PREACHER HELPS
by Evangelist Don Boys, Ph.D.
Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D.
#114
Under Bill s. 1618 TITLE
III passed by the 105th US Congress this letter cannot be considered Spam as
long as the sender includes contact information and a method of "removal." To be
removed just type REMOVE in the Subject line and hit Reply.
If you strongly agree with one of these columns, please
forward to your mailing list. Some pastors put them is the church bulletin.. Make no changes in a column from title
to tag at the end.
Contents:
*No Dogs, Ducks, or
Dinosaurs in Heaven!
*Vicious Attack by
Long-Time Friend!
*This Guy is a Wimp and
Coward!
*Guns are not the Problem:
Crooks Are!
*Was I Wrong About Bob Jones University?
*Little Known
Fact of History
*Illustrations:
*Funny Story:
*Incredible Quotes You Can
Use
*Pithy Sayings
*Did You Know?
No Dogs, Ducks, or
Dinosaurs in Heaven; Not Even Cats, Cows or Crows!
Don Boys, Ph.D.
Today I
enter into a controversy that I cannot win. It is in fact, like sitting on a
buzz saw: Do animals go to Heaven? Most sensible people, not controlled by their
emotions, would declare that our time, talents, tithes, and teaching, etc.,
should be spent trying to get people
to go
to Heaven.
Please note that I admit that animals can be fantastic
companions especially to lonely people. They are very important to the blind and
efficient in apprehending drug pushers. They are often great as watchdogs and
often beneficial to children. But dogs don’t go to Heaven. Neither do
cats.
Les Kinsolving is an excellent writer for whom I have
great respect, even admiration for him holding politicians’ feet to the fire;
however, in a recent WND column Les went off the rails in a column advocating
that dogs and other animals will be in Heaven! He was writing from his heart not
his head. He was not driven by facts but by fantasy.
In his column, Les
criticized Billy Graham for telling a child “We're too busy with humans to worry
about dogs." Les characterized that statement as being “pseudo-orthodox
cruelty.” I have been very critical of Graham in recent years but in this
instance, Graham was right and Les is off base for calling it false orthodoxy
(which it was not) and for calling it “cruelty” (which it was not). Should
Graham have re-written the Bible to make a child feel better? I think
not.
Les suggested, “If
Billy Graham wasn't concerned about animals at that stage of his ministry, his
attitude then was surely unbiblical.” Here Les uses the old bait and switch
approach. Because Graham does not believe animals have souls and go to Heaven,
it follows that he “wasn’t concerned about animals.” Les is a better thinker
than that. Moreover, Graham was not “unbiblical.” Les was.
The writer declares that there are many Bible verses that
affirm God’s love for animals and he uses Psalm 50 as proof. There God reminds
us "every beast of the field is mine," but that does not suggest that God loves
animals in the way He loves mankind. Then Les goes to Proverbs where we are told
that a righteous man regards “the life of his beast.” Again, no suggestion that
animals go to Heaven. Les is a fantastic writer but he is a poor exegete.
From there Les tries to get Christ to support his
contention using Luke 12:6 as his proof:
"Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings and not one of them is
forgotten before God." However, in this text Christ reminds Christians that God
is aware of even the hairs on their head (as well as the sparrows) and God will
take care of us. Then He adds, “ye are of more value than many sparrows.” Again,
not even a suggestion of sparrows, snakes, or snails going to Heaven! Nor cats,
cows, or crows.
Then
Les really jumps the tracks when he
attempts
the bait and switch argument again. He declares, “cruelty to animals is evil in
Judeo-Christian ethics” which no one disagrees with. However, he assumes, ipso
facto, animals are going to Heaven! It is one thing to protect animals from
mistreatment and yet another to suggest Heaven for them. I suggest that Les not quit his day job
to go into teaching theology or philosophy.
Then Les asks if the idea of dogs having souls is “any
more outlandish than the once-scandalous idea that God even loves Samaritans and
Gentiles, too?” He must be reminded that the Scripture in many places declares
that “God so loved the world” and “whosoever” (not whatsoever) calls upon Him
would be saved. Do the Dogs-in-Heaven people expect us to believe that every
individual must repent and place faith in Christ but dogs, ducks, and dinosaurs
get a free pass through the pearly gates? If your puppy goes to Heaven then
every animal that has ever lived will be there!
It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion unless
there is an agreement on definitions. Les provides his own skewed meaning of a
soul: “All of a being except the physical; the character and the personality.”
He then added, “On that criterion, I have known dogs who definitely had
souls.” However, that is not the
Bible’s meaning of soul. At the creation in Gen. 2 God created Adam and
“breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
When He created the animals, there is no such reference. Animals have instinct,
not souls or spirits.
Les continued his polemic with, “Sixteen hundred years
ago, St. Basil, the bishop of Ceasarea, (sic) wrote the following prayer about
animals.” I should think the animals-in-Heaven proponent could come up with a
better ally than a priest who lived in the fourth century. Basil opined (without
scriptural support), “Thou has promised to save both man and beast..” He did not
get that from Scripture. The only place where the Bible speaks of animals being
“saved” was in I Kings 18:5 when the King was concerned about the nation-wide
drought and he wanted to “save” the horses because they were necessary for work
and warfare.
Christ came to redeem mankind from the slave block of sin
requiring repentance and faith, two things animals cannot do. Luke 19:10 tells
us, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” Does “that which was lost” refer to
animals? If so, then how do they prepare to meet God, and if they do not prepare
do they go to Hell? After all, if animal lovers can posit the absurd possibility
of animals going to Heaven, is it not reasonable to suggest that they can also
go to Hell? If not, why not?
I remind you that during the universal Flood, God killed
all the animals that were not on the Ark (no doubt including a few cats and dogs).
God preserved two of each kind of animal to replenish the earth plus extras for
sacrifices and food. I suppose I
need to remind animal lovers that God commanded the Jews to make daily
sacrifices of living animals in the Temple.
Les closes with a
complete distortion of Rev. 7:15-17 to support his dogs-in-heaven position..
Verse 14 identifies those referred to in the following verses as those who came
out of “great tribulation” and had been washed in the “blood of the Lamb.”
Speaking kindly, eloquently, and movingly of his deceased dog, he commends him
(his dog) to the “Everlasting Arms.” Some might consider that blasphemous, but I
think it was simply non-thinking sentimental balderdash.
Finally, Les gives
a chopped up version of Rev. 7:15-17.
I have corrected the punctuation and added the words of Scripture in
brackets that Les left out. I have also put in bold and parentheses the words he
changed. “Therefore are they
before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in his temple: [and he
that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.] They shall hunger no more; neither (shall they) thirst [any more; neither
shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.] For the lamb which (sitteth in) [is in] the midst of the
throne shall [feed them and shall] lead them into living fountains of waters:
and God shall wipe away all tears from (our) [their] eyes.”
It
seems very clear that Les is suggesting that his dog is “before the throne of
God” and serves Him day and night in his temple! Furthermore, he suggests God
sits on His throne and “shall dwell among them” and “feed them” and shall “lead
them into living fountains of waters.”
What a
preposterous scenario!
No--dogs,
ducks, dinosaurs, or monkeys, manatees, or
mosquitoes
go to heaven. I’m kinda glad of that. I don’t want to scratch for eternity! God
can have animals in heaven if he wants to but He did not create animals with a
soul to move from Earth to heaven.
I suggest that Les stay with politics. He’s good at that
but a disaster at theology.
Copyright 2009, Don Boys,
Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former
member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent
guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His most recent book is ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! These columns go to over 11,000
newspapers, television, and radio stations. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and
www.Muslimfact.com.)
Vicious
Attack by Long-Time Friend!
David, what have you been smoking? Or are you off your
medicine? Your diatribe was shocking. I would think that before you crank up
your computer to send such a message, you would do a little thinking.
Furthermore, I should think you would consider the fact that we have been
friends for more than 50 years, and you might think, “Maybe I had better think
twice about this. After all, I’ve never known Don to be unfair or unchristian.
In fact, he may have information that I’m not privy to. Yes, I’ll think and pray
about this for a while and at least contact Don for further clarification before
I take out my hatchet to get his scalp.”
First, let me be picky. I don’t like being yelled at by
anyone, especially a long-time friend and especially when that friend is so
wrong. Your missive was in 13.5 font and all capitalized! You convinced me that
you are very upset. (The truth will do that sometime.) I can handle my enemies
rather easily but some of my friends give me heartburn.
You began
with, “I am amazed and perplexed with your critical artical (sic) about Jerry
Farwell (sic) and Liberty University and Martin Luther King.” Then
you asked, “Where did you come up with the rediculous (sic) idea that Martin
Luther King was bi-sexual?” Well, I didn’t come up with it.. The FBI did and the
man in charge of the taping of King’s hotel room was a liberal supporter of King who became disgusted
with King after hearing the tapes.
I have a copy
of an AP article that should be a knockout blow for those who worship at King’s
image. With its heading, “FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a Sex-obsessed
‘Tomcat’” and that was followed with a graphic description of King’s last night
on earth. “The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spent parts of the night before his
assassination with two women and then fought physically with a third, according
to the memoirs of the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, King’s top aide.” Please note
that that was an Associated Press article and the source was King’s best friend!
Much
information about King’s sexual encounters came from FBI tapes that liberals
love to criticize; however, they don’t mention that the bugging of King’s hotel
rooms was ordered by U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, not the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar
Hoover! Black columnist Carl Rowan reported
that the FBI tapes suggest that there was a homosexual relationship between King
and his “best friend” Rev. Ralph Abernathy!
Black talk show host and columnist Tony Brown
added more light on this possibility when he reported on King’s banter to
Abernathy in one of their hotel rooms. King yelled to his “best friend,” “Come
on over here, you big, black m___________, and let me _____ your ______.” King’s statement is so vile and vulgar,
I refuse to even disguise his words. Simply put, King told his “best friend” to
come across the room so they could sodomize each other!
Had you been more civil and kind I would be pleased to
send you my very lengthy report on MLK that documents everything; however,
because of your rudeness and crassness you will have to purchase it from my web
site, www.cstnews.com . About a third of the report is at that site although
the documentation comes only with the purchased report.
Moreover, I document that King was not even
a Christian since he did not believe in the doctrines of Christ: virgin birth,
deity, miracles, resurrection, etc. According to orthodox Christians of all
persuasions, that is ample proof that he was not a Christian! I have read King’s
sermons, most of his college and seminary papers and some of his books and there
is no doubt that King was as lost as a goose in a snowstorm.
However, those who have been brainwashed by
the media and public education will display more anger, even hatred toward me
for reporting the facts but give the perpetrator a pass! How such people sleep
is a mystery to me. Evidently, such people have no conscience and no concern for
consistency and truth.
You then wrote, “You seem to praise Farwell
(sic) and then tear him down.”
David, there is a difference is disagreeing with someone and “tearing him
down.” Yes, I praised him because he deserved the praise and yes, I criticized
him because he deserved the criticism. Is that too complicated to comprehend?
You opined, “If you disagree with them pray
for them and don’t judge their salvation. That is up to God and not you.” I did
not question Jerry’s salvation, I questioned his judgment. Big difference, would
you not agree? As to King’s salvation, he never, ever professed repentance and
faith in Jesus Christ. His first sermon as a teen was one he copied from
notorious modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick and he went down hill from there.. All
his life, King ridiculed everything Bible-believers have taught for 2,000 years.
Doesn’t that bother you?
Then you closed by telling me, “Don’t send
me anymore of these idiotic articles.” I won’t. You have been removed from my
Preacher Helps list. I really don’t know how you got on the list since it is for
preachers. I do send it to three or four Christian doctors and four or five
lawyers but the remaining 6500 people are preachers. Well, I think George and
Gene from Our Gang in Huntington get it plus the preachers from that
era like Bob, Jim, and Brad. (Lowell and Austin received it before their
deaths).
You suggested that I write something
“positive and uplifting” instead of this “trash.” Like many shallow Christians,
you seem to think that Christians should never make judgments when Matt. 7
clearly commands us to do that very thing but not hypocritically. Have you ever
read all of Matt. 7? Moreover, you
seem to think that real Christians should never be negative; however, most of
the Ten Commandments are negative and many of Christ’s declarations are
negative.
Maybe you got ticked off by my slamming
Obama in my Preacher Helps. If so, you may have drunk the Obama brand of Kool
Aid. I think that because of what I have seen of your responses to some things
George sent you. (I assume you understand the Kool Aid reference as to followers
of cult leader Jim Jones whose followers drank cyanide-laced grape Kool Aid and 909 of them died in
the jungle of Guyana.) Maybe you are sensitive to
any criticism of Obama because you voted for him? If you did, you should hit the
altar and confess it as a wicked sin.
No, you will
not receive any more of my “trash.” However, I will hold you accountable. You
have slandered me so here’s what I expect: I expect you to write me and
apologize saying, something like, “Don, I was wrong. I had not seen the MLK
information and after checking your sources, it is obvious that you were right.
I am sorry. As to Falwell, while I don’t agree with your conclusions, I can
understand that you have an obligation to contend for the faith and reprove and
rebuke Christian leaders who go astray.
Let me remind
you of what the Bible commands us to do:
We are to “shun” some (II Tim. 2:16); and to “turn away” from others (II
Tim. 3:5); then “mark them . . . avoid” those who are not
doctrinally correct (Rom. 16:17); furthermore, we are to “receive them not into
your house neither bid them Godspeed those who do not hold to the doctrine of
Christ (II John 10). We are even told to not be involved with and to separate
from Christians who walk in disobedience. (II Thes. 3:6.) At times, we are to
“come out from among” compromisers and evil doers (II Cor. 6:17). That would require all who are members
of an unbiblical church or denomination to leave. That means leave family and
friends and join a fellowship that teaches truth.
Therefore, I
hope you will do the right thing and recognize where you have been “soft” and
understand that there is a time to be hard nosed about truth. To be a principled
Christian requires some tough decisions at times.
Or, I expect you to defend your position
with facts not red-faced yelling.
Or, I don’t expect you to respond at all.
This is probably what you will do; however, I will stay on your case. You see, I
am weary of my critics who stand in safe shadows and throw grenades at me and
run for cover or those who snipe at me from a half-mile distance. If I don’t
hear from you within two weeks, I will contact you for your answer. If you
refuse to respond, I will mark you as a coward although still my friend, an
erring friend.
David, I am sorry to be so blunt but you deserve it. How
you respond to this message may determine the path you will take the rest of
your life. I will continue to pray for your wife and for you.
Your Friend in GA,
Don
This Guy is a
Wimp and Coward!
Thanks for
your comments regarding my article, “Homosexual Mob Prove they are Fascist
Jerks!”
It is
interesting that you should make a definitive judgment that “Wow, you guys are
so full of hate.” No, you have it all wrong. You see, I am full of love because
I believe in telling the truth. You are a wimp who does not understand that one
can love people and hate their actions. You people on the far left never deal
with the issues involved but resort to name-calling and of course, you must
always include “hater” and “intolerant” in your arsenal of insults. Just stick
to the facts. I challenge you to point out any error on my web site. But then, I
don’t expect you to take this challenge because you are a wimp and coward. Plus,
you are uninformed and that’s a dangerous combination.
I am pleased
to point out that you did not
disprove even one of my accusations in the article. Do you charge me with
being inaccurate or only politically incorrect? Isn’t it interesting that you
display more anger toward me than for the perverts who do incredibly wicked
acts? It’s a strange, strange world!
Guns are not
the Problem: Crooks Are!
Don Boys,
Ph.D.
Almost every
gun critic uses specious arguments to support the unsupportable. They are
defending a castle in ruins. However, they keep trying by using the Bible and
Christ to prop up their fallacious argument: only police and the military should
possess guns.
The argument
is not whether or not Jesus carried a weapon. After all, He was God. Why would
He need a weapon? However, the question is should Christians have guns and use
them when necessary? I have been accused of taking the position that guns are
“godly” but I never took that position. My critics often opine that “Guns are
evil.” Guns are inanimate objects, neither good nor evil, but they can be used for good or
evil. Likewise, humans can use drugs, automobiles, knives, clubs, etc., in an
evil and harmful way or in a good way.
Wimpy
liberals lose total control of their thinking process when it comes to guns. It
is better to have a gun and not need it than need one and not have one. Many
wimps would stand by and permit intruders to harm, rape, even kill their family!
I took a vow to protect my wife so
that means anyone in our home late at night will be presumed a thief, rapist,
and killer. He will be shot graveyard dead. The following day, I will contact
the governor of Georgia and
ask him when he wants me to come to Atlanta for an awards ceremony. I assume he
will give me the key to the city of Atlanta and maybe designate the day, “Don Boys’
Day” in honor of me removing scum from our state and making innocent people more
secure.
Don’t
misunderstand. I don’t want to harm anyone and will go out of my way not to do
so, but if anyone is going to be harmed, it will be the thug in my home, not me
or my wife. Is that too difficult for critics to comprehend? You see, all the
bad guys have to do to stay alive is not to break into homes or steal property
but obey the laws. After all, that’s what I do.
Liberal
wimps, pacifists, cowards, and others flee to the Garden in John 18:11 where
Peter cut off the man’s right ear (he was aiming for his head!) and Jesus told
Peter to put his sword into its sheath; however, He didn’t tell him to throw
down his sword or sell it in a silly buyback program sponsored by Jerusalem
Anti-Sword Society. Christ told
them that His time had come to die for our sins. No self-defense was required.
However, liberals twist that passage like a pretzel to support fanatical gun
laws and excuse their cowardice.
Gun critics
don’t know or refuse to admit that one of the last things Jesus said in Luke
22:36 was for the Disciples to sell their coats and buy a sword! Why did He
command that? Obviously, because they didn’t have shotguns in that day! A sword
would suffice.
Dr. John
Lott's seminal study, published as "More Guns, Less Crime” clearly proves to any
sane person that the more guns that are in the hands of the good guys means more
safety for the average citizen. You see, guns don’t kill people. People kill
people—using guns, knives, clubs, frozen fish, turkey, etc. Gun control is a killer of people,
innocent people.
It is not
difficult to understand that when crooks know citizens are unarmed, the citizens
become the targets of the bad guys. Since 1982, every home in Kennesaw, GA, has been required to have a weapon except
for felons, nuts, and those opposed
for religious’ reasons. That law made the knees of every liberal in America
jerk. Left ones, of course. Now if I’m a thief and want some loot, I have to
make a choice what homes to rob. Will I choose homes in Kennesaw or the suburb
down the Interstate? Of course, I will stay away from Kennesaw, although no one
says thieves are very smart—just as gun control advocates are not the brightest
bulb in the house.
Twelve
years after the gun law, the city doubled its population, tax rates fell while
tax receipts soared. They did have a homicide in 1989 but it was committed with
a knife, while a shooting occurred at
a motel in 1986 involved two out-of-state young men. They each dared the
other to shoot and one did. They were drunk as a politician at a free booze bar.
When a reporter asked the part-time mayor if the Kennesaw gun law would work in
New York City, he replied that he wasn’t sure but
New York’s gun
control laws sure weren’t working now! Good response.
In 1997, the
Australian government took many
guns off the streets in a failed buy-back scheme. Since then, the crime rate has soared!
One year after the 1997 $500 million dollar buyback there was a 44 percent increase in armed robberies; an 8.6 percent
increase in aggravated assaults; and, a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That
same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in
homicides committed with firearms. Not unusual since the good guys were at the
mercy of the bad guys. While the police are often helpful, they are no help when
a gun is pointed at you or your child. I would rather have a gun in my hand than
a cop on the phone! Wouldn’t any sane person?
In fact, the
Australian government told police departments not to discuss crime statistics
with anyone. The Aussie actual crime statistics are twice what is reported in
the media. Some American cities use the same subterfuge to hide their crime
rates. Here in the states we call that deception which of course is stock and
trade of all politicians.
In Australia, the police can enter any
house and search for guns without a search warrant and they can go door to door searching for
weapons that have not been surrendered! The officials used registration lists to
see if citizens were in compliance. In 1998, even knives and handcuffs were
banned. I think the Aussies have spent too much time in the sun and it steamed
their brains.
I have been to
Australia four times, have
traveled from Queensland to New South Wales to Victoria even a couple times to Gladstone, and have been
informed that the buyback plan was a farce. Many people sold their junk weapons
and purchased better, higher priced guns. Moreover, some fools who surrendered
very expensive guns discovered that they were not destroyed but ended up in the
basements of various police chiefs’! Furthermore, various people have told me
that guns have been buried on the property of judges and legislators, without
those officials’ knowledge, of course, and when necessary that information will
be reported to other authorities! When that happens, the judges and legislators
will have to defend themselves against the charge of hiding contraband! Breaks
my heart!
Heinrich Himmler of the
German SS said, "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA –
ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the
State." However, we are not obligated to “serve the state.” The state is here to
serve and protect us. Moreover, the Second Amendment in America
guarantees all the other Amendments!
The right kind of Gun control is a
person using both hands to control his weapon. No, gun control is not about gun
control. It is about people control
and the British and Aussies have surrendered control to their
government. A government tries
to control its citizens only if it fears them. We should love and support our
government but be suspicious of and fear any administration.
Too bad.
Australia and
England used to be great
nations, and I’m afraid America is headed in the same
direction.
Copyright 2009, Don Boys,
Ph.D.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former
member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent
guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. His most recent book is ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! These columns go to over 11,000
newspapers, television, and radio stations. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and
www.Muslimfact.com.)
Was I Wrong
About Bob
Jones University?
Thanks for your response to my article, “A
Spy at Liberty
University.” You took
umbrage with my casual remark, “Even Bob
Jones University published a book endorsing social drinking although it
has been recently pulled from the shelves!” I wrote that in dealing with many
colleges and seminaries that have compromised their positions in recent years.
(Some would admit to correcting, but not compromising.)
You wrote, “Some understood a small part of that book to
permit social drinking, and thus it was withdrawn and is being re-written so as
to correct any misunderstanding as to where the University stands. Use of the
broad brush does make sloppy painting at the edges!”
You are correct in that I should not have used the
statement alone or I should have elaborated on it more. I plead
guilty.
I have been a defender of BJU since the early 1950s
although I have not always agreed with them (as I have disagreed with every
school at times). BJU has graduated numerous good, godly, even great men for
decades. They are known for quality. They were right on the Billy Graham issue
in the early days. I wrote a feature article in USA Today Magazine in defense of the Bob
Jones curriculum and Pensacola’s in reply to a hatchet job done by a
humanist. It is interesting to note that I was president of Freedom Baptist
Curriculum at the time that was a direct competitor with those two curricula
companies. Therefore, I have sufficient bona fides to support my contention of
being a supporter of the school.
Dr. Jones very clearly stated that the
university does not, in any way, recommend, encourage, or support social
drinking. In his response to a Sword of
the Lord review of the book, Dr. Jones stated, “Followers of
Christ should not drink wine or any kind of alcoholic beverages, not even in
moderation.” I take him at his
word. However, I would ask, “How in the world did such a book get published in
the first place with its obvious problems?
The CaptianToday they call you "crazy". Tomorrow they call you "ahead of your time."Global Skywatch Learn about Chemtrails - You're breathing them now!
OnlyTheBestHerbs.com World-class supplements
Mercury Talk Why you are sick.
OneUp Domains Domains, Hosting, Email
1-800-358-4278 (U.S. & Canada)
