PREACHER HELPS
by Evangelist Don Boys, Ph.D.
Copyright 2009, Don Boys, Ph.D.
#116
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:
*Churches Are Going to the
Dogs But Where Are Dogs Going?
*Slavery,
Reparations and an Unbelieving Liberal!
*Response to
What Kind of Man Was Martin Luther King, Jr.?
*My Response
to Muslims Lying!
*Should
Teens be Executed?
*Little Known
Fact of History
*Illustrations:
*Funny Story:
*Incredible Quotes You Can
Use:
*Pithy Sayings:
*Did You Know?
Churches Are
Going to the Dogs But Where Are Dogs Going?
Don Boys, Ph.D.
I have always thought the world was crazy, now I’m
convinced our churches are also! When I wrote my original article, “No Dogs,
Ducks, or Dinosaurs in Heaven, not Even Cats, Cows, or Crows!” I was convinced
that I could not win the argument with many people. However, I did not expect such a
response from the church crowd.
Even some fundamentalists! So here I go again.
Almost everyone who responded to me quoted various Bible
verses that mention animals; but the Fido-in-Heaven crowd show their desperation
by equating that mention with animals going to Heaven.
One preacher wrote me saying, “While it may be true that
dogs and ducks won't be in heaven, or even dinosaurs, you cannot dismiss the
fact that there are horses. Nor does this take into consideration any of the
other fabulous beasts mentioned in Revelation. Clearly, the Bible teaches that
there will be animals in heaven. Maybe not your pets, but animals
nonetheless.”
Even if there are literal horses in Heaven that does not
speak to the issue of animals dying and going to Heaven? If they do, upon what
basis? Only our pets? Or only our special, good, faithful pets? Do bad animals
go to Hell? Since animals cannot reason and think, then the basis of them going
to Heaven must be based on works, attitude, or instinct. I thought entrance into
Heaven has always been by faith. Moreover, I think the horses in Revelation are
symbolic just as the sword in Christ’s mouth is. Does any sane person believe
that there are horses being stabled in Heaven at this time? If so, who cleans
out the stables; maybe backslidden Baptists? If the horses are real then they could
be created for that purpose at the end time.
Note that my respondent mentions “other fabulous beasts
mentioned in Revelation,” but I don’t know any Bible expert in the last 200
years who does not believe those bizarre animals are symbolic. The whole passage of Scripture makes no
sense if the animals are real.
One lady wrote, “Where does God suggest he will not
accept them [pets] into heaven?” She doesn’t understand that she and other
fanatics are making the claim of poodles in paradise, and it is incumbent upon
them to support that claim, something they have not done.
Another wrote, “I don't know positively if animals go to
heaven any more then I know positively that humans do. BUT, I do know they both
exist and live on after death. That's a fact and no one will ever change
it.” This lady is obviously confused as proved by her first sentence.
Humans who have repented (something animals cannot do) and trusted in the death
and resurrection of Christ (see previous parentheses) will go to Heaven or the
Bible is totally unreliable. She states that her assertion is “a fact and no one
will ever change it.” She seems to think that making a statement makes it a
fact, that her assumptions, thoughts, desires, beliefs, declarations become
factual because she wants them to be! She has a right to her own opinions but
not to her own facts.
Many Fido-in-Heaven people quote Luke 12 thinking it
teaches birds and animals go to Heaven; however, Christ said, “Are not five
sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?”
Of course, that proves that God is omniscient not that birds fly into Heaven.
Moreover, no one quotes the next verse, “But even the very hairs of your head
are all numbered. Fear not therefore:
ye are of more value than many sparrows.” Not even a suggestion that animals
go to Heaven.
The idolization of animals by alleged Bible-believers
says much about the condition of our nation. Sure we love, care for, and enjoy
our pets, but they don’t have souls that will one day go to Heaven.. Nor are they
like children. They are beasts and children should be taught to treat them
kindly (more so for the sake of the children than the beasts) but not to worship
them.
Many preachers are guilty of the warped, worldly, and
wicked idolization of pets even to the extent of preaching their funerals!
The Associated Press ran a story about Covenant
Presbyterian Church in LA that “has turned God’s house into a doghouse” for one
service each Sunday. Boy, that pastor knows what the Gospel is, doesn’t he! That
dude should be out selling insurance or grave plots not discrediting,
desecrating, and defiling God’s house. That church service is called “Canines at
Covenant” and has individual doggie beds, dog treats, and canine prayers! Yes,
that church has “gone to the dogs.”
The
flakey pastor said, “Many Christians love their pets as much as human family
members, but churches have been slow to recognize that love as the work of
God….When we love a dog and a dog loves us, that's a part of God and God is a
part of that." The AP article did not report any Bible verses to support the
radical reverend’s rant. (I have a hunch where that pastor is
going.)
There are at least a few more churches that “hold
dog-friendly worship services, including one in a Boston suburb called Woof 'n Worship.”
Fido, Fluffy, and Felix may be made deacons or elders in
the near future in some of those churches but those pets will not go to Heaven!
Churches are going to the dogs but the church dogs are
not going to Heaven. Face it: there will no poodles in paradise!
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.)
NC pastors, I
need to book Dec. 27. FL pastors I
have time in Feb. Call me.
Slavery,
Reparations and an Unbelieving Liberal!
Just because I am critical
of Alex Haley and his best-selling Roots does not mean I am soft on
slavery. Haley made millions of dollars with fiction that was taken as fact.
Some of his “facts” were also taken from other writers and that act of
plagiarism cost him $650,000.00. A friendly reviewer wrote, “…Haley had altered
data to fit his objectives, fabricating ancestors and changing timelines or
geographic details to make the story into the one he wanted to tell.” Haley
admitted, “I tried to give my people a myth
to live by.”
Genealogist Elizabeth Shown Mills and historian Gary B.
Mills revisited Haley's research and concluded that his claims were not true.
Furthermore, a friend of Haley's, Harvard University professor Dr. Henry Louis
Gates, Jr., an editor of the Norton Anthology of African-American Literature,
acknowledged the doubts about Haley's claims saying, "Most of us feel it's
highly unlikely that Alex actually found the village whence his ancestors
sprang. Roots is a work of the
imagination rather than strict historical scholarship.” However, Roots made
interesting television fare (in a dull season) and made Haley a millionaire.
My critic questioned my statement, “Black slaves usually fell into one of three categories:
(1) captives taken in war or those kidnapped by black chiefs (2) convicted
criminals such as killers, thieves, etc., (3) others born into slavery.” My
Roots-loving critic asked, “How did you come up with that, especially the
killers and thieves, it minimizes the trade in itself. We are talking about
something that occured (sic) over a nearly 300 year time period so I think it
would make sense that the Europeans clearly had a lot to do with the
proliferation of the trade.” I came up with those facts because they are the
facts. One does not have to be a historian to understand that. Where else could
slaves be procured? After all, there is not a “slave factory” out there where
one can purchase a slave although the old Soviet
Union came the closest to being such a
“factory.”
Of course, Europeans had
much to do with the proliferation of slavery as did Muslims, Americans, and the
colonies of European nations. However, it must be noted that slavery was a common practice for thousands of
years and was known throughout Africa for
centuries before white traders sailed into African
ports
Then my critic declared
that Haley’s plagiarism is a moot point since he did go to Gambia
and was told by an “oral historian (griot) that Kunte (sic) Knite (sic) went into the
woods one day and was never seen again.” Haley did not think the plagiarism was
“moot” since he had to shell out $650,000.00 to settle the suit. Moreover, the
vast television audience was not told that the oral historian in Gambia
that Haley interviewed had been coached to say what Haley wanted to hear. Ah,
yes, responsible journalism. But then, Haley did call his work “faction” or a
combination of fact and fiction.
Furthermore, Africans and
non-Africans go into the woods today and are “never seen again.” Why my critic
made a point that Kunta Kinte went into the woods and never came out is beyond
me. Since that has happened numerous times all over the world, what does that
have to do with slavery?
Of course, there is no
support that Kunta was a long-lost relative of Haley’s and scholars doubt that
Haley even found his ancestral village in Gambia! It must
be remembered that Roots was a novel
not history.
My critic disagrees with my
statement, “Far more Whites have been slaves than Blacks, and it has always been
wrong.” That is a fact because there are more non-Blacks than Blacks in the
world. He also declared, “Never
were whites enslaved in the millions because of their whiteness, its odd how whites always try and make
that point always searching for symetry, (sic) when in reality the enslavement
of blacks is extreme in that it was an enslavement of a race period.” No, that
is not true. Neither Whites nor Blacks were enslaved because of their color or
lack thereof. They were enslaved simply because they were available, weak, and
saleable. The statement is also wrong when it suggests that there was an
enslavement of a total race. No ethnic group has ever been totally enslaved
except the Hebrews in Egypt and then because of very
special circumstances.
In my contested article, I
wrote, “Slaves were used as money to pay taxes, to purchase a wife, cattle or,
crops.” My critic wrote, “Slaves were used to purchase a wife don't confuse
dowry with payment for a wife, is this supposed to be scholarly becuase (sic)
that statement was nonsensical and condescending.” Now that statement is
nonsensical (confused thinking results in confused writing) but I will try to
speak to the issue.
My critic himself is wrong
about a dowry and bride payment. Noah Webster in his famous 1828 dictionary
dealt with a dowry: “The money, goods or estate which a woman brings to her
husband in marriage; the portion given with a wife.” The dowry is similar to trousseau that
was popular in America up to about 1960 although the
trousseau consisted on sheets, towels, wedding dress, fancy bed wear, household
items, etc. The dowry, given from ancient times in most cultures, brought by the
wife to her new home was more substantial--money, land, or jewelry. It helped
give a stronger foundation for the new family. Upon divorce or death of the
husband, the dowry was returned to the wife
and was inherited following her death by her own children not any other children
of her husband’s other wife.
The dowry has produced a
scandal of major proportions in nations such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc., where dowries are
often paid in annual installments to the husband’s family. If the bride’s family
does not keep up the payments, her husband’s family often burn her to death by
dousing her with kerosene and lighting her. India has
thousands of such deaths each year and the authorities do almost nothing to
convict the killers. After all, women are not worth much in those non-Christian
“civilizations.”
So, one advantage of living
in America (and Europe) with all our problems, is the civilizing effect
that the Gospel of Christ has had on us. The Bible teaches us to cherish our
wives not harm them.
Webster’s second definition
for dowry was, “The reward paid for a wife.” This was the sum or property paid
to the bride’s family as a sign of sincerity. It was similar to our modern
engagement ring except it went to the bride’s father not to the bride. In some
cultures, the payment was to the bride’s family because they had lost a worker
in the fields, or weaving, cooking, etc. Some cultures had/have both dowry and
bride price.
So, my critic was very
confused about slavery and about a dowry and bride payment
My article declared, “I
would be unfair and inaccurate if I implied that Blacks were without some guilt
in this whole wretched business of slavery. Richard Hufstadter wrote in America at 1750: ‘Africa had a system or
systems of slavery long before white men came to the Guinea Coast, and had
regularly enslaved war captives and criminals.... Other persons sold themselves
or their families for food during famine, or were kidnapped by native gangs.
Many native kings ran profitable slave businesses, and responded eagerly to
opportunities for greater profits. The slave trade became a recognized and
entirely legal form of business in Africa.’”
My Roots lover argued (unpersuasively),
“Again looking for this symetry, (He really should learn to spell
symmetry!) dude blacks lost in the
long run not one society that exist today in Africa is still sitting on a high
horse finacially (sic) for there (sic) participation in the slave trade, but
could one say the same of various European nations.” Wait a minute! No doubt,
many of those nations gained financially from the slave trade but to suggest a
major causation of England’s financial success to
slavery is nonsense. Of course, slavery contributed to European nation building
but it was only a small factor. African rulers selling their own people into
slavery no doubt contributed to their downfall.
Regarding U.S.
taxpayers paying Blacks for slavery (known as reparations) I wrote, “Who funds
the scam (reparations) and who profits from the scam? Since the money would come
from the general U.S. Treasury then all taxpayers would be paying. That means
Blacks would be paying for their own reparations! It also means that recent
immigrants would be paying as well as descendents of those who arrived in
America since the Civil War who had
no connection to slavery. Furthermore, Northerners would be paying reparations
when their distant relatives fought and died ‘to free the slaves’! By what logic
can that be justified? There were 7 million whites in the South and 6.5 million
of them did not own slaves so why should their descendents pay for slavery
perpetrated by others? Should American Indians pay reparations since they were
here before Whites or slaves? Of course, some Indians owned black slaves and
even ate them during bad times!”
My critic replied, “Those
folks who faught (sic) in the civil war (sic) did not die to free a single slave
that is a pipe dream. but (sic) even if they did those deaths appear to be small
in comparison to the amount of Africans who died over 300 yrs come on the civil
war deaths are dwarfed by the Africans deaths.” He is wrong to say that no soldier
fought to free a “single slave.” Yes, the War Between the States (or called
Lincoln’s War of
Northern Aggression by some southerners) was fought to preserve states’ rights
but later it became a war to free the slaves. My critic is wrong, although he is
correct when he stated that far more slaves died in the U.S. than
soldiers died during the Civil War; however, it is only reasonable to note that
slavery lasted 300 years and the war lasted 5 years. There were 620,000 war
deaths (on both sides) and from 10% to 20% of slaves died in their apprehension
and shipping. Encyclopedia
Britannica reveals that 9.4 to 12
million blacks were brought to North America
during the 300-year period.
I wrote, “I suggest that
black leaders stop ‘using’ the race card to enlarge their bank accounts, enlist
more followers and expand their egos. They should spend their time helping build
the black family structure and help cement black/white relations. (Some of those
black reverends might even do some preaching since they are supposed to be
‘preachers.’) They would do well to be honest and admit that the many [major]
problems in the black community have not evolved from slavery or mistreatment by
‘whitey’ but by the personal failures in black society.” I did not mean to imply
that all black family problems were a result of personal failures.
My critic’s response: “wow
how delf (sic) righteous, admit that problems??? come on if you look at someone
who is rich and he descended from richness it is easy to see why he is rich but
if one emerged from a situation where they often believed that their own
humanity is in question, are you telling me that it wouldn't have an affect
(sic) on the said group. the (sic) reason your arguments seem so silly to me is
because believe it or not you all say the same thing.”
I wrote, “If reparations
(for long-past crimes) could be justified, then why shouldn't Jews demand
payment from Egyptians who kept them in slavery for hundreds of years? Some
black extremists tell us that Egyptians were black so that makes a whole ‘black’
civilization slaveholders! How far back do we go to really be ‘fair’?”
He declared that there was
no proof that “the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians only a story in ‘your’
Bible.” Well, that settles it for me; however, there is far more proof. Only
this year, hundreds of coins were discovered, now in an Egyptian museum, with
the name and likeness of “Joseph” along with the worth of the coins (made of
various materials such as gold, silver, ivory, etc); the date and the likeness
of the ruling Pharaoh. In fact, one coin even had the likeness of a cow
indicating the cows in Pharaoh’s dream. Moreover, drawings have been discovered
in Thebes of
slaves making bricks. In addition, chariot wheels were found in the Red Sea that had 8 spokes, that could only have been
constructed during the reign of Joseph’s Pharaoh!
He closed by saying that this nation and “most of Europe”
was built on the back of slaves and all the wealth goes back to slavery thereby
requiring reparations paid to living Blacks. He said that that is a fact not
like the “fictitious story of a man parting the Red
Sea.” Obviously, his basic problem is that he is an unbeliever who
doesn’t know whether he is pitching or catching.
Response to
What Kind of Man Was Martin Luther King, Jr.?
Thanks for you response to my MLK article. Since you live
in Kenya, I assume you are a Black
Christian. I agree with you about how the truth “about MLK is not balanced”
however, it is almost always unbalanced in his favor. Seldom is heard a
discouraging word about King no matter who is dealing with the
man.
I can only speak about my own motives and unless I am
very deceived, my motives are simple. I detest unfairness, prejudice, and
cowardice. It distresses me that no one in the mass media is willing to tell the
truth about King. He was a drunk, a plagiarist, a fornicator, agitator, and
Marxist. He probably loved his children and dogs but that fact does not cancel
out his wicked lifestyle. While most non-thinkers give him far more credit in
the civil rights battle, he did accomplish a few positive things. I can’t think
of any right now, although almost everyone has done something good. King’s
actions, however motivated, did encourage sincere Blacks to stand for equality
and decent treatment from the white establishment.
Now what motives do you think his worshippers have
especially those in the media? Are they too lazy to search the truth? Do they
even care about truth? Are they fearful of their positions? Could they be
professional journalistic prostitutes? Are they only careless? Could they be
totally incompetent? Is it a matter of courage? Who knows? I’m only responsible
for my own motives and activities.
You wrote that you think King was “a great political
leader, his sins notwithstanding.” It is encouraging that you even admit to his
“sins,” but inform me as to his great political leadership..
You asked that someone should be able to “give us the
truth about MLK.” Well, I have done that in my lengthy report on my website,
www.cstnews.com .
I documented every charge I made against him and gave a general outline of his
life. You suggest that those of us who tell the whole truth about him do so in
an “effort to diminish the significance of his contribution to society.” That is
not my desire since I want to tell the unvarnished truth and bring some balance
into the discussion. Please provide a list of King’s contributions to society.
One thing for sure, he never preached the Gospel in his lifetime since according
to his writings he did not believe it. He spoke of love, commitment, peace,
etc., but never from a true Bible perspective. He was an unbeliever who used the
churches to advance his social and socialist agenda.
You closed by saying that you are neither a communist or
a fundamentalist nor an American. It is most commendable that you are not a
Communist, but are you a socialist? Socialists are at least cousins to
Communists and often they are closet Communists without a gun or the required
votes to control their nation at this time.
As to religion, are you a born-again Christian or simply
a member of some religious group?
Your closing
statement reveals that you are especially interested in “historical accuracy.”
Good, I commend you for that.
Response to
the Death Penalty for Teens!
You were kind
to express your disagreement with my article about teen executions. I have
received many similar responses from that article. However, your reasoning is
flawed in my opinion.
You wrote, “I
dont (sic) think students that murder should be executed because everyone
is
going to miss (sic) up.” You call premeditated murder messing up? That is not
only flawed reasoning, it is foolish reasoning.
Continuing
you declared, “NO one is GOD and thats
(sic) up to him to take a life away.” So that means we must not defend
ourselves and family? It means we must not defend our nation in war time? That
means the state must not take the life of a convicted killer who is beyond teen
years? What are you saying?
You say that
teen killers should be locked up and “learn about what they have done.” However,
what will they learn? And how will that help the dead victim? How will that
affect the family of the victim? Kids should learn various lessons long before
they take a life.
Please read
my article again and respond to specifics in the article.
Should
Teens be Executed?
Don Boys,
Ph.D.
Our
city streets are dark, dirty, and dangerous and are often dominated by raping,
robbing, and rampaging children. In 1992, juvenile courts handled 2,500 criminal
homicides and over a million cases of lesser crimes. We are seeing more and more
very young people commit serious, sordid, and sadistic crimes–some kids as young
as six! As families, homes, and churches implode, a subculture of juvenile
criminals has developed.
Juveniles used to be considered young, athletic students
with ruddy complexion, squeaky voice and acne, but now they are often
vindictive, vicious, and violent criminals.
We have been assured that "there is no such thing as a
bad boy" (or girl); however, the fact is, there is no such thing as a good boy (or girl). No kid has to be
taught to lie, steal, talk back, rebel, etc. It is human nature. Theologians
call it the "fallen nature," as a result of original sin. However, since that is
not politically correct, men have been conned into believing all people are
basically good–then they try to justify and explain why "good" people commit
outrageously brutal crimes.
Part of the problem of juvenile crime is the criminal
justice system itself. While ours may be the "best in the world" (what does that
say about the rest of the world?) it is long overdue for a major overhaul. It is
part of my recommended crime bill to insist on that
overhaul.
Kids must no longer have a free ride until age 18.. They
must get the message that they will be held accountable for their actions with
their names and photos published in the media, and their record following them
if they continue into adult crime. Studies show that a juvenile's crime record
is one of the most valid predictors of repeat adult
crime.
Young criminals should not be in school, and while the
bleeding hearts whine about those kids, I prefer to show my concern for the
large group who want to learn. Put the violent kids in a boot camp where they
can be made into "young marines" under the tutelage of a traditional leatherneck
trained at Parris
Island.
Get them up at 5:00 a.m., feed them a big breakfast and
work them until they drop. Absolutely no back talk and only magic words such as
"yes sir," "no sir," "please," and "thank you, sir" would be permitted.
Moreover, no psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or lawyer within 100
miles!
Those kids who are involved in non-violent crime would be
treated less severely. They would be forced to make restitution to their
victims, clean up any mess they made and spend time in structured community
service.
Kids must learn that justice will be swift, sure, and
severe in the courts if not at home and school. Personal accountably will be the
reality from now on. That will appall many social scientists and psychologists
who tell us that a person is not responsible for personal actions. It all goes
back, we are told, to poor potty training, low self esteem, poor living
conditions, etc., so a young person should not be held to an accounting for his
crimes. My intellectual reply is poppycock, balderdash and a generous portion of
hogwash.
We are told that kids murder, mug, and maim because they
grew up in poverty; however, poverty doesn't cause crime; crime causes poverty.
Juveniles, like adults, commit crimes because they choose to do so. Moreover,
they must be held accountable.
When young criminals kill and rape, they should be
treated like adults, even executing them! Most of us are horrified at that
thought but if capital punishment can be defended (and it can be) then who is to
say one must be 21? If a 16-year-old commits a vicious murder, who says he
should not pay with his life? Of course, there must be an age below which a
child would not be executed, but that is a political decision made in each
state.
Therefore, the message to kids should be clear, concise,
and conclusive. No free ride until 18. No anonymity. No blaming poverty,
parents, or potty training for criminality. No more community service for rape
and murder. Even the dullest teen will understand that society considers
leniency lunacy and a thing of the past.
Kids think they can get away with murder and they will
continue to believe that until citizens force the criminal justice system to get
its act together. When a few teens "walk the last mile" to the death chamber,
other teens will get the message that sane, sensible, and scared people are
taking over from the bleating hearts.
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)
