Anything is possible if one has the power to change the definition of words.Take for example the word truth.Once upon a time truth had a concise meaning.Merriam-Webster’s dictionary (M-WD) defines truth as “the body of true statements and propositions.Truth is the ‘state of being the case.’”In other words, it’s a fact.A fact is something that actually exists, or an actual occurrence.M-WD defines In truth as in accordance with facts.As Ronald Reagan used to say, “Facts are stubborn things.”
In our post-modern culture a number of people have come to believe that there are no absolute truths.All truth is relative. They proclaim, “What’s true for you is not true for me" and “No one can know anything for sure.”For the relativist there is no universal moral truth, only what each individual perceives as truth. We all have our own truth, so we mustn’t push our views on anyone else.Even some self-professed Christians embrace the concept of moral relativism even though it’s patently unbiblical.
M-WD defines relativism as “A theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing (b) a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.”
“What is truth?” Pontius Pilot asked Jesus prior to sending Him to the cross.Jesus chose to remain silent, but on other occasions He addressed the truth question head-on. To the chagrin of many, Jesus stated categorically that He is the way the TRUTH and the life and those who reject Him will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven and spend eternity in hell.The fact that Jesus Christ claimed to be God is another subject, so I’ll move on.
Truthful means “telling or disposed to tell the truth.” Truth defines what a person believes in.It is not abstract, like a feeling or an idea.Jesus said, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). He was talking about Scripture.By reading it “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
Ask yourself this question, professed Christian: If there is no absolute truth as the moral relativists holds, why did the Apostle John say, “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
Liberal ideologues redefine words to help advance a religious, political, environmental, scientific or social agenda.Never mind that to do so perverts the truth.For them “The end justifies the means.”
The cults are infamous for perverting historically accepted biblical terms.“Is it any wonder then,” asked the late Christian apologist/polemicist Walter Martin, “that orthodox Christians feel called upon to openly denounce such perversions of clearly defined and historically accepted biblical terminology, and claim that the cults have no rights—scholastically, biblically, or linguistically—to redefine biblical terms as they do?” [1]
Oh that more Christians would feel called upon to denounce cultists who bastardize Christianity.
Politicians are also infamous for twisting words into pretzels.Even a former president of the United States did some fancy word twisting when he thought it would get him off the hook.You may recall how Bill Clinton stunned the nation during the Monica Lewinsky probe when he said under oath, “If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
In an age of moral relativism there’s no virtue in honesty.Dishonesty, duplicity and deceit have become common behavior, even for those who have been elevated to high office.
Some unscrupulous homosexuals are as sharp as a dual blade saw when it comes to perverting words.Radical “gay” activists know all to well that if they’re going to achieve the acceptance they yearn for, they must manipulate words that are a stumbling block to their cause -- which is to make same-sex sex appear as normal as, well, normal heterosexual sex.
Take “sodomite” for example. Homosexuals have fought to prohibit thought on the question of whether or not sodomy is normal.Try taking the position that it’s not, and you’re branded a bigot, a homophobe, or you’re accused of spreading hate.Our once free press is no longer free to be critical of homosexuals for fear the Lavender Police will come down on them.(Note that homosexual activists go silent when the media smears a “gay” conservative or a Christian leader.)
Before homosexuals stripped “normal” of its original definition, it meant “occurring naturally.” Which begs the question: If a practice goes against nature, is it normal or abnormal?
Common sense dictates that man on man and woman on woman sex is abnormal.Quite frankly, it’s perverted.And I know this is true because I looked up “perverted” in my trusty M-WD.Perverted is defined as “an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual.”
If we can’t trust M-WD to give accurate word definitions, we’re doomed!
An honest person will have to admit that those who have a propensity for same-sex sex are, by definition, perverts.In their struggle to make homosexuality mainstream, “gays” and lesbians have had to pervert the meaning of words.To avoid hurting a homosexual person’s feelings, a vast number of people who are opposed to homosexual behavior (this includes people of faith) have surrendered to perverts who pervert words!Is that preposterous, or what?
Same-sex sex is not what the Designer intended.The human body was designed for normal heterosexual sex.
“Gays” and lesbians contend that the cause of same-sex attraction is biological therefore same-sex sex is normal.In his article, “What if Homosexuality is Biological” Selwyn Duke explains their reasoning this way:
“[I]f such feelings are biologically induced, then homosexual behavior is neither sinful nor a choice. Thus, the genesis of same-sex attraction has become a locus of debate in the culture war.” [2]
In order to win the debate, “gays” and lesbians play the biological card.They argue that homosexuality is inborn therefore it’s not perverted. They also play the tug on your heartstrings card.“It’s not my fault I was born gay,” they insist.But even if homosexuality has a basis in biology (there’s no solid scientific evidence that it does) the behavior is by definition “deviant.”And how do I know that?The M-WD tells me so.Deviant means, “deviating especially from an accepted norm.”The homosexual lifestyle does, in fact, deviate from the accepted norm.“Gays” and lesbians rationalize their choices by claiming that since they were born that way it’s normal for them.
I call this the “nature made me do it defense.”
Selwyn Duke makes the case that society has fallen victim to a terrible misconception and raises this excellent point:
“Many of the same people who tell us homosexuality is inborn also claim that sociopaths (those without consciences and who exhibit antisocial behavior) may be born and not made. But, if this is true, would that render it moral for these individuals to trample the rights of others? If one is born with homicidal instincts, would it be licit for him to commit murder? Don’t scoff, for it’s precisely the same reasoning. Either morality is dictated by biology or it isn’t.” [3]
The movement to eliminate thought on homosexuality has failed, miserably. That’s because there’s an issue that cannot be swept under the rug, namely, something that’s biological is not necessarily normal.
Incredible how a small group of radical “gay” activists have found a way to manipulate the public into thinking that morality should be dictated by biology.Biology my Aunt Fanny!
Homosexuality is not one of those moral dilemmas posed by new technologies, like in vitro fertilization and embryo transplantations.In verbally inspiring the Bible, God revealed absolute morality to mankind and made it clear that sodomy is immoral because it degrades the body.Romans 1:24-27 clearly states,
“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. 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.”
People shouldn’t fall prey to destructive biological urges anymore than they should fall prey to vices like pornography, prostitution, or gambling – or other egregious sins such as lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, sexual immorality and so on.Benjamin Franklin rightly said, “To err is human, to repent divine, but to persist is devilish.”
The reason I bring up homosexuality is not to attack “gays” and lesbians, as I will be accused of doing, but to show that liberals change vocabulary and terminology to normalize aberrant behavior.One example is the fanatical feminist fruitloops who’ve been pushing to change the meaning of the word “prostitute” to “sex-worker.”Or try this one on for size.Pathological perverts whose primary sexual preference is for prepubescent kidsprefer the term “intergenerational sex” to “pedophilia.”
How pathetic.
Getting back to the cults, Walter Martin addresses the masterful way in which the cults redefine terms:
“If the reader consults the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, published by the Unity School of Christianity, he will see the masterpiece of redefinition for himself. For in this particular volume, Unity has redefined exhaustively many of the cardinal terms of biblical theology, much as Mary Baker Eddy did in her Glossary of Terms in the book Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures. The reader will be positively amazed to find what has happened to biblical history, the person of Adam, the concept of human sin, spiritual depravity, and eternal judgment. One thing, however, will emerge very clearly from this study: Unity may use the terminology of the Bible, but by no stretch of the imagination can the redefinition be equated with the thing itself.” [4]
To put it bluntly, cultists lie.M-WD defines liar this way: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2: to create a false or misleading impression.
Change agents intentionally create a false impression.Let me repeat, liberal ideologues redefine words to help advance a religious, political, environmental, scientific or social agenda.
For the liberal elites (the news media, politicians, jurists, attorneys, radical homosexuals, rabid feminists, Hollywood, environmental extremists, scientists, educators, even some religious leaders) words are whatever they say they are!
Americans have been asleep at the wheel while powerful far left ideologues work ‘round the clock to create words in his or her own image.Before you know it we’ll all be echoing “One Nation Under Liberals.”But in order to accomplish their desired goal, they must first obliterate truth.Dr. Martin warned of the dangers of perverting semantics when he said,
“The problem of semantics has always played an important part in human affairs, for by its use or abuse, whichever the case may be, entire churches, thrones, and governments have been erected, sustained, or overthrown. The late George Orwell’s stirring novel 1984, in which he points out that the redefinition of common political terms can lead to slavery when it is allowed to pass unchallenged by a lethargic populace, is a classic illustration of the dangers of perverted semantics. It should be of no particular surprise to any student of world history that trick terminology is a powerful propaganda weapon.”
The lethargic populace seems not to realize what the sly devils have been up to.If the populace is aware of it, they seem not to understand the dire consequences of perverting semantics.Better come out of your stupor, huddled masses, before it’s too late.
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
From The Heart The Mouth Speaks… Dear Lou, I am sorry to inform you, but the rest of us do not live in your Pristine, "Pleasantville", picture-perfect version of how the world should be. In professional writing, like all professions, time is money and good people really **try** to do their professional, level best, but we do not seem to be as perfect as you. And yes Lou, *maybe* if she had noticed that **1 little sentence** out of her entire 2000+ word article, and *maybe* if she had pondered that Lou would be so easily offended, she might have wasted her time going back to reword it so as to satisfy your critical eye. Here is the $64 thousand dollar question! *??*Would that have, in any way*??*, changed the gist of her article, or rather, the *plainly stated subject matter* of it? I have to ask again if you really do understand the *plainly stated subject matter* because in spite of your objection, “I do not need you to explain what she said and what she meant”, this is NOT the only place where you have indeed misread, misunderstood, and misconstrued what writers and posters have put forth. She CLEARLY made the ONE point of her entire article. You, on the other hand, are CLEARLY making your ONE point: a venue to find any fault so as to post your version of “a more perfect way”. I do not speculate, as you do, on what she "coulda, woulda, shoulda said". Without “seeking to catch something out of [her] mouth, that [one] might accuse [her]”, I can honestly go by what she **did** say, [without “seeking” to be offended] and that is "Ms. West is clearly and specifically addressing the **deliberate changing and redefining of words to advance an evil agenda**". So I ask you again: "Is she changing the definition of “scientists” or “educators”; then you have a case. If she is not; then you are in the wrong for misconstruing and railing against her and you owe the lady a posted apology." But now, I am curious here: The point of your speculative, false analogy “(blacks, women, and small people)”?? This is to what; build a little trap for me? -- Shall we now play the PC Minority/Race/Fem card...? That is always the last feeble attempt to reclaim "righteous ground" in a failed debate. The fact that you have to resort to examples of speculation just adds to the evidence that you do NOT have a justifiable case. You say "Now I understand ! I see why we do not we do not get along.." NO Lou, you still don't WANT to understand where your words have taken you. Your false issue and false accusation of me of lumping everyone together is simply another of your attempted diversions to avoid facing the real issue. As to not getting along; in my lifetime I have had many *disagreements*, made many mistakes, in fam, frenz, & biz, and when "called on the carpet", in all the apologies & misunderstandings, we usually still "get along." For a so-called 'brother' to decide that "disagreement" = "we do not get along" is your choice, of course, but I don't see it that way [yet]. BTW, did you really **mean** to say that, that "disagreement" means "we do not get along"? How should I take this? Should I be as easily offended? Should I now, in turn, berate you for the harshness of breaking fellowship over a disagreement and demand an apology? What shifting standard should I hold you to now? And why did you say, "we do not" twice in your 2nd sentence? Did you mean to do that for some *effect* that I should read [or misread] something into or out of it? [End Part 1 of 2] Click here to reply to this post
NO WONDER *YOU* DISAGREE with so many!
Posted On: 07/29/07 10:56:19 PM
Age 59, OR
[Part 2 of 2]Or were you just in a hurry to post and failed to check your grammar? Shouldn’t you have gone back and wasted your time to make it perfect so that no one would find some “words” to catch you on? As the world says, “what goes around, comes around” since the *real* issue here is to make righteous evaluations for “with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”. You see, Jesus said, "by their fruit shall you know them" and "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" so I can only go by what you post. As I am new to this forum and since you do not really know me, my 1st choice, usually, is to reserve judgment, and after having seen that you do have so many righteous posts in defending the faith, I was wanting to believe that you were a person of Christian character, fairly well grounded in the faith [in spite of your ‘oneness’ doctrine]. This is a Christian News site with only columnists that are recognized as brothers and sisters in the faith and not JWs, Mormons, Hindus, Muslims, or cultists that one would have real reason to hotly contest. That is why I rightly said in my 2nd post to you that, “I was rather shocked to come back a day or 2 later and find your postings berating the lady…that you were so easily incensed…a harsh tirade…effrontery to accuse her of hypocrisy…to demand an apology” of a Christian sister over a mole-hill made into Mount Lou. Christian testimony, above all else, is what the world sees and measures us by, and by direct connection, measures our precious Saviour, that He seems NOT AT ALL ABLE to sanctify all of us… That bothers me much and that is why I found your posted complaint to the lady offensive. In BOTH of your 1st replies to my addressing this *need of yours to find offense*, I find it so sad that you would try to twist the table around instead, and tell me, “Dan you did not seem to read my response very careful…” and “Dear Dan; I think you need to read my reply to this article with more care” -- when in fact, it seems you are the one with a verifiable, posted, track record of misreading, misinterpreting, and overall ignoring context in order to find some venue to post and vent. Let me reiterate this point: Faulty logic => faulty reading habits => faulty comprehension => faulty conclusions => faulty policy and performance. Which brings us back to our current issue... In all my posts to you here on this page, I have given you blatant hints and quotes as to where this would wind up if you persisted: “so easily offended by words, setting aside the weightier matter, strain at a gnat, seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him, Jesus, the perfect Shepard dealt…with…issues of the *heart*, NOT *words*, your various professions including…even pastor”… Please show me again in the Bible where Jesus, our example to follow, went about “seeking to catch something out of [peoples] mouths”, was so easily offended, had harsh rebukes for people other than his opposers, and expected apologies. I am so sorry that it has come to this, but I would be deathly afraid to be a member of any church whose pastor had a tendency to misinterpret people’s words and meaning, “catch” every slip of the tongue, become easily offended, harshly berate the “offenders”, expect apologies, and on top of it all, can never be found to be wrong. This is not the Jesus I find in my Bible. In His word, Dan RN. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Words Are Whatever I Say They Are
Posted On: 07/11/07 03:16:33 PM
Age 63, OH
Dear Dan; I think you need to read my reply to this article with more care. I told the sister that I agreed with the overall premise of her article. She is accusing the liberals of misusing words and we both know that they do. They will imply that anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is a hater which is wrong for just because someone disagrees with someones behavior does not even imply that they hate that person. But I said she is guilty of the same thing that she is accusing these people of. She stresses the correct use of words and then implies all scientist, educators, attorneys and others are liberal elites. This is the same kind of tactics that she is against. This is often done in the church and it gives the Lord Jesus a bad name. It ruins the witness of the church and I am trying to convince her to repent which is what the scriptures say to do. I did not go to someone else but went to her. You say;
Clearly, Ms. West is only outlining a group of people that the Bible calls “the ungodly”, and that would obviously modify her parentheses. Notice she said some religious leaders but listed scientists and educators as all. When she said:For the liberal elites (the news media, politicians, jurists, attorneys, radical homosexuals, rabid feminists, Hollywood, environmental extremists, scientists, educators, even some religious leaders) words are whatever they say they are! I would say that implying that scientist, educators, and attorneys are all liars and liberal elites is a very serious mistake but you do not seem to think so. I know a attorney who defended many Christians who had been charged with a crime for homeschooling their children. I know for I was one of those people. They tried to send me to jail for home schooling my son when I was a teacher in the public schools. I became a Christian after I was a teacher and was an officer in our local NEA. I resigned my office and was later laid off for giving out Bibles to my students. I was not a liberal elite. A scientist is by definition a person who studies God's creation to find truth. Many who call them selves scientists are not but are supporting their agenda of atheism. But many are true scientist looking for truth by studying God's other work His creation. Do you support this kind of mass labeling and character attack. A lot of these fine men are children of the Lord Jesus and He makes it clear what the price is for offending His children. You just attack my response without saying what i said wrong. Please quote me word for word and tell me what I said that was wrong. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Words Are Whatever I Say They Are
Posted On: 07/13/07 03:43:07 PM
Age 59, OR
[Part 1 of 2]Dear Lou, I was hoping that you would not choose to go this way and it saddens me that you have. As an avid student of political history from the early ’60s I am quite familiar with “liberal”, Marxist, satanic ‘Aesopian’ terminology and tactics. So, having read many similar articles over the years, I found nothing compelling in it to comment about. Her article was well written and fully appropriate for the young, the unaware, and/or the naïve. I was rather shocked to come back a day or 2 later and find your postings berating the lady for some offense that I was, frankly, at a loss to perceive so I went back, reread her article and your postings and I pondered this for quite awhile. It was not so much a shock that you misconstrue and read too much into what is being said, as I and others are used to dealing with you on that elsewhere, but that you were so easily incensed that you felt compelled to post such a harsh tirade and had the effrontery to accuse her of hypocrisy and demand an apology. I carefully picked out and posted every descriptive name she used so that you could see clearly what group of people she was writing of, and how that would *in fact* moderate her parentheses. As a professional writer, what she did is perfectly acceptable. It would have been bad form and have read in a very stilted manner to do the following: (“some” in the news media, “some” politicians, “some” jurists, “some” attorneys, radical homosexuals, rabid feminists, “some” Hollywood [types], “some” environmental extremists, “some” scientists, “some” educators, even some religious leaders). I, myself, could have easily found several categories in the parentheses with which to be offended, and knowing the bounds of *reasonable* journalism, I found *no cause* to be offended and neither should you have. I also could have waited to see if “some” in the news media, “some” politicians, “some” jurists, “some” attorneys, “some” Hollywood types, “some” scientists, “some” educators would also find offense and join you in posting protests, but I rightly judged that it would be “slim-to-none”. As with the 1st, and each subsequent read, I find it an easy, clean flowing read with the subject clearly defined. One would have to stop and parse words like the Clintonistas to find fault. Stating that “I agreed” is the standard “I really liked…however” or “Yes, but…” answer and it brings nothing to the table. [End part 1 of 2] Click here to reply to this post
NO WONDER WE DISAGREE
Posted On: 07/14/07 09:41:15 AM
Age 63, OH
Now I understand ! I see why we do not get along. I believe it is wrong to lump all people of the same color or race or profession or gender or physical characteristics and say they are ALL EVIL AND LIARS. But you do not. So it is no wonder we do not get along for I will never back away from the position that this is wrong. I can only hope that you will. What if she would have said ( blacks, women,and small people) would you have disagreed with that or still hold the same position. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Re: NO WONDER WE DISAGREE
Posted On: 07/23/07 12:26:01 AM
Age 59, OR
Dear Lou, the short answer: I have had a very long, full, and hard week, and I am not as quick as you in response. I would therefore, humbly, ask you to prayerfully re-read, in a more Jesus manner, Ms. West’s article, your post & your demand, and my responses, before I am compelled to post my full reply. In His Truth, Dan RN Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Words Are Whatever I Say They Are
Posted On: 07/13/07 03:38:41 PM
Age 59, OR
[Part 2 of 2]Now, as to the subject matter of her article, which has everything to do with the allegation of hypocrisy, I will use her words to show again what she is dealing with: “chang[ing] the definition of words, no absolute truths, All truth is relative, moral relativism, redefine words to help advance a religious, political, environmental, scientific or social agenda, perverting historically accepted biblical terms, twisting words into pretzels, perverting words, manipulate words”… All this is from barely the 1st half of her article. Shall I add more or is the subject matter abundantly clear yet? You say: “you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of, and that is **the wrong use of words**”, and “She is accusing the liberals of misusing words”. And I say that it is you that are guilty of **the wrong use of words** and misunderstanding and misconstruing her *words* and her **subject matter**. Ms. West is clearly and specifically addressing the **deliberate changing and redefining of words to advance an evil agenda**, NOT **the wrong use of words**, or **misusing words**, which could mean anything from bad grammar to not knowing the meaning of a $2.00 word and grabbing “incontinent” instead of “incongruous” behavior. There is a huge world of difference between the two. Is she changing the definition of “scientists” or “educators”; then you have a case. If she is not; then you are in the wrong for misconstruing and railing against her and you owe the lady a posted apology. If you were at all uncertain you could have clicked on her bio and sent her a private note at EMBrigade@aol.com. But, this all goes to something deeper that I addressed in my 1st post to you. Jesus is the perfect example to the low and the high, the perfect Rabbi to his followers, and the perfect Shepard to his flock. “Jesus dealt lovingly and candidly with people on issues of the *heart*, NOT *words*”. In your many posts you often make mention of your various professions including teacher, scientist, engineer, and even pastor… How is it, again, that you are so easily offended by a “word”? I will, again, leave you with your ending words to the lady: “I hope you will seek the Lord Of mercy for He is always willing to forgive.” In His word, Dan RN. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: Re: Words Are Whatever I Say They Are
Posted On: 07/14/07 01:45:48 AM
Age 63, OH
I can see that you are a very learned man but it might surprise you to know that others can read of which I am one. I do not need you to explain what she said and what she meant. I stand by my remark and I am willing that The Lord Jesus be the Judge of this. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Words Are Only What Jesus said NOT to be Offended By
Posted On: 07/23/07 12:21:59 AM
Age 59, OR
Dear Lou, the short answer: I have had a very long, full, and hard week, and I am not as quick as you in response. I would therefore, humbly, ask you to prayerfully re-read, in a more Jesus manner, Ms. West’s article, your post & your demand, and my responses, before I am compelled to post my full reply. In His Truth, Dan RN Click here to reply to this post
I agree with the overall argument of your article but dear sister may I humbly point something out to you. You say by reading the scripture you will know the truth and it will set you free. This sounds as if you think that someone can find the truth by only reading the Book. The pharisees searched the scriptures diligently. We know this for Jesus said they did. Yet when the Truth stood before them they did not know the Truth and called Him Satan. Jesus said the scriptures point to Him and then He is the Truth. The Book can set no one free but God can speak to a person who reads it and is searching for the truth. The only way any person can be set free is by the Lord Jesus who died for us on the cross. The scripture you have quoted does not mean if anyone reads the Bible the truth of the words will set them free. The scripture means if someone looks in the Book and searches for truth The Lord Jesus will reveal Himself to them and set them free by His death on the cross. They shall know the Truth(Jesus) and The truth(Jesus) will set them free. I ask you to ask the Lord Jesus about this for the Holy Spirit of Jesus is wanting to lead us all into all Truth. Lou Click here to reply to this post
YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN INTO THE SAME TRAP
Posted On: 07/04/07 02:35:31 PM
Age 63, OH
First of all let me say that I completely agree with the overall argument of your article. But I must say that it seems you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of, and that is the wrong use of words. You say that for liberal elites such as scientist and educators, words are whatever they say they are. Well even without the dictionary I know that an educator is one that educates. My dictionary defines educate as to develop knowledge,skill, ability or character by training,study or experience. Jesus was an educator an I am an educator. I was an professional educator in the public schools but refused to join the NEA because of their ungodly practices. I was layed off for giving out Bibles to the students. But you call me a liberal elite and one who twists words. The dictionary defines scientist as a person who is trained in science. Science is defined as a study to find truth or knowledge or facts. I have been a professional scientist a big part of my life and I hope to be a scientist until I die. But you call me a liberal elite who twists the truth. I have searched for truth all of my life ,and despite being human and of course a liar, by the grace and mercy of the Lord Of justice ,Jesus, I have found the Truth and preach about Him every day. I think you have made a serious mistake and owe me and many others an apology. Our Lord was the Creator of all that exist and is the subject of what scientists study. All creation glorifies the Lord Jesus. I know many scientist and teachers who are devout followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are His children and Jesus takes a dim view of the person who insults them. I hope you will seek the Lord Of mercy for He is always willing to forgive. Lou Click here to reply to this post
Re: YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN INTO THE SAME TRAP
Posted On: 07/08/07 04:33:06 PM
Age 59, OR
Dear Lou, Why do assail the lady & her timely, cogent article? How and where do you find so easy an offence? Is it here: “(the news media, politicians, jurists, attorneys, radical homosexuals, rabid feminists, Hollywood, environmental extremists, scientists, educators, even some religious leaders)”. In reading through her article I find a growing list of descriptive names: self-professed Christians, liberal ideologues, cults, politicians, unscrupulous homosexuals, radical “gay” activists, sodomite, Lavender Police, perverts, lesbians, deviant, sociopaths, fanatical feminist fruitloops, pathological perverts, cultists, liar, change agents, liberal elites, & powerful far left ideologues”. Clearly, Ms. West is only outlining a group of people that the Bible calls “the ungodly”, and that would obviously modify her parentheses. Do you find yourself in the above category? Then, shame on you… If you *ARE NOT* in that group then why are you offended? How do you justify your tirade and the accusation of hypocrisy in being “guilty of the same thing…”? Again, as elsewhere, you find fault in one sentence; the lack of a punctuation mark, or not having a word like “ even some” or “many” in all the right places, relieving it then of its context and building a straw man with which to be offended at, and setting aside the weightier matter. Or as Jesus put it: “…strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” Matthew 23:24. Jesus dealt lovingly and candidly with people on issues of the *heart*, NOT *words* and I would certainly want to be found following His example. But to those who were harsh in their *hearts*, with the *fruit of their lips* confirming it, Jesus was equally harsh in His warning: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” Matthew 12:36. Surely, you don’t want to want to be viewed or accounted among the following: “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words” Mark 12:13, & “Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him” Luke 11:54. I will leave you with your ending words: “I hope you will seek the Lord Of mercy for He is always willing to forgive.” In His word, Dan RN. Click here to reply to this post
Re: Re: YOU SEEM TO HAVE FALLEN INTO THE SAME TRAP
Posted On: 07/09/07 02:16:18 PM
Age 63, OH
Dan you did not seem to read my response very careful. I did start out by saying I agreed with the premise of her article. But if it is wrong for the liberal elite to twist words then it wrong for all don't you think. She uses a mighty broad brush when she says the following: For the liberal elites (the news media, politicians, jurists, attorneys, radical homosexuals, rabid feminists, Hollywood, environmental extremists, scientists, educators, even some religious leaders) words are whatever they say they are! If she would have accused ALL religious leaders would you have agreed with that, but she said EVEN SOME. But she said educators, scientists not to mention attorneys and politicians. I know of an attorney who is a servant of the Lord Jesus and this is a very unfair statement to call him a person who lives his life by twisting words. Our Lord was a teacher so He would be included in her list as one of the enemy. Some politicians are godly men and it is wrong to lump them all in the same group. I used the dictionary definition of a scientist and you can read it and see that he is a person that is looking for truth. That is not a crime to me. Many scientist are the child of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do you defend the defamation of their character. Do you think that Jesus does not love them. Some of them has spent their entire lives serving The Lord trying to help their fellow men. I bet you use and enjoy plenty of their discoveries. Should we drink the water from a well and then curse the well. How are you to say the Lord Jesus did not send me to defend these servants of His. I challenge you to quote me word for word and tell me what I said that was wrong. This is the weapon of the liberals to take a unpopular person and then mock them as all of that group is wrong because some of them are wrong. Some scientist are atheists and so are fools. But that does NOT make all scientist the enemies of Christ and to say so is a very serious sin. I STAND BY MY RESPONSE AND SAY SHE HAS FALLEN INTO THE SAME TRAP THAT SHE ACCUSES OTHERS OF. Lou Click here to reply to this post
