminals than do traditional family homes. By encouraging single-motherhood, a society destroys itself from the inside (by encouraging criminality).

12.      Negative volition and scar tissue of the soul explains why some of those who live in a great nation actually think poorly of their own nation and its history. Not only are their souls blinded, but they have nothing which they can compare their life to (apart from, at best, some trips to foreign countries). Their souls have sucked in false thinking and anti-establishment thinking.

           1)        Scar tissue is a build-up of negative volition on the soul.

13.      Good government can be easily corrupted when people look to government rather than to themselves or to God to solve their problems.

           1)        Absolute power in the hands of insecure and incompetent rulers, whose power lust feeds on an insecure generation demanding something for nothing, results in a nation selling its heritage of freedom for a mess a pottage.

           2)        In demanding security from government an insecure generation becomes an entitlement generation.

           3)        Insecure politicians offer some form of socialism that is always divorced from establishment principles found in the infallible Word of God.

           4)        If you seek security in any other than God then you are a weak dysfunctional adult.

           5)        The government’s job is to protect freedom, not direct it.

14.      Good government is designed to protect its citizens and their freedom with respect to the divine institutions and to the laws of divine establishment.

           1)        Good government protects the volition, privacy and property of its citizens.

           2)        This requires a proper system of law enforcement, jurisprudence, and a system of law whereby a person is innocent until proved guilty, where only proper testimony is allowed and no hearsay is permitted, and where double jeopardy does not exist.

           3)        Similarly, a good government protects the people from the government itself. That is, the government is not to look to control the volition of others (apart from their criminal activity), nor is the government to rob us of our privacy or property.

           4)        Good government will support the work ethic and will not provide multiple ways for people to live without having to work (as our government does with welfare, section 8 housing and social security—and I am talking about social security being used for non-retired persons. Tens of thousands of Americans under the age of 40 draw social security.). A government which coerces people not to work through government handouts destroys the souls of those people (even if this is done with the best of intentions).

           5)        Good government is going to support the divine institution of marriage; society may or may not choose to recognize other forms of unions; but none of these other unions (whether polygamous or homosexual) are designed by God.

           6)        Marriage also is a protection for the children which may intentionally or unintentionally be brought into the world. When a government shows preference for, say, single-mother families, that government is making decisions to destroy itself from the inside. Studies have linked all kinds of anti-social and negative behavior to single mother households. More children from a single mother household will be involved in underage drinking, use drugs, get pregnant, commit crimes, go to jail, and/or head their own single-mother household.

           7)        It is the simple adage: tax it, and you get less of it; subsidize it, and you get more of it. I write this in 2010 where we are taxing businesses and wealth and profit and capital gains, and our President and a number of economists and newspaper reporters seem to be shocked that more jobs are not being created. At the same time, our government encourages single-motherhood by subsidizing them. Should we be shocked that more and more children are being born to unwed mothers?

           8)        Quite obviously, a good government will pass laws which look to encourage obeying the final 6 commandments. A government (or political candidate or party) which encourages it citizenry to covet the wealth which belongs to the rich, will destroy that nation from the inside.

           9)        The Bible gives us a good idea as to how much a government ought to tax. If my understanding is correct, there were 2 tithes (10% each) to be paid by the people; and another tithe paid every 3 years for the poor. Since much of that was designed to go to the Levites and to the spiritual concerns of nation Israel, an across the board tax of 13⅓% would be ideal for a nation. 3⅓% per year would be spent on welfare concerns.

           10)      Quite obviously, no government is ideal; even that of the United States, which is the greatest nation in the history of man. We do not get to disobey our government simply because it is not ideal. Luke 20:25 Rom. 13:1–7

15.      The national entity and the military:

           1)        The exterior protection of freedom comes through a strong, well-prepared military. Although the Bible does not give us a list of the great pacifists from this or that era, or the great businessmen; it does give us a list of the great soldiers from David’s time. This is one of the many ways that the Bible indicates great respect for the military. 2Sam. 23 1Chron. 11

           2)        The highest compliment which Jesus paid to a man was a military man because he understood authority and he understood Jesus’ authority. Furthermore, Jesus did not tell this man, “Put down your sword and follow Me.” Matt. 8:5–10

           3)        Wars are a part of human history. There is nothing that we can do to stave off war, apart from having a strong military. Matt 12:29 24:6 Luke 11:21

           4)        God both uses and blesses the military of a client nation. God used the Jews to destroy the great degeneracy of those nations in the land of Canaan. The destruction of all the people in Jericho is one example of many. Joshua 6

           5)        Failure of the military on the battlefield indicates lack of training, lack of self-discipline, poor equipment, but mostly lack of respect for authority and no spiritual motivation or incentive to fight.

           6)        Failure of the military means loss of freedom.

           7)        Therefore, freedom is always related to authority. Freedom without authority is anarchy; authority without freedom is tyranny.

           8)        The military establishment is an index to national character. Successful armies maintain freedom. This is why universal military training is an axiom in the laws of divine establishment, Num 1:2-3 31:3-5; Deut 24:5; Judges 3:1-2; 2 Sam 22:35; Ps 18:34, 144:1.

           9)        Military training is useless when the men of a nation are reversionistic, apostate, and degenerate. Draft dodgers, slackers, and deserters are sinful in the eyes of God, Num 32:6,7,14,20-23.

           10)      Antagonism toward authority destroys the function of the military as the instrument of freedom.

           11)      Military victory is the means of maintaining peace, not the modus operandi of politicians, Josh 11:23; Psalm 46:7-9. Politicians generally are divorced from reality, saying "`Peace, Peace,' when there is no peace," Jer 6:13-14, 8:11.

16.      A government is a reflection of the souls of its citizens. The amount of positive or negative volition toward the gospel and toward Bible doctrine determine the direction of a nation.

17.      A client nation will have a significant number of believers with a significant subset of them who are growing spiritually. Their thinking and actions within the nation will determine whether or not that nation is a client nation to God.

18.      Joshua encouraged his own people, the nation Israel: “Be very careful, therefore, to love the LORD your God. For if you turn back and cling to the remnant of these nations remaining among you and make marriages with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know for certain that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you, but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good ground that the LORD your God has given you. And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the LORD your God has given you, if you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you.” (Joshua 23:11–16). A nation makes corporate decisions; decisions which are based upon thousands and millions of individual decisions. Quite obviously, these things are said to believers in Jehovah Elohim.

19.      If we reject His Word (negative volition toward Bible doctrine), God will reject us. Hosea 4:6–9 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they increased, the more they sinned against me; I will change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of my people; they are greedy for their iniquity. And it will be like people, like priest; I will punish them for their ways and repay them for their deeds.

20.      Good decisions of national leadership result in greater options for greater decisions. Bad decisions by the national leadership destroy freedom options and enslave the nation.

21.      God’s view of internationalism is first made known with His judgment of the original ‘united nations’ at the tower of Babel, where the human race was then divided into nations.

22.      The formation of the Jewish nation set up the perfect standard of what a national entity should be. The Biblical proof that nationalism is authorized by God is found in Gen. 10:5 Deut. 32:8 Acts 17:26-28.

           1)        Interior protection of freedom is provided through a proper system of law enforcement, jurisprudence, and a system of law whereby a person is innocent until proved guilty.

           2)        The exterior protection of freedom comes through a strong, well-prepared military.

           3)        A government of whatever category must protect the freedoms and rights of its citizens without interfering with those rights by the illegal use of power.

           4)        An economy must be based on free enterprise and capitalism. Labor has no right to dictate the policy of management.

           5)        There must be a system of common law which prohibits crime and thereby protects the freedom, rights, life, and property of individuals.

           6)        At the same time, the laws from the books of Moses were consistent with the traditions of the time.

23.      Satan is always on the attack against nationalism: Satan attacks with internationalism, which includes, but not limited to, the United Nations, communist movements (true communism, in theory, is a worldwide movement), Islamic terrorist groups, the so-called Green movement, and attempts by members of our own Supreme Court to appeal to or apply international laws or standards.

           1)        Again, in a Satanic attack, dishonesty is key.

           2)        The Green movement involves large amounts of money and socialism. Some proponents of this movement make millions of dollar on the movement (Al Gore, for example).

           3)        However, socialism has made inroads into the green movement as of late, and cap and trade type legislation and Kyoto agreements are means by which huge sums of money are transferred from the United States to poorer countries, with a large percentage of that being taken off the top by sponsors and heads of state.

           4)        You never hear, “Realistically, we have no idea if these billions of dollars in wealth transfer will have any affect upon global warming or not; we just want the money because we cannot run our own countries.” Or, “We just want to skim off our fair share off the top and pass the rest along.”

24.      Islam is an attack against nationalism.

           1)        Islam is an international movement.

           2)        Islam is not simply a religion; it is a universal system of law designed for all mankind.

           3)        Their end game is to establish control over nation after nation, and to destroy all opposition within that nation. However, they start small, establishing small but independent communities within a nation.

           4)        When Muslim population is low (1–2%), they are seen as a peace-loving minority. The United States, Australian, Canada, China, Italy and Norway all have Muslim populations below 2%. These figures are from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNN-K44Qv14 a video posted Aug. 5, 2009.

           5)        At 2–5%, major recruiting occurs within the jails. Denmar, German, the United Kingdom, Spain and Thailand have Muslim populations between 2–5%.

           6)        At 5% and above, Muslims exert an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. France, the Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Trinidad & Tobago all have Muslim populations between 5–8%.

           7)        When Muslims reach 20%, expect rioting, jihad militia formation, sporadic killings, as well as the burning of churches and synagogues. Ethiopia has a Muslim population of 33%. Bear in mind, there will be some overlapping in these categories, and some behaviors will be manifest if a particular area within a nation has a higher concentration of Muslims.

           8)        At 40%, there are widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare. Bosnia, Chad and Lebanon have Muslim populations between 40–60% (in my lifetime, Lebanon was once touted as a nation with a great mixing of religious.

           9)        At 60% and above, there will be unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, as well as ethnic cleansing. Sharia Law is used as a weapon and Jizya, a tax which is placed upon infidels. Albania, Malaysia, Qatar and the Sudan have Muslim populations between 60–80%.

           10)      At 80% and above, there will be state-sponsored ethnic cleansing and genocide. Bangladesh, Egypt, Ezaz, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Palestine, Syrian, Tajikistan, Turkey and the U.A.E. have Muslim populations in the 80 and 90% ranges.

           11)      At 100%, there is supposed to be peace, because everyone is a Muslim. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen are nearly at 100%. However, at this point, they kill one another for being of the wrong faction or not being dedicated enough.

25.      My theory is this: Satan is the great counterfeiter and he understands the Tribulation and the Jewish evangelism in the Tribulation (Jews will be scattered throughout the earth at that time). What he would like is, a counterfeit Tribulation, where Muslims are the evangelists during a time of great terror and suffering. This will be a world war, possibly called the Great American-Muslim (or Christian-Muslim) war in the 21^st century. I am not the only person who sees this as inevitable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvGe6VmYo7g is one of many videos with this same theme.

26.      When Bob used to speak of the Great Tribulation with the Revived Roman Empire attacking Israel, that made no sense to me. However, as an Islamic empire, such a thing makes perfect sense.

27.      Revolution is also anti-God and anti-establishment.

           1)        We have the example of Absalom’s revolution against his father David (2Sam. 15).

           2)        Of course, we have the examples of Dathan and Abiram revolting against Moses in Num. 16.

           3)        More importantly, we have the example of the Jews resisting Roman authority and revolting as Rome; and God allowed them to be put down in a.d. 70. Paul wrote to the believers in Rome: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Rom. 13:1–5). This was written at a time when Rome was not too friendly to Christians.

           4)        The results of the French and Russian revolutions argue against revolution; despite the problems with existing governance.

           5)        The American Revolution was not a true revolution. Our founding fathers did not want to destroy the governing authorities of Britain and take control of Great Britain. They sought first representation in government; and secondly, when no such representation was forthcoming, independence from Britain. Quite obviously, all of our founding fathers had sin natures, so that some of the things which were said and done were wrong. However, our founding fathers sought not to depose the British government, but to become independent of it. Therefore, the American Revolution is a misnomer and the American War for Independence is more accurate of a designation.

This is a doctrine taken out from the Laws of Divine Establishment (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this particular topic, even though this is one which I enjoy reading about and discussing (hundreds of books have been written about this topic).

Some of the Arguments Against Evolution

1.       From the standpoint of population growth:

          1)       Scientists can and do make predictions on the growth of various populations.

          2)       All human and animal populations approximately grow according to an exponential equation, called the growth curve. Even though there is war, famine, disease and death, the growth of the world population always will approximate this growth curve, which is found in nearly every Pre-Calculus and Calculus book written (at one time, this used to be found in every Algebra II book as well). There are slightly different forms of this exponential equation, which vary according to the base used (2, e or 10), but these equations produce the exact same results.

          3)       When I was a math teacher, I would teach my students how to deal with population growth equations and how to solve them; then I would take my students to the library and tell them to take the world population figures (or estimates) from any two periods of time, and use this population growth equation to extrapolate backwards in time to when there were 10 people (or 100 people). I reminded my students that they have been taught in their science classes that modern man is 1,000,000 years old. For that reason, we should expect the population growth equation to take us back that far in time. I reminded them that this was all approximate, so that they might come up with 1.3 million years or 800,000 years or something like that. What happened? Every single student, no matter where he got his data from, came up with man’s age to be anywhere from 1000 years to 25,000 years old. According to their calculations, this is the age of man. The largest number still differs from evolutionary theory by a factor of 40. What this means is, the population of the world would have to build up to present-day sizes, and then disappear or be dwindled down to essentially nothing—and that this would have to occur about 40 times in order for evolutionary theory to match mathematical modeling (the mathematical modeling presented in every single Pre-Calculus and Calculus book used in America).

          4)       Although most evolutionary theorists might allow for a handful of such world-wide population decimations, none posit that there have been 40 of them.

          5)       Based upon the data available to us, mathematically speaking, it is logical for man to be 6000–10,000 years old, which completely squares with the Bible. On the other hand, it is mathematically illogical to assert that man is 1 million years old.

2.       Arguing from the standpoint of the location of human and pre-human fossils in time:

          1)       Evolutionary theory teaches that, first there was homo habilis, then there was homo erectus and then there was homo sapiens, each specie of man living for approximately 1 million years each.

          2)       For each change of specie, one would crowd out and replace the other. This is known as survival of the fittest.

          3)       Another teacher (Martin Lubenow) would give his students the names of well-known and lesser-known human fossils and he would ask his students to research their fossils (they drew the names of fossils out of a hat). Once a person found two different scientists who agreed on the age of that fossil, then they would place that fossil in time and classify it as to what kind of a human it was.

          4)       What we would expect is, almost all of the homo habilis fossils would be located in time between 2 and 3 mya (million years ago); almost all of the homo erectus fossils would be found 1 to 2 mya; and all of the homo sapiens fossils would be found to be no more than 1 million years old. That is what evolution would predict, although there may be, of course, some mixing and overlap around the transition points.

          5)       The end result was quite different. These fossils were scattered evenly and randomly throughout time (according to the figures of evolution scientists). Some of the very oldest human fossils in existence are homo sapiens, which is the opposite of what evolution would posit.

          6)       So, even using the data and figures provided by evolutionists (which can be called into question), human fossils are not found in the time period in which they are supposed to be found.

3.       There are two things which we would expect evolutionists, as scientists: we would expect them to have published a book and set up website which list all of the various human and pre-human fossils.

          1)       Such a book or website ought to include: where the fossil was found, who discovered the fossil, who has possession of the fossil, how much of the fossil exists, photographs of the fossil if possible, what kind of research has been done on the fossil, what is the age of the fossil, how was this age determined, and what is the proper classification of the fossil. Furthermore, are there any disputes within these areas, and what is the dispute about? We would also expect there to be charts as to where these fossils are found in the earth and when they are found in a timeline. Given the fact that we can go to the internet and find every television show which has been on tv, a list of the cast and characters, the plots and subplots, and a pile of minutia, why don’t red-blooded, dedicated evolutionists do the same for their cause?

          2)       The problem with such a site or such a book is, it would not reveal a clear-cut evolution of man, as is pounded into the brains of school children everywhere. The unlearned would look at this and recognize that there is a problem with evolution—that their own data does not line up with their theory.

4.       The geological layers:

          1)       Related to evolution are the geological layers, and most of us have seen them: at the very bottom is the Pre-Cambrian era, with the Cambrian era on top of that, with the Devonian layer above that, the Mississippian layer above that, etc.

          2)       There is one place where we can find all of the geological layers where they ought to be in the correct order, and that is in a textbook. Some do allege that there are several places on this earth where these layers exist in the same order. However, in 95% of the earth, these geological layers are scattered randomly. You are led to believe that human fossils come from the higher strata and that dinosaurs and prehistoric plants are found in the lowest strata, but that is simply not true.

          3)       How do evolutionists explain this? They develop more theories to prop up their theory of evolution and geology. So, one of the additional propositions we must buy into is, over the millions of years, there have been huge geological shifts, where one entire layer of earth somehow slips in between two other layers, or one layer somehow sinks to the very bottom. Now, I might buy into this theory if this were the case here or there; but the location of these various strata is just random. Such theories should explain why maybe 5% of the time, there is deviation from what we would expect. However, such wild theories should not explain why geological layers are randomly scattered 95% of the time.

          4)       Secondly, it is decidedly unscientific to prove a theory with another theory. When a theory does not match the evidence, then addition theories do not logically prop up the original theory. At some point in time, there needs to be some kind of evidence which is fits the theories and supports the theories. One unsubstantiated theory logically cannot be used to prop up another unsubstantiated theory.

          5)       What this means is, the oldest fossils are not found in the bottom layer, and as we go up to the next layer up, we find newer fossils. Not at all. The evolutionist finds the fossil, he determines what the fossil is and where it belongs in time, and then he decides how to classify that strata. So, it is not unusual for a dig to be looking at Cambrian fossils which also turn out to be the top layer or the second layer of dirt.

5.       One of the things taught by evolution is how simple the single cell is, and how that is the beginning of life. To be fair, this is more implied than anything else. We get the impression that the single cell is a very simple and basic thing, and that we should not be surprised if this life just occurred spontaneously. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionary scientist, admits: "Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4¹⁰⁰⁰ = 10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension." The simplest life form that we are aware of is far more complex than we could have ever imagined, and not likely something which would have just spontaneously occurred in some mix of primordial ooze.

6.       There are many other arguments. Just being taken through the various human fossils, finding out how much of that fossil exists, and what is really true about it and what is not, is a fascinating study in itself.

Obviously, I believe strongly in Creationism and Intelligent Design. Does this mean that I want to invade all of our public schools and have these things taught? Not necessarily. I would be happy if evolution was simply presented fairly and honestly, with the scientific arguments for and against the theory presented. High school and college students are never made aware that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution and that even evolutionists disagree about everything except for, the fact of evolution.

A teacher who would allow various students to research and debate this issue would be fantastic, in my opinion. Students would learn research, debate technique and evolution, all within one unit (which would be quite interdisciplinary, which is all the rage in education, last time I looked). This might even cause some students to become quite interested in science. The problem is, most evolutionists want children to believe in evolution, so they never present evidence which is to the contrary; they never reveal long-standing arguments between evolutionary scientists. The present a very orderly, sterile, unquestioning view of evolution, and act as if all science believes in it.

High school and college students need to hear what evolutionists themselves say: Professor Jerome Lejeune, an Internationally recognized geneticist, at a lecture given in Paris "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain: I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Here is a statement that many scientists signed onto:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

From: http://www.creationevolution.net/

My point is, if you do not believe in evolution, you are not alone and you are not anti-science.

This information about evolution was taken from lesson #10 in Genesis.

The two doctrines were taken from elsewhere on the internet, but they appear to be reasonably accurate.

Introduction: We seem to have this romanticized view of revolution in our culture, which is probably a result of the communist conspiracy and the mislabeling of our own War for Independence as the American Revolution. Therefore, when we saw the so-called Arab Spring, many newsmen spoke of it and a Jeffersonian Democracy in the same breath (even though many warned, “It is not going to be a Jeffersonian Democracy right off the bat”). However, the Bible teaches that revolution is anti-establishment and anti-God; and many Christians (and non-Christians) recognize that the events in the Muslim world simply represent a shift in power from one evil dictator to an even more evil dictator, under a thin veneer of democracy. The Doctrine of Revolution takes a look at revolution from a more Biblical perspective, so that, when you observe such things taking place, you do not mistakenly think that, things are going to get better because the people are revolting against tyranny. It’s not like that at all.

This comes from pastor Robert H. Kreger of the Metropolitan Bible Church. Because of some of the vocabulary, it is possible that pastor Kreger has studied under R. B. Thieme, Jr.

The more complete Doctrine of Revolution (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

The Doctrine of Revolution

1.        The Word of God does not justify revolution under any circumstances. The French and Russian Revolutions were not justified, and God did not condone them. Rom 13:1-7 sums up best the attitude of God."Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." 1Peter 2:13-17 "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king." Daniel 2:21 "He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them..."

2.        If revolution is wrong, the most common question that comes up is "What about the American Revolution?" Technically the American Revolution was not a revolution. It was a war for independence. It was a fight for freedom, not an overthrow of establishment. The American Civil War, or the War Between the States was not a rebellion, or a revolt. The Confederacy was fighting against northern aggression, and fighting for its independence. It did not attempt nor did it desire to overthrow the government in Washington. Revolution, on the other hand, has as its objective the destruction of an organized government. That is why the French and Russian Revolutions were evil and wrong. Their entire purpose was the destruction of existing governments. But a war for independence, or a fight for freedom, is honorable and just, and is not against God's standards.

3.        Revolution involves both apostasy and a lack of Bible doctrine. Isa. 1:3-5 "The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manager, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand. Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption. They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him." Isa. 59:13 "Rebellion and treachery against the Lord, turning your backs on your God, formenting oppression and revolt, uttering lies your hearts have conceived."

4.        Revolution is anti-God. Isa. 31:6 "Return to him(Literally,'Return to the One')you have so greatly revolted against, O Israelites."

5.        Revolution is caused by failure in the thought patterns of those involved. Jer. 5:23 "But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts;(thinking) they have turned aside and gone away." Therefore, the revolutionist always suffers from mental attitude sins and/or emotional revolt of the soul. These conditions make one mentally ill and very sinful.

6.        Jealousy and power lust are primary motivators in revolution. Isa. 11:13 compared to 1Kings 12:19. Isa. 11:13 says "Ephraim's jealousy will vanish, and Judah's enemies will be cut off; Ephraim will not be be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim." 1Kings 12:19 "So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day." See also 2Chron 10:19.

7.        Mental attitude sins on the part of leaders have a tendency to cause mental attitude sins among the citizens. Daniel 3–4.

8.        The communication of Bible doctrine is designed to stop revolution. Ezek. 2:3-10 "He said to me, 'Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you.' As he spoke, the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. He said: 'Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their fathers have been in revolt against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and stubborn. Say to them, This is what the Sovereign Lords says, And whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are a rebellious house, they will know that a prophet has been among them. And you, son of man, do not be afraid of them or their words. Do not be afraid though briers and thorns are all around you and you live among scorpions. Do not be afraid of what they say or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious house. You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious. But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you." (God gave Ezekiel Bible doctrine.)

9.        Heathenism is the result of revolution. Rom. 1:19-26 "Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." The result of this revolution is degeneration. Rom 1:27-31 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decrees and those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

10.      Mental attitude sins on a national level leads to instability and unrest in that nation. Daniel chapter 4.

11.      In revolution, approbation and power lust seek to gain power by the destruction of freedom, rights, privacy, and personal property.

12.      Therefore, revolution is a Satanic device that is used to establish his cosmic kingdom and to superimpose his will over mankind. A government can be destroyed in one of two ways:

           1)        By those in power who abuse that power and end up destroying the economy, the military, or the judicial system.

           2)        By those who are suppressed by the government, and then rise up with weapons and violence and overthrow those in power.

13.      But even though the citizens may have bona fide grievances against the government, the Lord still does not condone revolution.

From: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/universe/jude.glossary3.html

1.        Revolution Is Forbidden: Rom. 13.1-7 1Peter 2.13-14

2.        God's Attitude Toward Revolution: Num. 16

3.        Revolution Is Apostasy: Isa. 1.3-5

4.        Revolution Is Anti-God: Isa. 31.6

5.        It Comes From A Wayward Heart: Jer. 5.23-24

6.        Revolution Is Caused By Jealousy: Isa. 11.13

7.        God's Word Can Stop Revolution: Ezek. 2.3-10

Taken from http://www.bibleteacher.org/MISELOUT.htm

One of the things I had problem, when it came to R. B. Thieme Jr.’s ministry was his glorification of the military, as I had not been brought up with those values. It took me many years of study, but now I appreciate his approach and his emphasis. Since 2Sam. 8 and 10 have David warring against a half dozen nations, there are some things which we need to know about war.

See the much more complete Doctrine of War (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Some Points on War

1.        War is a normal human activity, and all of the marches for peace in the world will not end war. If the United States buried all of his weapons and dismantled its armies, we would be attacked and possibly even defeated within a year or two of doing such a stupid thing. People all over the world lust for what we have, and many think that it is simply a function of living in a prosperous country. However, the key to our prosperity is twofold: (1) the grace of God and (2) economic freedom. However, they do not recognize this, so they think if they conquer our land and us, that will make them prosperous.

2.        Back to war: like most students, I was brought up with a limited education when it comes to war. I saw wars from a very American-centric view. I never fully appreciated that, at any given time, there are probably 10 or so wars being fought around the world, and that wars have continued throughout human history, increasing as time goes on; and that the soldier represents probably the best that a country has to offer.

3.        There is a lot of war in the Bible, and the honoring of the soldier is found throughout Scripture. The greatest compliment that Jesus paid to any individual was to a Roman soldier. Jesus did not berate the man for being a soldier; Jesus did not tell him, “Now, to be perfect, you need to lay down your weapon, desert the Roman army, and follow Me.” What Jesus said was, “I have found no one in Israel with a greater faith [than this Roman soldier].”

4.        Some of the greatest men in the Bible were soldiers or men of war: David, Joshua and Moses. And in the end of the Jewish Age, Jesus will return in the 2^nd Advent, and He will kill so many enemies in war, that the blood will flow as high as the horse’s bridle for nearly 200 miles (Rev. 14:20).

5.        God taught David’s hands to war. Psalm 18:34 144:1

6.        No matter how you feel about war in general, the Bible presents it matter-of-factly, and the soldiers of war are presented as heroes (e.g., David’s mighty men—2Sam. 23 1Chron. 12). There will always be wars and rumors of war (Matt. 24:6); and the occupation of a soldier is honorable. This is the view of the Bible, whether you like it or not.

7.        Jesus promised that there would be wars and rumors of wars until He returned (Matt. 24:6 Mark 13:7 Luke 21:9). At no time in the Bible is there any indication that man by reaching some point in civilization or in spiritual enlightenment, will ever move beyond war. Jesus will return and rule over the earth in the Millennium, and that will end warfare (until Satan is loosed); but prior to that Jesus will kill millions of people; and prior to that, war will be a part of human history (Rev. 19:11–21).

Please see http://www.spokanebiblechurch.com/powerpoint/WarandGod.pdf, which is a slide show presentation of the Doctrine of War in a pdf format.

There is a lot of war throughout the Bible, and there is no indication that man is going to suddenly become civilized and no longer engage in war.

In the United States, in the year 2009, when I write this, the current president, during his campaign, indicated that Iraq was not where American soldiers needed to be. He said that he opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, and the President Bush, by committing troops to Iraq, got his eye off the ball, which was the war in Afghanistan. Since we live in a democracy, and vote, it is worthwhile to try to figure out, when is it right to go to war?

What is a Righteous War?

1.        Bear in mind that, 99.999% of the time, we are not going to be in the position to determine whether or not we, as a nation, go to war. Even in a democracy like ours, we do not vote to go to war. What if your country is on the wrong side? What if you are a coward? I will answer those questions in this doctrine.

           1)        We are under the authority of the government of the nation in which we are born. God has placed these authorities over us, and we are subject to these authorities. Rom. 13

           2)        Jesus, when He spoke to the Roman soldier, said, “Not in all Israel have I found such a great faith.” Jesus did not tell this Roman soldier, “Now, to be perfect, you need to lay aside your weapon of war and follow Me.” This man, a soldier in Caesar’s army—a centurion, a man in authority, was fine right where he was, and Jesus did not suggest any further steps which he needed to take. Matt. 8:5–10

           3)        Therefore, when our nation calls upon us to go to war, we go to war. 99.9% of the time, that is our correct decision with regards to going to war.

           4)        Now, what if you disagree with the man in command? What if you think the president is a doofus? Paul, under Roman rule, tells us that those in authority over us are placed there by God, and we ought to obey them. Rom. 13

           5)        Let’s say you are under an incredibly unjust government and they want you to go to war, what do you do? Let’s say, your government is on the wrong side in a war, what do you do? Or your government begins the wholesale slaughter of its own citizens, what do you do? These are some very rare situations for the average believer. If you have believed in Jesus Christ, and you believe in your heart of hearts that your country is completely wrong and the enemy is complete right, then the Bible also tells us what to do—renounce your own nation and join the enemy. Here is where Jane Fonda was wrong (Jane Fonda was an actress who went to our enemies during the Vietnam War and allowed herself to be photographed for propaganda purposes). She did not want to stop being an American; she was not willing to renounce her citizenship and the benefits of her citizenship. She was not willing to use her money and go to North Vietnam and say, “I want to become a part of your nation. I am willing to support you in any way that I can; I want to become one of you.” All she was willing to do was to work against her own nation, and yet remain a part of America and continue to reap the benefits from being an American. On the other hand, Rahab the prostitute worked with Israel and Joshua against her own country and became a part of Israel (Joshua 2 Matt. 1:5). Had Israel failed, she would have died as a traitor to her own country. She threw in with the enemy of her country 100%; she did not straddle any fences.

           6)        The situation of Rahab is quite rare for the believer.

           7)        What if your country is only so-so as a country and you just do not like the idea of the wars we are engaged in? When Paul laid down the law when it came to being under the authority of national leaders, he was a citizen of Rome. He would eventually be decapitated by this government. He still supported Roman authority. Rom. 13

           8)        There has to be more to your opposition than, “I don’t believe in war.” We as believers do not get that luxury. We know that war is going to continue to be a part of our experience; that there will always be wars and rumors of wars, and that nowhere in the Bible are we given an out to conveniently support our enemies while remaining beneficiaries of our own country.

           9)        Let say that you are a coward, and the draft has been reinstituted, and war has broken out. What do you do? You have to obey the laws of the land and go into the military. At some point in time, before your location is determined, you need to privately make your cowardice known to your superior officers. There is justification in the Bible for removing cowards from the military. Ideally, you should jockey for a non-combat, support position, and there are thousands of such positions. After that, you allow God to determine where you end up.

2.        The Bible does not anywhere encourage us to be conscientious objectors or to oppose war as a general principle.

3.        It is certainly helpful when the population supports a war, does not protest against a war, and is unified against our enemies. We fought a disastrous war in Vietnam, a war which divided the country, and a war where the United States suffered its first defeat. One movie star—Jane Fonda—showed her approval of the acts of our enemies, and allowed her picture to be taken while on an enemy tank which was used to kill American soldiers. Other Americans sent blood to our enemies. No doubt, the marching protestors against this war had a hand in the defeat of their own country in war, and the slaughter of approximately 3 million people by the Communists which followed our retreat. Given this turmoil, we need to understand when war is justified.

4.        Most people would understand that going to war after being attacked is justified. There are a significant number out there who, if we suffered another attack similar to 9/11, would blame this attack on America and our support of Israel or our presence in the Middle East; but, the majority of Americans would support military action against whatever movement or country attacked us. Only a very small number of Christians would suggest that those in the United States turn the other cheek because that is what Jesus would have done (in their own minds). It is important to understand that, turn the other cheek applies to retaliation because of a personal vendetta.

5.        In the Old Testament, much of the time, God would guide Israel to go to war against certain nations. We do not have this same guidance. If some president said that God told him to go to war against nation X, we would vote him out of office.

6.        However, there is evidence in the Old Testament as to what sort of wars we as a nation ought to be involved in.

7.        God told Abraham that this land which He gave his progeny would not be a reality until the iniquity of the Amorites became full (Gen. 15:16). At that point in time, Amorite meant westerner, and this referred to the peoples who inhabited the Land of Promise which God gave to Abraham (the Amorites were also a specific people in that region as well). When Abraham came into this land, most of the peoples there were okay. They were unbelievers, but they were not degenerate unbelievers (with the exception of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah). When their iniquity became full-blown, then God would give the land to the seed of Abraham.

8.        Abraham’s seed also had to become a significant population as well. So we have two things which have to come to pass: (1) a significant number of Jews who believe in Jesus Christ who are willing to trust in God and (2) the people in the land God has given the Jews have to reach a tipping point of degeneracy. 40 years after Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, both of these things came to pass.

9.        How does this relate to our topic? Israel had to have an army; the people that they were going to destroy had to have transgressed more than just occupying the land which Israel wanted. Together, these things resulted in a series of wars and battles, from the time of Joshua to the time of David, when Israel secured much of the land which God had given them. God had not decided that Palestine belonged to the Jews and that He would simply destroy anyone living in this land in order to give it over to the Jews.

10.      When the Jews took the land under Joshua, they were to offer terms of peace first (Deut. 20:10 Joshua 9:15 10:1 11:19). Quite obviously, this would be overruled by a direct command from God (Joshua 6). Since God is omniscient, God knows the hearts of the people of the cities where Israel would invade. If they are 100% in negative volition toward God, then Israel did not need to offer them terms of peace.

11.      What was the main problem with every evil nation in the land of Palestine? Idolatry, which led to either immoral or moral degeneracy.

12.      You recognize evil in some nations by whom they choose to ally themselves with. Although I know a little about the history of Nazi Germany, I know almost nothing about Japan’s pre-WWII history. However, I recognize that if Japan chose to ally themselves with Nazi Germany, then that reveals their true colors.

13.      Similarly, we know the heart of a country based upon whom they identify as their enemies. When thousands of Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria or Iran march in the streets, burn American flags and shout, “Death to America,” we know where their hearts are.

           1)        Now, you may think that this is unfair, and that we should not always identify the people with their leaders, as their leaders can be despots. God gives a people the leader they deserve or a leader who is appropriate for them.

           2)        Think about our last 3 presidents (I write in 2009) and their greatest weaknesses. President Clinton strove to be popular, followed the polls, and often did the popular thing—which indicates no core values. His acts of immorality in office and his attempt to cover them up (along with a lifetime of such acts) did not substantively hurt his popularity, even when he flat out lied to the public. This is a reflection of us, the people. After him is President George Bush, who began strong, recognizing our common enemy (whom Clinton did not fully recognize), recognize that we were at war, and took steps to deal with it. However, in moving ahead with 2 reasonably popular wars, these wars were not over fast enough, and much of the public began to moan and groan, as if this affected them directly. All they really suffered was seeing it on tv night after night after night. Although Bush remained steadfast in his opposition to terrorism and to the correct outcome of these two wars, he went haywire when it came to the economy—and when he was right (about FNMA, about social security), our other leaders stood up against him. And he is followed by President Obama, who was elected primarily because he can speak well with a teleprompter, can dance around both sides of almost any issue (our news reporters call this taking a nuanced position), and exudes an attractive personage. Within a few months, he has proposed a mountain of debt tied to worthless spending unlike anyone has ever seen before and yet there are a significant portion of our population who refuses to recognize it because he is Obama. So you see how reflective our leaders are of the population?

           3)        Of course, the examples I gave were from a democracy, but bear in mind, God is in charge, and God places appropriate leaders in charge of nations.

           4)        Iran is not a democracy, and its leader is this tiny crazy person who denies the holocaust. Although many have tried to distinguish Ahmadinejad from the Iranian people, these people still flood the streets, celebrate 9/11, shout “Death to America” for hours, and desire to see Israel destroyed. Ahmadinejad is their appropriate figurehead and leader. Obviously, there is a significant number of Iranians who are pro-American, but there has been no power shift as of yet (again, I write this in the year 2009).

14.      Furthermore, we know which countries are white hats based upon whom they choose to ally themselves with. We have alliances with nations such as Mexico, Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan and Britain (to name a few); their choosing to associate with us and to ally themselves with us tells us about their people and governments.

15.      In this chapter, Syria (Aram) will ally themselves with Hadadezer and war with David. King Toi, from the same region, will honor David when he defeats Hadadezer. This tells us about the hearts of the people and governments in this chapter at this time—those who ally themselves with David are blessed of God and those who chose to war against David are cursed by God.

16.      Note that God did not have Israel continually acting in a hostile manner against her neighbors. God did not put Israel into a 24/7/365 war mode. Egypt was continually in idolatry. God warned Israel not to go to Egypt or to depend upon Egypt, but God did not tell Israel, “You need to raise up your army and go destroy Egypt.” God did send Israel to war on many occasions against her enemies, but not against all of her enemies. At the time of Jeremiah, God expected His people to place themselves under the authority of Assyrian king Nebuchadnezzar, who had just conquered Israel. There was a remnant in the land, under Gedeliah as their governor and under Jeremiah as their spiritual leader. God did not tell them to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar; God expected them to submit themselves to Nebuchadnezzar’s rule.

17.      Let’s apply all of this to today. God has not told any of us or any of our leaders to invade this or that nation, but let’s just suppose that is somehow our decision—how do we make such a decision?

           1)        When someone goes to war against us, we have two choices: we either give up and place ourselves under their authority or we fight to preserve our freedom. Most of the time, God had Israel fight for her freedom (the book of Judges). However, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, the people of Israel who remained alive were not to rebel against him; they were to submit to his authority. The same would have been true of the Jews under Roman rule. Rome crushed Israel because of her rebellion, but allowed Christianity to flourish, despite some heavy persecution in the beginning. Determining when to fight and when to lay down your weapons and submit requires spiritual maturity.

           2)        There are characteristics of the heathen in Palestine which are still here today: idolatry which leads to human and, particularly, child sacrifice—that is evil and is to be wiped out. You may protest and say, “No one out there is engaging in child sacrifice—not as a country.” However, when you raise your children to hate Israel and to hate America; and you raise them to commit themselves to suicide missions through cartoons and constant propaganda, and they are to do this for the glory of Allah, that is modern-day child sacrifice. Some have even strapped bombs to children and detonated them. This is highly degenerate (religious degeneracy), and it is reasonable to suppose that if God had Israel destroy peoples like this in their day, that such an enemy is fair game for us today. www.obsessionthemovie.com or http://obsessionthemovie.com/27minversion.php

           3)        Along the same lines, wanton murder by any government of its own citizenry (by Muslim fanatics or by Communists or by Nazis) is justification by itself for a righteous nation to step in. The Nazis killed millions of Jews and Christians; and the Communists have killed tens of millions of those who would not go along with their program (mostly those who believe in God; Christians and Jews and those of other religions). Wars against such forces of evil are righteous wars. In other words, our wars in Korea and Vietnam were as righteous as our war against the Nazis. When we pulled out of Vietnam, this was unrighteousness, and what followed was a bloodbath which far, far exceeded in a couple of years the number of casualties over a 16 year long war. In this alone, we know that we were right to fight against the bloody Communists and that we should have defeated them (and, in case you did not know, even one of the top generals in North Vietnam was only weeks or months away from surrendering to the United States when we pulled out).

           4)        It is important to recognize that we are in a spiritual battle and that Satan is the god of this world, and his plans and deeds are not difficult to understand. We can choose to ignore them and our news services may ignore them, but much of his activity in the world is not difficult to discern. When you see the Word of God being suppressed and children being sacrificed and children being raised to hate, you know Satan is at work and has captured the hearts of much of the population where such things are taking place.

           5)        When people reached a tipping point of degeneracy, God used Israel to destroy them—sometimes, every man, woman and child. Men with spiritual insight need to be able to recognize when this tipping point has been reached. This is one reason God has given us the Old Testament, so that by seeing Satan’s work in the Old Testament, we are able to recognize it in our contemporary world.

           6)        In a democracy, as we live in here, we need to elect leaders who are believers and who have a reasonable world-view. It should be clear that they are not given in to delusions, e.g., being able to smooth-talk our enemies; and they should demonstrate a clear understanding of America’s Christian heritage and future. Such men may not be doctrinally sound, but they may understand enough to be reasonable leaders.

18.      Summary:

           1)        Satan exists and his hatred and ferocity are well-known. Although Satan is quite able to be subtle and present himself as an angel of light, he is also willing to take center stage when it comes to leading a nation dedicated to him. What I mean is, a honest appraisal of a nation makes it clear that they are led by Satan; this is not something which is carefully hidden. Anyone who has some historical knowledge of Communism, Nazism or of radical Islamic fascism recognizes how evil these ideologies are. Just yesterday, a suicide attack was carried out in Pakistan, against a Mosque, so that a maximum number of people could be killed or injured. 50 people were killed. Islamic fascists love to target innocent Muslims and innocent people in general. It should not take a spiritual genius to recognize that is absolute evil.

           2)        God uses certain nations to defeat and sometimes to destroy nations which have become dangerous cancers in this world.

           3)        God originally used Israel to defeat and destroy evil nations; and now He primarily uses client nations (nations in which a significant portion of the people believe in Jesus Christ and where Bible doctrine is taught and from which missionaries emanate).

           4)        War is an integral part of human history; its horror duly noted. Still, we will never see the end of warfare until the Millennium. All of the marching in the world and all of the peace protests will never change this. In fact, in many cases, this will give comfort and enthusiasm to our enemies, and increase the length of war, the determination of our enemy, and the body count of our own soldiers.

           5)         When a person decides to march for peace, they need to recognize that they will probably increase the number of deaths and lengthen the war they are marching against. Vietnam is a prime example of that. One of the military leaders of the North Vietnam army (General Giap) has written about that era, and was amazed that we pulled out of Vietnam. He admits that they were months if not weeks away from surrendering. Had we remained a few more months, we would have been victorious and literally millions of lives would have been saved (these are the lives of people who trusted us and who desired freedom, as well as the lives of many innocents). Our pulling out of Vietnam was an act of evil and cowardice, and many died because of it.

           6)        Going to peace marches is more of an expression of self-righteousness than anything else.

           7)        Nations which serve Satan will be anti-God, anti-Semitic and/or anti-freedom.

           8)        When they raise their children to be sacrificed in order to promote Satan’s agenda (which is anti-God, anti-Semitic and anti-freedom), they are equivalent to a nation which sacrifices its children to some false idol. The Hitlarian youth; young people not only schooled in Communism, but schooled in a world domination by Communism; Muslim children brought up to hate and with a desire to kill Jews, Americans or Brits for Allah, indicate that a nation has reached a dangerous tipping point.

           9)        Such a nation needs to be, at minimum, contained; and, at maximum, destroyed.

           10)      When do such nations need to be destroyed? When their iniquity is full.

           11)      Evil nations are a cancer in society and their evil is spread throughout their own nation and sometimes throughout the world. Radical Muslims are an example of this, an in this past decade, have launched thousands of attacks in hundreds of countries throughout the world. Since our news ignores this, I suggest you go to www.thereligionofpeace.com to see what they are up to this past month.