News & Views, December 2000 - Edited By E. L. Bynum

Euthanasia On Its Way - By Bill Mosley

The Mayberry Bible Study - By Dan Hall

How Old Is the Earth? - Editorial by Dr. Maurice Dametz

The Coming UN Gun Ban - By By Tanya Metaksa

Can You Trust Your Lexicon? - By By George Shafer

When Did The Church Start?

Do Biblical Fundamentalists Hate? - Baptist Bulletin, From Christian View of the News

To this question the several hundred members of the Bible-Science Association and the Creation Research Society say "NO."

The fact is, the earth cannot possibly be even 20,000 years old, and is more likely no more than 6,000 to 8,000 years old. This is a time period which fits in with Bible chronology. Of course, it does not fit in with the wild guesses of evolutionists.

Many so-called scientists are obsessed with dating. Geophysicists now say that the earth is about 4.7 billion years old. The biology textbooks and encyclopedias have been confidently saying that man evolved about a million years ago; now, since the fossil discoveries in East Africa, they are saying that man lived back as far as 3.5 million years ago.

These dates are faulty, wild and unscientific. If man had his beginning a million years ago, the earth would have become overcrowded with people.

In his book Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Dr. Henry Morris presents a formula on population growth. To achieve the present world population within 4,500 years, the approximate amount of time since the Flood, only 2.4 children per family would be required, and 43 years to a generation.

To postulate earth's population beginning one million years ago is ridiculous. The earth could not contain the people. One million years would require 28,600 generations, producing a population of 10 5000 . Actually, not even 10 100 people could be crammed into the entire known universe, certainly not the earth.

The geologic strata and time scale are totally unreliable in determining dates. There are ever so many places where the so-called oldest strata are on top. There are also many gaps where strata are missing.

Dr. Harold Slusher of the Instiute-for Creation Research points out that the influx of meteoric dust into the atmosphere of the earth and moon indicates a lifetime of only a few thousand years. It has been determined that over fourteen million tons of meteoric dust settles to the surface of the earth each year.

If the earth were five billion years old-as evolutionists claim the entire globe would be covered with a layer of meteoric dust fifty-four feet deep.

The space scientists worried about making a landing on the moon they thought that it would be a soft landing and treacherous, but we now know that the layer there is not fifty-four feet deep but only one eighth of an inch.

The oceans would be expected to yield vast amounts of nickel; since nickel forms a major part of meteorites. Yet the actual amount of the element found in seawater indicates an accumulation period of only a few thousand years, rather than millions and billions.

Another point is the decay of magnetism. There is now a scientific dating system which dates the earth as less than fifteen thousand years. Scientists have brought to light the fact that earth's magnetism is decaying.

Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, professor of physics at the University of Texas at El Paso and a consultant to Globe Universal Sciences, Inc., points out that the earth's magnetic field was a half-life; or loses half of its strength every 1,400 years. This means that 1,400 years ago the magnetic field was twice as strong as now, and so on. The earth's magnetic moment is at present only thirty-seven percent as strong as it was in the days of Christ. From the magnetic field an electric current flows through the core of the earth. It uses energy and produces heat. The present energy loss is 8.13 million watts. The rate of decay is so rapid that the earth cannot be more than fifteen thousand years old. This is the latest scientific observation.

Robert L. Whitelaw, professor of nuclear and mechanical engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, pointed out that the Carbon-14 content of the atmosphere has not, as evolutionists assume, been constant over the centuries but rather is building up. The rate of buildup is about twenty percent over its decay rate. It is calculated that the time during which Carbon-14 has been accumulating in the atmosphere in order to reach its present level has been less than sixteen thousand years.
Professor Whitelaw, after calculating all factors involved, has arrived at the actual date of creation, which is about seven thousand years ago.

The rock-dating methods which are most commonly used are the Uranium decay and the Potassium-Argon methods, but both of these have been proven faulty and unreliable in cases where the actual age of rock formations is known from history. In one case, lava rocks which were known to have been formed in 1800 and 1801 in Hukalai, Hawaii, show an age of 160 million years by the Potassium-Argon method. Science magazine, issue of October 11, 1968, reported dates of twelve to twenty-one million years for volcanic rocks known to be less than two hundred years old.

There are numerous other reports showing the unreliability of the dating methods.
The scientific "proofs" formerly used to establish an immense age for the earth, including Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon and Rubidium-Strontium, are showing many flaws and weaknesses, while proofs for a young age are increasing. Christian Victory (Copied from The Sword of the Lord)

Being able to completely whistle the tune, Take Me To The Fishing Hole, the theme song of The Andy Griffith Show, seemed to be a goal worthy of my time when I was a seven-year-old boy growing up in rural Virginia. Our community, like so many others around the country, identified with the down-home humor and storyline of Andy, Barney, Opie, and Aunt Bee. So, we watched and laughed at ourselves.

The show even modified our vocabulary. An over zealous sheriff's deputy is still called a Barney Fife. To say that someone is as crazy a loon as Ernest T. Bass is saying a lot! And to live in a town as peaceful as Mayberry, in these days, is well impossible. Matter of fact, Mayberry is as fictitious a place as each of the characters was.

Being syndicated, the show continues. Its viewer-ship, still strong enough to support broadcasting the 249 episodes again and again on stations across the country, can never seem to tire of watching Andy reign Barney in. It can be seen on broadcast TV, Cable, and video. And, now it can be seen in church.

Across the nation, hundreds of churches, with VCR s and wide-screen televisions in tow, have brought Mayberry to the Sunday School classroom in the form of The Mayberry Bible Study. This 26-week course in Andyology, attempts to teach a specific moral value to those in attendance. In the mean time, The Bible According To Barney seems to be drawing larger and larger crowds.
As enjoyable as the show may be, a new low in pragmatism has been reached. Pragmatism, the philosophy that determines whether something is valuable by its end results, birthed the notion that the ends justify the means. In this case, the pragmatic adherents of the Mayberry Study claim the course is good because the results are in their opinion better than those of conventional means. Of course, by conventional means they are referring to the true study and preaching of the Bible.

Case in point, scores of articles have been written, throughout the country, in favor of this study. One such article appeared in our local paper, The Desoto Appeal. It began detailing the sad story of a 72-year-old lady who recently lost her husband. It claimed that she did what her traditional Southern Baptist upbringing taught her to do she turned to the church for strength. She had been making the conventional rounds: going to Wednesday and Sunday services, speaking with pastors and listening to Christian radio shows. But on a recent Sunday evening, she tried something new. She came to church to watch The Andy Griffith Show.

The report, which easily represents the many others written before it, accuses traditional and conventional methods of falling short. It pointed out that turning to her church for strength did not work. Going to prayer meeting on Wednesday, did not work. Neither did she find help in being faithful in Sunday services nor in seeking Pastoral counsel.

However, the pragmatism of Andy's Gospel won her over. After all the traditional routes she had taken to understand God and the Bible she was unexpectedly enlightened after the Mayberry class.
The proof of the classes' success, according to the class coordinator, is seen in how people feel. Attendees are encouraged to talk about their feelings while watching the kind of show that just makes you feel good inside. Feelings, the pragmatic evidence of value, are the bases for the Willow Creek movement of Bill Hybels.

G.A. Pritchard, in his book entitled Understanding the Willow Creek Way of Doing Church wrote about Willow Creek's fifteenth anniversary in 1990: Fall 1990. The Audience was dazed. They had just been through an hour-long kaleidoscope of drama, multimedia, and rock and roll music. It was the Willow Creek production, What a Ride, which celebrated the fifteen years of the church's existence. This extravaganza had deftly touched the emotional chords of those attending, and they had felt at different times sad, mirthful, pensive, and happy.

To the pragmatic, the desired result is a positive emotion. Their thinking can be illustrated this way:

Scenario 1:
A 72-year-old widow is sad. Preaching does not make her happy. Prayer does not make her happy. The Pastor does not make her happy. Result? Preaching bad. Prayer meeting bad. Pastor bad.

Scenario 2:
A 72-year-old widow is sad. The Mayberry crew makes her laugh. (According to the reporter she giggled her way through the class. ) The widow leaves happy. The Mayberry Bible Study good. The open-minded church which invited Barney to preach good values.

The ends, as defined as eliciting the correct emotion, justify the means. Andy is the means here. To the Willow Creek movement it is presenting to unchurched Harry what he feels he needs. In the estimation of such pragmatics, the gospel is the wrong means.

Proof of the point, Joey Fann, co-developer of The Mayberry Bible Study, cites the success of his study to the fact that it's not a blatant evangelistic vehicle. If you call a Bible study, you might be lucky if you get five or six people he told our local reporter. But if you ask people to come and watch Andy, you get dozens. Bible study bad. Andy good.

The Bible stands on its own. It does not require the positive emotions of anyone to prove its eternal value. In fact, in contrast to the subtle evangelists who work next to Floyd's barbershop, the Bible's gospel does not desire a positive emotion! Having heard the Gospel news that the crucified Jesus was both Lord and Christ, the Jews were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (Acts 2:37)

Theirs was negative emotion (pricked in the heart!) Yet, it is the negative emotion that produces the positive response! For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. "For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter." (2 Corinthians 7:10-11)

The message of pragmatism, regardless if it is found in Aunt Bee's kitchen or the skit produced by a praise and worship team, is if you feel good, you are good. The ultimate deception is the numbing of the conscious.

Values, though terribly vital, can be easily kept by the moral man. Like the rich young ruler who came to Jesus, the moral man justifies himself because of his kept values. Yet, his soul is ruined because of its refusal to deal with the negative emotion resulting from the truth being presented clearly. The Mayberry Bible Study reinforces the moral man in his values but cannot do anything for his soul. Created by members of Twickenham Church of Christ in Huntsville, Alabama, it presents the other gospel of good feelings and good works.

In doing so, it numbs the convicted conscious. The widow, faced with death in her family, is encouraged to turn to mirth rather than introspection about her eternal soul. The sinner is persuaded to become a moral and principled citizen rather than a child of God in the end.

There is nothing that two "computer people" enjoy more than having a technical conversation in front of someone else who is not a computer person. At the end of the interchange filled with "DASDs", "peripherals", "EBCDICs" and other computer terms, the two computer people know exactly what has been said, and the third person thinks that maybe they were speaking in Navaho.

If we do not understand the meaning of the words someone is using, we cannot receive their message accurately. So it is with the words found in the Bible. If those words do not have precise meanings, they cannot communicate a precise message.

Because Biblical Greek is not our living language - we do not speak Greek - we rely on other men who specialize in languages to tell us the meaning of Greek words found in the Received Text. In the case of the King James Bible we trust in the expertise of its translators and more than that in the providential protection that God exercised in the form of preservation (not double inspiration).

Some, who would cast doubt upon the skills of the King James translators or the preservation in the King James Bible, go to a lexicon (two language dictionary) to obtain their definitions. Then they often take those definitions and challenge the translators to a duel . . . my lexicon versus your expertise and God's preservation.

The most commonly used Greek-English Lexicon is one prepared in the very late 1800's by Joseph Henry Thayer. It is, for example, the lexicon used in the Online Bible computer program, and probably the one on most modern pastor's bookshelves. Let us see just how valid this lexicon is as a substitute for the translation skills of the King James translators and the preservation promised by God Himself.

I would insist that anyone who wishes to use I Thayer's Lexicon firsts read the "Publisher's Introduction." These five pages are filled with valuable tidbits that can open an honest man's eyes to the dangers that follow.

The introduction starts by claiming it is impossible to understand passages such as II Thessalonians 2:6-7 (where the word "let" is used as a synonym for "hinder") without the aid of a good Greek Lexicon. (They seem to forget the availability of a good English language dictionary). The introduction then goes on to give a lengthy discussion of the Greek words that are translated "repent" or "repentance" in the Bible. This, in itself, is not bad, but what follows after should open the reader's eyes their very widest. The following is the exact quotation from the Publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example."

After the reader has picked his jaw up off the floor, and continues reading, he will be treated to other comments such as this:

"Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance are based on different Greek texts of the New Testament. Strong prefers the Received Text that underlies the King James Version; Thayer, the critical text of Westcott and Hort that underlies the English Revised Version (1881) and the American Standard Version (1901) [and the NASV]."

This should not surprise us as we already knew that Thayer was on the committee that assembled the Revised Version of 1881.

Armed with the aforementioned facts, consider the following scenario. A man picks up Thayer's Lexicon and looks up the English language meaning of a Greek word from the Bible. He then compares that meaning to the English translation he sees in his modern version and to the translation found in the King James Bible. What he is likely to notice is that, when the word is translated differently in his modern version than it is in the King James Bible, the lexicon agrees with the modern version. Aha!, he says, I've found an error in the King James Bible - you see, the modern version agrees with the lexicon.

In this instance, what the man has actually found is that Thayer, the author of the lexicon and the contributor to the Revised Version, agrees with himself. Is this such a surprise? Should we have expected anything else?

This is yet another strike against the modern versions. They are being translated by men who learned their Greek at the feet of an apostate Unitarian. For example, when they insist that the translation of monogenes should be "one of a kind" instead of "only begotten", who do you think taught them that? . . . Joseph Henry Thayer, of course.

The next time someone challenges your King James Bible with a Greek Lexicon, realize that what they are really doing is putting their apostate universalist Unitarian lexicon author up against the godly men who translated the King James Bible. The same holds true when a pastor stands in a pulpit and corrects the King James translators. It is simply a case of going to the other side to get an opinion.
If you can't trust your lexicon, who can you trust? Well, you could start by trusting God when He promised to preserve His word. There are good lexicons out there, but our trust is in God's preserved word, not in our ability to check up on the King James translators.

I'll take the men who translated the King James Bible and the God who preserved His word over any dozen lost apostate men who write lexicons. Don't let the lexicon, or those that trust in it, deceive you. Stick with your King James Bible.

Some Scriptural reasons why the Church was not established on the day of Pentecost, but rather, was established during the lifetime of Jesus.

1. It had a rule of discipline before Pentecost. Matthew 18:17.
2. We read that Jesus sang in the church. Heb. 2:12. The only time that Jesus ever sang, so far as we have any record of it, was at the institution of the Lord's Supper. Mark 14:26. This was before Pentecost.
3. They had a business meeting before the day of Pentecost and elected a successor to take the place of Judas. Acts 1:15-26.
4. The apostles were in the church before the day of Pentecost. 1 Cor. 12:28. The first ones who were put in the church were the apostles, and this was at least three years before the day of Pentecost.
5. The church had its commission to preach before Pentecost. Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15.
6. The church had its authority to baptize before Pentecost. John 4:2.
7. The church had the Lord's Supper before Pentecost. Matthew 26:30.
8. The keys of the kingdom were given to it before Pentecost. Matthew 16:19.
9. It had a church roll before Pentecost with names on the roll. Acts 1:15.
10. To this church there were about 3,000 additions on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:42. If I were to tell you I was going to add $200 to my bank account, this would imply that I have a bank account to begin with. In view of the fact that 3,000 were added to the church on the day of Pentecost then we are led to believe that the church was in existence before Pentecost.

Let any other man who believes that the church was founded on the day of Pentecost, answer these ten reasons. Until such an answer is forthcoming, accept only the Word of God, and not the words of men.

HOW MANY AMERICANS living in America read the International Herald Tribune? My guess is not many and even fewer gun-owning citizens. Yet, on January 26th of this year an article authored by Mark Malloch Brown and Janyantha Dhanapala was required reading for American gun owners and those who believe in our national sovereignty. The point of view they expressed will surely affect Americans' Second Amendment rights in the years to come.

The title of the article was, "Let's Go Out Into the World and Gather Up Small Arms." The authors are both employees of the United Nations. Mark Malloch Brown is the administrator of the United Nations Development Program and Janyantha Dhanapala is the UN undersecretary-general for disarmament affairs: two influential people prominent in the global gun ban movement.

The article tells the story of how the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs visited Gramsh, Albania to ""help broker an agreement by which community services would be delivered in proportion to the volume of arms and ammunition turned in."" In other words until the citizens of Gramsh turned in their firearms, medical services and other essential services would be withheld by the great humanitarian organization, the United Nations.

Brown and Dhanapala call for, among other items, destroying surplus, confiscated or collected small arms, legislation to monitor, trace, and police legal arms transfers, and international guidelines for tracing weapons and ammunition through serial numbers and transit guidelines.

If anyone thinks that Brown and Dhanapala are just whistling in the wind, they better think again. Next year the UN is convening its first international conference on the "illicit" trade in small arms and light weapons - a watershed event. As I mentioned in my last week's article on FrontPageMagazine.com, ("Global Gun Grab," 9/13/00) the United Nations has been slowly and steadily working towards this international conference since 1995.

A very large group of non-governmental organizations (NGO) are supporting these UN employees and diplomats in their effort to ban guns across the globe. Most of these organizations have worked in the disarmament movement for years and learned their political lessons in the successful effort to get a United Nations treaty that bans land mines. Although the United States has yet to ratify the land mine treaty, most of the other nations are signatories.

Most of these NGOs get their funding from organizations, foundations, and other groups that would be considered politically to the extreme left of center. They are a cohesive group which has been meeting together regularly for years and have developed a well-connected and well-funded network, which tends to meet most often in conjunction with UN workshops on disarmament and small arms at various venues.

Additionally, there is a US small arms working group (USSAWG), which includes such anti-firearms notables as Michael Bears of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Tamar Gabelnick of the left-wing Federation of American Scientists, and Natalie Goldring or some other designee of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC). I have copies of notes from several meetings of the USSAWG detailing the incestuous relationship these groups have not only with UN personnel, but also with national government officials across the globe.

The anti-firearms NGO's and other informal groups are supported by governments such as Canada, Belgium, and Japan. For example, according to the notes a meeting of the USSAWG was held in Canada "with support from the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs." A BASIC press briefing held in Washington featured Joost Hiltermann, an Organization of American States (OAS) official and the South African Ambassador.

According to meeting notes of a June 1998 meeting of these groups, the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms "requested a meeting with a number of NGOs to discuss the next stage of the process." The meeting was held at the Quaker United Nations Office and representatives from BASIC, Federation of American Scientists, and Center for Defense Information attended. Although the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA/ILA) was an accredited NGO, all requests for a meeting with the UN Group had been denied.

It is evident that even as early as 1998 the US NGO anti-firearms community was hard at work drafting strategy to include more and more like-minded organizations in their push for global gun control. They were making overtures to the World Council of Churches, the Arias Foundation, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International and inviting their representatives to meet and discuss tactics.

This careful planning behind closed doors had an ultimate goal: the creation of a huge umbrella group to coordinate the international global gun-control efforts in support of the UN conference in 2001. The leading anti-firearms and peace operatives across the globe met in Brussels, Belgium in October 1998 to develop the ground work, an international network with leadership and staff dedicated to this one issue: elimination of the private ownership of small arms across the globe. Maybe we all should read the International Herald Tribune - our rights are in the balance.

Tanya K. Metaksa is the former executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action.

There is death in the pot of global society on both ends of life's spectrum. It is indeed "...appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27) However, this appointment is not to be implemented indiscriminately by the will of man. It is now legal for unwanted pregnancies to be terminated at the will of the mother. Although it is still illegal for the terminally ill and the elderly who do not want to live to terminate their life, it can be done illegally with the help of others. This is referred to as euthanasia. The dictionary defines this as an act of killing a person painlessly for reasons of mercy...a painless death. This is getting close to Hitler's pre-WW II practice of eugenics (genetic control) for hereditary improvement of the human race by eliminating the undesirable.

Only a few decades ago abortion, as we know it now, was practically non-existent. Today it is not only practiced but has become a political platform by which a certain female segment of society determine their choice for office, even for president of the U.S.A. Doctors abound who will readily murder for a fee, those who are unable to defend themselves. Lawmakers have made this a legal(?) operation. Thank the Lord for those who vigorously oppose it. Pro-choice gives the baby no-choice even though the person being murdered may well be sounder of mind and body than others involved. It is obvious that most men/women who make a big issue of pro- choice are within the range of reproduction. If these people live long enough, their reproduction abilities are going to change. In fact, a lot of things in their life is going to change. If they are normal mentally, healthy physically, and secure financially their life at least will be more precious. However, age has a way of taking its toll from life in many ways. Slow thinking, physical impairment, and financial disaster in most cases makes life a little more difficult.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, Michigan's assisted suicide physician, for years has defied every law of God and man to practice murdering the elderly and debilitated. His practice as a pathologist is pathetic to say the least. His medical license was suspended in 1991, yet he continued to practice his inhuman execution. The Arizona Republic, 4/5/97, reported that Kevorkian had helped in 45 suicides up to that date. (PBC, 4/97)

The disrespectful attitude of Dr. Kevorkian toward life and death is more sadistic than sympathetic to his victims. However, it is no more brutal than the killing of thousands of babies annually by doctors who have man-made laws on their side to administer this ruthless murdering. The small number of assisted suicides above seems insignificant to the number of so-called legal deaths of aborted babies. This may be soon change.

No doubt the practice of euthanasia has been committed for centuries, in one manner or another. This in no way makes it acceptable to God. There is no way for any healthy person to properly assess the pain or the desires of the terminally ill. Yet all too often it is those with the burden of caring for the bedridden who want relief. I am thankful for those who care for the infirm and elderly with little thought for their own comfort. Thank God for those who give themselves willingly to this task.

Death upon request is mainly unacceptable in most countries. Recently Dutch lawmakers have debated the requirements for legally requesting assisted death. Although euthanasia has been practiced in the Netherlands for decades, on Nov. 28 the Dutch parliament made this act legal. One clause of the deliberations failed before the final vote. This clause would have allowed minors 12 to 16 to request physician-assisted suicide without parental consent. Who can deny that this will be the next step in this horrible nightmare. This sounds disgustingly akin to the abortion issue in the U.S.

Our nation is not altogether void of this kind of murder. "In the United States, the practice is illegal except in Oregon where voters approved doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill in 1994. The law took effect in 1997 and since then 43 people have died assisted suicides." (AP, 11/24/00) There is virtually no public outcry for help for this minority in America. Can the silent cry for help from these folks be only answered by assisted death? Read on and ponder the warped thinking of the human mind.

While the Dutch legalizes euthanasia as a merciful act for humans, the Doris Day Animal Foundation (DDAF) is on a "mission to put an end to the use of euthanasia as a means of pet population control,..." Someone will surely call me ignorant, or at least uninformed, for my stand on this matter. I do not believe in cruelty to animals, but I do regard human life to be more precious than that of a dog or cat. A tree for the spotted owl to roost or a park for dogs and cats to roam deserves far less consideration than the life and health of a person.

When 4 to 6 million deaths of cats and dogs can draw more attention than 1 million plus babies murdered annually, something is terribly amiss in society. I feel sure that the canine/feline progeny could more readily obtain the services of the ACLU than the elderly, infirm, or unborn. However, the God of heaven disagrees in opinion of their worth. In God's estimation the price of a dog is on the same level as the hire of a whore. Both are an abomination to Him. (Deut. 23:18) Yet our Lord's estimate of the worth of the human life is unlimited. The responsibility for taking another life is serious. "Thou shalt not kill," (Exo. 20:13; Deut. 5:17) Jesus referred to this Scripture in His sermon on the mount. (Matt. 5:21)

To maliciously snuff out another life carries severe penalty. "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,..." (Exo. 21:22,23) "...if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die." (Exo. 21:14) Although there are many other scriptures expressing the same thing, these alone are enough to understand the stiff penalty for taking the life of another at any age. Exo. 21:14 is an order from God to put to death those that so take the life of another.

There is a much deeper sense in which the Lord estimates human life. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) What great love He has bestowed upon unworthy humanity. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." (John 15:13,14)

What possible right has mortal man to think less of God's prime creation than He does? I doubt that those who fight so stalwartly for animal rights would make the same effort for unborn infants and the elderly. The destruction of an eagle's egg carries a stiff penalty. The destruction of a human embryo is legal. Remember: "The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted." (Psa. 12:8)

(ELB comments: Independent Unaffiliated Baptists are lumped in with all Fundamentalists by the liberals and their lackeys in the news media. We are called hate mongers and all sorts of names. We are hated by the political and religious leaders, simply because we believe and practice the doctrines of the Bible. They are out to get us, and you may well look for the drumbeat of derision to continue. The following article is very helpful.)

We live in "perilous times" (2 Timothy 3:1). We who call ourselves Christians and Biblical fundamentalists are increasingly the targets of a postmodern pluralistic culture because of our commitment to the absolute authority of God and His Word. We are accused of being bigots who foster hate crimes. We are portrayed as extremists who desire to control the political process, schools, the media, and society in general. We are described as intolerant and ready to coerce people into accepting our point of view by whatever means it takes.

The portrayal of Bob Jones University as being anti-Catholic, and the Southern Baptist Convention as anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim because of its proposed Chicagoland evangelistic initiative are current examples of religious profiling. Recently I listened to a "Larry King Live" debate in which a participant accused an SBC leader and a Jews for Jesus representative of communicating a message of hate. The accuser equated the crimes of the Holocaust with these believers' assertion that God would condemn a nonbeliever to the judgment of Hell's fire.

Consider the following facts as I respond to this portrayal.

· We believe in Biblical authority. God's Word is absolute truth. There are no alternatives to God's morality. No other gospel exists by which a person may be saved. We do communicate an exclusive message of salvation and eternal life. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me."

· We believe in individual soul liberty. One of the cardinal distinctives of our Baptist heritage is the recognition that each person stands individually accountable before God for what he or she believes.

Though we are passionate about the message we communicate, we would never coerce a person into our convictions. Our commitment to individual soul liberty has historically motivated Baptists to champion religious liberty. Though we will systematically and aggressively present our point of view and endeavor to proselytize, we are tolerant of others who present their views. We will promote and defend a nation that allows this kind of religious freedom. We ask to be granted the same right of tolerance for the message we are communicating and for the faith we are practicing.

· We do not intend to convey an attitude of superiority or bigotry. Our churches are composed of sinners saved by grace. We are a people - some of whom were once fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, thieves, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. But God, by His mercy, saved us (I Corinthians 6:9-11). Our churches are open to people from every tribe, tongue, people, group, and nation (Revelation 5:9). In Christ "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free . . . male nor female" (Colossians 3:11; Galatians 3:28). We are one united family.

· We are separatists. This involves a refusal to participate in ecumenical religious endeavors with those who reject the truth of God's Word. A separatist is also one who refuses to participate in activities that do not suit the character of the holy God. Being a Biblical separatist has nothing to do with terrorism, fringe political and religious sects, racism, bigotry, or hate crimes. We categorically condemn such practices.

· We refuse to be silent about our views. We are under obligation from God to declare His Word. We will attempt always to do so with decorum and discretion, in a manner representative of Christ. We have every right within our society to express ourselves.

In a pluralistic society in which free speech is the norm, we should tolerate our views as much as we tolerate the views of others. We are not engaged in a holy war in the form of a "jihad" or "the crusades." We are simply using our voices to call a nation to repentance and righteousness. We have the right and responsibility to do so. John Greening, The Baptist Bulletin, 4/00. From Christian View of the News