BACK TO HOME

ã 1999, by P. Wells

Many have thought to themselves that it was not fair that God would command us to do something so difficult as to have warm and affectionate feelings for our enemies or anyone else who has injured us, insulted us, or caused us great grief. Yet, He does tell us to "Love our enemies." How can we possibly obey that command? Much easier than most of us think, because God’s love is by definition in God’s own Word, an action--not a feeling.

Please observe the following statements about God’s greatest Commandment. He says that if we obey it, then we will fulfill the whole law. Indeed, we cannot love one another as God intends and break any part of the whole law.

Jesus said, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends." "Laying down one’s life" is an action and requires no particular emotions. We should lay down our lives daily in the name of the Lord to serve our fellowman, and to win souls for Jesus Christ. "Serve" is a verb or an action word. "Forgive" is a verb and an action word. We can "do" what Jesus commands, whether we feel like it or not.

If we seek to save our own lives, we will lose them, therefore we must seek to lose our lives, or lay down our lives daily, if we want to save them, Luke 17: 33. We love according to God’s will, when we are giving and serving, which are actions. Therefore, we cannot break God’s law when we put the welfare of others before our own, which is an action.

The Golden Rule given by Our Lord states that we should do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. "Doing" is an action and not a feeling! Anyone can make a decision to love by doing as God commands us to do. The important point here is that no one has an excuse to break The Golden Rule, because we can control our actions, no matter how we may feel. If we make the decision to put the welfare of others ahead of our own, then we cannot possibly fail to obey the commandment to love others as God loved us.

Think! Could you steal, covet your neighbors wife or goods, commit murder, or adultery, or bear false witness, or dishonor your parents (bring shame to them or neglect them in their old age), if you put their welfare ahead of your own?

Consider the religious leaders of the Jews, when Christ came into the world. The Lord accused the Pharisees of obeying the Commandments of the Lord down to tithing their goods to the last mint leaf. He accused them. He did not praise them for obeying God’s laws. Why? Because they were not motivated by concern for others which made them hypocrites. They obeyed the laws of God to the letter, but disregarded the spirit of God’s laws. They used the law to condemn, accuse, criticize, and put a guilt trip on others, so that they could take advantage of them.

They spoke in the Lord’s name to appease the poor, but sold them animals in the temple at a big profit for them to sacrifice to God for forgiveness of their sins, while they created rules and regulations for them to obey that no one could obey. At the same time they excused themselves from honoring their parents (caring for them in their old age) by saying that they were giving their services full time to the Lord (called Corban in Mark 7: 11-12), and therefore had no time for their parents. See Matthew, chapter 23, for a whole list of ways that the actions of the Pharisees indicated that they were concerned for their own welfare only.

Can’t you just see these hypocrites counting out the leaves on a sprig of mint--nine leaves for themselves and one leaf for God? Then they would parade in their embroidered gowns before the poor, whom they robbed and oppressed. They reserved the best seats for themselves, saying long pious prayers in loud resonant tones to impress others. And in their alleged prayers for others, they hypocritically "asked" the Lord to forgive the sins of all the poor rotten sinners in the congregation, while proclaiming themselves as being masters and teachers and practitioners of God’s laws.

"Hypocrites! Snakes! Vipers!" Jesus called them. Did they love the people God called them to serve? No, they used them to feather their own nests, line their own pockets, and even stated that they had "given all they had" to serve God.

They actually instituted their own laws, which Jesus called "traditions of men" in the name of the Lord as an excuse for breaking God’s laws. Jesus amazed the disciples by stating that unless the righteousness of men exceeded that of the Pharisees, they were unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven. The disciples were amazed, because the Pharisees had really deceived everyone into believing that they were the acme of perfection--by their outward show of godliness.

"How can we please God, then?" the disciples wanted to know.

Paul answers this question very specifically in I Corinthians 13, in which he defines God’s love as how we should act or not act, if we would obey the Commandment to love others. This chapter is called The Golden Key to all Scripture, because this definition describes how we would behave (not how we are supposed to feel), if we loved the way that we should love from God’s point-of-view. This chapter describes exactly how we must behave to fulfill the whole law by loving our neighbor and putting his welfare ahead of our own.

The above chapter is also a description of the nature of God Himself, because John stated in I John 4: 7-8, "God is love." Both the Golden Rule and the Golden Key describe God’s nature and what we should do and be to become more like the Lord.

Galatians 5: 22 also describes the nature of those who love, as joyful, peaceful, long-suffering (patient with the shortcomings or sins of others), gentle, good, having faith, being meek (teachable), and exercising temperance (self-control). These are all characteristics that we can be (an action), if we love (an action), just by choosing to do so. These are the fruits of the Spirit, which we cannot have without choosing to believe in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as our head, because we cannot love as God intends without God’s Holy Spirit as Christians.

If every Christian read one chapter a day, "The Love Chapter," I Corinthians, chapter 13, and nothing else in the Bible, that person could learn to please God by doing, being, and practicing daily the love of God. None of us would or could ever hurt another human being again, if we would choose to love our neighbor as we already love ourselves. Be assured: By nature, all of us are basically concerned for our own welfare. Therefore, we cannot learn to love unconditionally without the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Paul states in ‘The Love Chapter" that no matter what good works we do, or how much we sacrifice, it is of no value, if we are not motivated by concern for others. If we give our bodies to be burned just to self-righteously impress others, and no one benefits from that sacrifice, Paul states that we give our bodies to be burned for nothing.

The ascetics who preach giving up all material things, and living in poverty and deprivation for no other purpose than just to exercise a religious ritual, are "sacrificing" for nothing. Our sacrifices are of value only if done for the good of others. For example, fasting and praying for others in secret would be an act of love. Everything that we do should be to make others happy, healthy, and prosperous, or to relieve others from pain, misery, or poverty or our actions are worthless, because they are not motivated by love.

That is the secret of the meaning of life, and also the secret of having self-esteem. You know you have self-worth, if you are serving others, and no one can talk you out of it. On the other hand, no one can convince you that you have self-worth, if you are self-centered. At no time did Jesus say that you must love yourself before you can love others. He said just the opposite! He took for granted that we already love ourselves--are concerned for our own welfare--when He said that we should love others just as we naturally love ourselves.

Paul continues to explain that concern for others is being long-suffering (patient without condemning), and being kind. In The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, and 7), Jesus gives specific examples of what that means. He said one must turn the other cheek, give one’s coat to one who steals his cloak, walk an extra mile, if one is compelled to walk one mile, and bless those who persecute us, or try our patience, as spouses and children do daily).

Paul tells us that to love others, we must control our negative and sinful reactions to others by not being envious, and not making them envious by boasting about our accomplishments or worldly goods. We should not "behave in an unseemly manner," or attract undue attention to ourselves by interrupting others, being loud and offensive, being ostentatious, pretentious, or an exhibitionist, swaggering, strutting, showing off, being rude or cocky, or flaunting one’s wealth and/or power.

He admonishes us not to "seek our own" or only the company of one’s "own kind" to the exclusion of anyone who does not measure up to our self-imposed standards. All of us enjoy the company of those who share our interests, but that does not mean we have the right to feel superior to others, because they have different interests. We certainly should not scorn those of a different culture, race, color, creed, or economic and/or social status, or those who do not have our particular gifts. We cheat ourselves of enriching experiences, if we limit our company to our "own kind."

Loving others means that we should not be easily provoked, and should control our thoughts to see good in others instead of being condemning or judgmental. Love hates lying, hypocrisy, and all other wicked behavior, but rejoices in the truth. Loving others means that we can "take what others dish out," or can bear all things, and love is trusting or "believeth all things." Love hopes for the best (is optimistic), but may be prepared for the worst.

The one who loves has faith enough to endure to the end in spite of persecution by God’s enemies--Satan and all the fallen angels and those Satan uses to persecute us.

Love resists the wiles and torments of their enemies and does not succumb to stooping to their level-- "fighting back" by using the enemies’ methods and weapons of destruction. Love is always believing that God’s ways for resisting evil are the only ways, and that one must not yield to the temptations of the flesh, the devil, or the world by retaliating to those in bondage to Satan in his courtrooms on his own legalistic terms. "Courting" Satan will only cost a dollar for every penny’s worth of gain, and even greater losses in peace of mind.

Even though God’s love is made up of all of the above actions, we do feel or enjoy positive emotions known as fruits of the Spirit, as a result of those actions. We have warm, friendly, joyful feelings, and an inner peace that makes it possible to sleep well at night, regardless of our outward circumstances. Loving others ensures good health.

If you have been brain washed into believing that you do not love yourself, and must go through some kind of positive ritual of telling yourself that you are a good person, then forget it. Even newborn infants know how to get their needs met, and that is their number one concern. Their survival depends on it! We learn to dislike ourselves, because we concentrate on having and getting that which cannot satisfy, instead of sharing with others and giving that which will gain the respect and love of others that can satisfy.

Jesus said that we could recognize false teachers by whether they loved one another or not, and had other fruits of the Spirit—joy, gentleness, long-suffering, goodness, faith, and inner peace, listened to wise counsel, and exercised temperance in their habits. We should not follow after those so-called spiritual leaders who are always criticizing, condemning, and ridiculing other ministries or other Christian denominations while justifying their own.

We should particularly avoid those who criticize the way some congregations worship and/or pray, especially if they accuse them of not having the Holy Spirit. Any time someone makes such a broad accusation, he is definitely in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which Jesus said was the only sin that would not be forgiven. From such turn away.

In I Corinthians 6: 23-24, Romans 14: 5-8, and I Corinthians 10-31, Paul makes it clear that anything that we do should be done to glorify the Lord, and that sanctifies the behavior, because it expresses our love for God. Therefore, no one has a right to criticize anyone who builds expensive churches or praises the Lord by shouting and clapping their hands, dancing, lifting their hands, or using any and all kinds of musical instruments.

Nor should anyone find fault with celebrating the Lord’s birth and resurrection at Christmas and Easter in any manner that men have always celebrated joyful events--with decorations, costumes, gift-giving, dancing, singing, and feasting as long as men are doing these things to glorify the Lord. All men express joy in these ways, and it is right to be joyful unto the Lord, as long as our motive is to express our love and praise for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Religious leaders who condemn that which glorifies God are false teachers, because they do not have the fruit of the Spirit--love for God. It was Judas who condemned the woman who poured expensive oil on the Lord’s feet and said she should have sold the oil and given the money to the poor. Jesus rebuked Judas who was not at all concerned for the poor or the Lord, whom he later betrayed. Love of others must also include Jesus Christ, because without His love, we cannot love.

Misunderstanding the next truth concerning love may be the root of more false teachings and more false accusations than any other blindness to the real truth than has ever afflicted men. As I said before, all of us are born being concerned about our own welfare, and must learn to be concerned about others. We never stop being concerned about our own welfare, but we must learn that we benefit most by putting the welfare of others first.

Being concerned for others is the wisest course of action for reaping blessings for ourselves. As long as we are seeking to satisfy the lusts of our flesh, desiring to receive love, money, goods, wealth, power, self-esteem, and health, we will soon learn that these desires are insatiable or impossible to satisfy. And we end up completely miserable, if we seek to satisfy these desires at the expense of others.

The Word of God tells us to seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all our other desires shall be added unto us--or supplied by our God, who is the source of all good gifts. See Matthew 6: 33. We must step out on faith to obey this basic action to love. That is why we are also told that "We are justified by faith"--not works--and not by our sacrifices.

Actually, most of us waver back and forth between humanistic ways of man and the ways of the Lord which require that we act in faith or taking God’s Word for it. Man is conditioned to fall for Satan’s lies by being bombarded on every hand by his arguments, put forth by some of the most "respectable" citizens of the world.

Without the leading of the Holy Spirit, none of us can resist the wiles of Satan. We must receive Christ first before we can love, according to the Lord’s will. It is just a matter of admitting that we are sinners, desire to turn away from those sins, and asking the Lord Jesus Christ to be Lord of our lives. At that point, we receive the Holy Spirit, and have power to love the way God intends for all men to love, and receive all His wonderful blessings.

I know two stories that are favorites of mine, because they illustrate in humorous ways the difference between Christian love and those who do not love as God loves.

A certain man had occasion to visit hell and he determined that what he saw was the heighth of torment. A large banquet was set with all kinds of delicious foods and delicacies. Around the table sat the inmates of hell with three-foot-long forks bound to their arms and hands so that it was impossible for them to feed themselves. Their faces and bodies were thin and gaunt and the expressions on their faces were ghastly. The man shuddered at the horror of the situation and left.

His next stop was heaven where he saw the same identical scene--a large banquet set before the inhabitants of heaven who also had the same kind of forks bound to their arms and hands. But to his amazement these souls were fat, jovial, and filled with joy and good humor. He could not believe his eyes until he noticed the saints were feeding each other!

The second concerns a story about a skinflint who received a letter from his church asking for a donation. He was always irritated by such requests and decided to respond to this one by writing a blistering note of accusation. He ended his diatribe by saying, "All you think about is money and gouging the members of your congregation. You think the whole duty of Christians is to give, give, and give until it hurts."

The pastor answered the man’s note by writing, "Thank you for the best definition of the duty of Christians that I have ever read. God bless you." Amen and Amen in Jesus name. Maranatha!

"Snob" is simply a more colorful word for "arrogant." Snobs come in all sizes, shapes, and forms, and in all varieties of mental, physical, social, and emotional backgrounds. What is a snob? A snob is anyone who tries to feel superior by implying that anyone who is different from him/her is inferior, regardless of that difference.

The scribes and Pharisees were arrogant snobs who thought they could build themselves up by putting everyone else down, and they invented their own standards of morality--aside from the Lord’s--to measure the inferiority of others. They had so much pride that it kept them from believing Jesus when He condemned their "traditions of men" and ultimately led them to murder their Lord.

Snobbism is probably the most hateful of all traits, because snobs are full of hatred and jealousy--envy that blinds them to any good in others, and to any evil in themselves. It is also the most difficult trait to recognize in our selves. Are you a snob?

Pride was the first sin and the sin that Satan used to tempt Eve. (Satan declared that He would be like the "Most High," and tempted Eve by saying she would be like God, if she ate the fruit.) It is the first sin, and probably the last sin to go. Pride is probably the reason men love money, which God’s Word declares is the root of all evil. Read on to discover if you are a snob in some respect. You may be surprised!

Do you take pride in being poor? Do you say, "I always wore my brother’s hand-me-downs," with pride in your heart--even though you pretend to be complaining? Do you entertain the idea that all wealthy or prosperous folks must be "crooks"? Do you take particular notice of rich men, whom you really resent, presuming they are stingy, lacking in compassion for close relatives, and always "get away with" criminal acts?

If you think anyone is superior just because they suffer from being poverty-stricken, rather than materially comfortable, you may be snobbish about being poor and unloving toward anyone who has money. You would find it impossible to be friends with a rich person, and might even turn down his help, no matter how much you needed it. The excuse that you might give for your "poor but proud" attitude is that the rich are arrogant snobs! This sinful attitude is a common reason why many paupers sabotage themselves from ever being prosperous. Prosperity is not a sin and poverty is not a virtue, per se. Making money one’s god or the LOVE of money is a sin, but earning money honestly by performing necessary services or providing useful goods is a requirement for godly living. Doing so is also a guarantee of prosperity.

Snobs are always critical of others and judgmental, getting their satisfaction from bringing others down to their mean level, rather than doing anything positive to become a better person or a more successful person themselves, but few are more annoying than the sports buff. Are you proud of your knowledge of all that goes on in the sports world, expressing contempt for those who do not keep up with the world series scores, the top players, the batting averages, thinking any guys that are interested in academics, art or music are nerds or squares?

You may be surprised to learn the you are a snob, when you thought that those who excelled in cultural pursuits such as art, music, and the theatre were snobs, and they often are! But so are you, if you have convinced yourself that you are more macho, masculine, and superior, because you prefer sports to any other interests. I have met baseball snobs, football snobs, basketball snobs, and wrestling snobs who were just as insufferable as intellectual snobs. I almost called them "pseudo-intellectual snobs"--revealing my own special brand of snobbism--sorry, Lord.

Yes, there are those who take "pride" in being humble. They put themselves down concerning their best traits, and even their most outstanding talents. Was Jesus filled with pride, when He announced that He would be sitting at the right hand of the Father? Hey! What a boast! No one can top that one! But we know that Jesus was without sin and that pride is a sin. His boast was not a boast. It was a fact!

Therefore, we know that being honest about one’s strengths and weaknesses is an example of humility, and denying our genuine strengths is an example of pride. False humility is as dishonest as one can get. Admitting one’s strengths is necessary before one can volunteer these talents to win souls to Christ. Being honest about one’s skills and gifts in teaching, cooking, or carpentry or strength to dig a ditch, and volunteering these gifts are acts of love. False humility and denying one’s gifts is pride and can be used as an excuse or a cop-out.

Remember the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not as evil as a poor beggar who had thrown himself down on the ground crying to the Lord for forgiveness? Jesus declared that the beggar was more righteous for honestly admitting his own sins than the self-righteous Pharisee, who was denying his sins--blinded by his pride.

We also have gardening snobs, who take pride in not using chemicals instead of natural means of fertilizing and destroying garden pests. Pesticides can be dangerous, but the pests that attack whole cornfields, wheat fields, and other vital crops may not be controlled in any other way. Extremism can result from pride that is destructive and environmentalists as well as conservationists have taken their "pride" to a very costly extreme.

And what about those environmental snobs who insist on preserving endangered species, such as a rat on the west coast, that ended up being destroyed in the next earthquake, anyway. Perhaps, they should leave the preservation of nature to God, who can and does create new species with a wink of his eyelash, and has the power to clean up the earth from pollution with one single number on the Richter scale. Another rat carried vermin that caused a plague in the southwest. Maybe these "endangered species" are endangered for a reason, that we do not know! Most rodents carry disease-bearing ticks and fleas.

I have heard gardening snobs make fun of Sunday golfers, joggers, and those who spend big bucks on health clubs, weight-loss programs, and other "unproductive" activities. I am one of those snobs myself, because "gardening is productive."

I admit that it hurts me to see strong, virile, young people wasting all that energy lifting weights, when their yard needs mowing, and they hire it done. I have noticed that these physical fitness fanatics do not have the strength to carry their fast food papers to the nearest trashcan, and even if they are next to it, they still miss the can. Yet, they lift weights, and hit hoops with ease. Am I a snob? Maybe! Maybe, I couldn’t lift weights or hit a hoop, if I tried. Who knows? But I make a point not to strew my trash around!

I cannot count all the occupational snobs I have met. Those who work with their hands--feel contempt for those who sit behind a desk--and vice versa. A college degree is highly over-rated, because it is primarily for the purpose of finding better employment, and developing specific skills and knowledge to engage in a highly specialized occupation, and what does a diploma prove? Do degrees make a good teacher? Or is teaching a gift like artistic or musical talent? The same question may be raised for plumbers, electricians, mechanics, and operators of big machines.

I knew a beekeeper, who loved his bees and made a good living selling honey and queen bees to pollinate fruit trees and crops. He could not read, tell time, or count, but he was content. Isn’t that the mark of a successful man?

Those who attend church assemblies think they are superior to those who do not attend--or superior to those who do not attend a church of the same denomination as they do. That kind of snobbism among Christians who should know better is almost inexcusable, but it does exist--and I am convinced that it breaks the Lord’s heart.

Everyone feels superior to attorneys and politicians, of course, because they really are all crooks--out for all they can get-- and probably fraternize with the mafia! And some do! Unfortunately, it seems that those who want to be honest cannot get elected, and that is also often true. The fact is that those in power, for whatever reason, evoke everyone else to find reasons to "feel superior." Unfortunately, men in power all to often attempt to abuse their power to exploit everyone else.

But is that reason for the rest of us sinners to despise them? They may need the Lord more than anyone else? Did I hear millions of "Amens" to that? Pray for them. I do. Yes, I really do--for the sake of the country! Nevertheless, we cannot tolerate the flaunting of the law by those in power without jeopardizing freedom and justice for all.

White-collar workers feel superior to blue-collar workers, because they don’t get dirty, and blue-collar workers feel superior, because they usually earn more money. Most college graduates resent the high wages of the laboring man, even though they wouldn’t be caught in their work boots. As if they deserve higher salaries, for the same number of hours they work!

The fact is that an hour of one man’s time spent in honest labor is just as valuable to him as an hour of another man’s time spent in conference rooms is to him. So, why does one man get paid hundreds of dollars an hour for his labor, and another is paid less than five? Is the highly paid man really worth so much more, or has he just conned us into believing that he is?

The Lord Jesus said we should love one another and accept one another in all things as He did. None of us are without sin, and no one is superior, because of his/her circumstances or any of his/her worldly accomplishments. Every man does have a right to engage in work that will make it possible for him to live in reasonable comfort.

I understand that Jesus used money, talents, coins, wealth, and prosperity as topics to illustrate his truths more than he used any other subject. I laughed, when I learned those facts, saying, "He certainly knew how to get our attention!" That is right! He did! However, He also recognized the need for money to carry on the business of the world and does not begrudge us that need, even though He doesn’t want us to sacrifice all other blessings to gain money and goods at the expense of others or just to satisfy our pride.

We could enjoy one another’s differences, if we would just see them as Rudyard Kipling did. In his poem "If," he called fame, power, and wealth, "imposters." These imposters are the reason for most snobbery, and they are worthless goals in themselves, luring all men to make fools of themselves--either because they have achieved or because they have not.

If you are jealous, envious, desire special recognition, or even experience fear of losing anything that you have, you are probably a snob of one kind or another. Love casts out fear and heals jealousy, envy, arrogance, and even pride. Love is an action that you can demonstrate, by believing the Lord, receiving His Holy Spirit, and by walking in faith.

The happiest man or woman is the one who rejoices over the success of others.

October l4, l997

Andy Rooney scoffed, sneered and mocked the gathering of Promise Keepers in Washington D. C. in his own inimitable affable manner, which I am sure evoked laughter. Referring to "such movements" as the gathering of over one million men, Rooney suggested cynically, "They don’t last."

The Pharisee, Gamaliel, suggested the same to persuade the Pharisees not to waste time persecuting the Apostles, saying that if they were not of God, they won’t last. However, genuine believers in Jesus Christ are the only ones in history who built free schools, hospitals, and housing for the indigent and the homeless, and established the most powerful free democracy in the world.

Without Jesus Christ, those who do "good deeds" do so for their own glory, having discovered that obeying universal laws is good for business, gains love and respect from others, and is conducive to peaceful relationships, health, and long life. However, Jesus taught that any service or act of charity that is not motivated by unconditional concern for the welfare of others "does not last"--is "nothing."

Furthermore, Jesus demands total allegiance before enabling anyone by the power of His Holy Spirit to perform these unselfish acts and that he/she gives Him all the glory to win others to do the same to receive comparable Spiritual blessings. You are right, Andy, God does not need OUR worship--WE NEED TO WORSHIP GOD!

Scoffers reveal their spiritual poverty, that Jesus called "nakedness, starvation and death," manifested by an unforgiving and spiteful spirit. Believers, having a personal relationship with the Lord, would never trade that experience for any worldly pleasure. Yes, Andy, Jesus Christ lives. He is Everlasting, and I pray that you come to know Him.

If you cannot control your fear, envy, thoughts, suspicions, or any negative emotion, then work out a positive action or behavior that is opposite the way you feel.

Make a decision not to be afraid, envious, suspicious, angry, and ask the Lord to give you the strength to behave in the positive way that you want to behave. If you slip, try, try, again. DO NOT GIVE UP! With God all things are possible.

The fact is that if you act in positive ways, you will be amazed at the effect that your changed attitude has on others, whom you imagined disliked you! Their positive reaction can give you the courage, strength, and resolve to continue. Your feelings will change to match their reactions. Long ago, I heard a psychiatrist say on the radio (before TV), that if we go through the motions, then we will soon feel the emotions.

Faith will replace fear. Trust will replace suspicion. Peace will replace anger. And admiration and appreciation for the good traits of others will replace envy and jealousy. Love is an action that indicates our concern for the welfare and feelings of others. That is the truth. And the Truth will set you free from your negative emotions. Do not knock it, if you haven’t tried it, we used to say. Obeying God begins with actions, and the rewards for obedience are positive and healthy feelings.

We left a congregation once, and this is the reason why!

The charismatic preacher told a story from the pulpit to justify what he must have known was unjustifiable. He described a scene in which an old friend with his family was visiting his family. They were about the same age and had young families in the same general age group. They were all laughing and talking and waiting for dinner to be served--catching up on old times. Both men were successful ministers, and thought they had it all! One boasted that kids often mistook him for Jesus Christ (He wore a beard!).

The visiting minister was teasing the four-year-old son of our minister and the roughhousing apparently got out of hand. The lad became boisterous in what had been described as a somewhat boisterous environment to begin with. Our minister told his son to calm down, but the lad was apparently too keyed up to respond, and so was the minister’s friend, no doubt. In any event, the pride of our minister was offended, and he ordered his son to the room where he expected corporal punishment to be carried out.

Our minister had deliberately chosen for his subject that morning, the necessity for disciplining one’s children with the rod. I am certain he was trying to justify his behavior from the pulpit. He quoted Proverbs and canted on and on about the subject before giving the above illustration. Then he described how he made his son wait in torment--knowing that he would be punished severely.

He then proceeded to describe how he always held his four children tightly between his legs while he pounded on their behinds. Finally, he forced them to hug him as he lied to them, that he was acting in "love." He made crude jokes about applying the "Board of Education." Some of the men laughed. I know that none of the women thought he was funny. He was gross, and I was embarrassed. I know that I caught a glimpse of filth running down the corners of his mouth and a sadistic smirk on his face as he took absolute pleasure in describing his abominable behavior in gruesome detail.

Regarding his account as an example of pornography from the pulpit, I insisted that we leave the building at once. He agreed. I could see the pain in my husband’s eyes, but none of us could speak of the unspeakable cruelty expressed by that filthy man just to impress his friend that he was a "good father." Pride is a sin, and so is sadism!

Our children were also very embarrassed and muttered sympathy for that man’s son. My husband nodded in agreement, and said something that surprised us all. He said, "Doesn’t Proverbs say that the rod is for the fool’s back? The preacher who provoked the boy was the fool!" I had the feeling that my husband wanted to take both of those fools to the woodshed! If he had, I would have cheered!

My husband had a gift for saying the right thing at the right time for making us all laugh. He was a gentleman who helped me raise six kids without ever laying a hand on any of them. GENTLENESS is one of the fruits of the Spirit. The Word of God clearly states that we can recognize false teachers by their fruits. We left that church for good reason and for good--period. We did not need to listen to a false preacher.

The Lord told me that our children are our neighbors and our brethren and they deserve the same respect. In fact, He said that every verse in the Word of God that tells us how to behave toward our neighbors, our brethren, and other Christians are instructions for how he expects us to rear our Christian children who have the same rights by the Holy Spirit that we claim. That makes sense to me!

September 9, 1998

In Stan Clapp’s letter in which he listed his virtues (did not use foul language, tote a gun, engage in violence, and respected his elders), he attributed his Thank-God-I- wasn’t-like-kids-today tirade to razor-strap therapy. He used the same means to control his own--presumably perfect angels. My mother was reared the same way, and tried using the same methods.

I became a Christian when I first sang "Jesus Loves Me," and believed "because the Bible tells me so," meant that Scripture was infallible (Mom didn’t.). Therefore, I began reading The Holy Bible at the age of four.

I understood the commandments (except adultery), and giving my only penny in Church was the Lord’s will. I wasn’t a widow, but I understood that "the widow’s mite" was better than gold, and that prodigal’s were forgiven by God, if they were sorry.

Mom threatened me occasionally with "If you do or don’t, you’ll get." I was offended that she thought I would stupidly disobey God, who knew every hair in my head. My first reaction was to "do or don’t" out of resentment. Instead, I prayed that God would deliver me from "who must be my step-mother," but God reminded me to honor her.

God calls rebels into service because they have the courage to resist the devil. Only cowards obey God (or parents) for fear, and they will worship the devil (or Hitler), if he should appear. Jesus sets us free from fear.

I believe that people need to become involved in creative activities and projects that help them forget themselves and to demonstrate concern for others. Adults may need to provide low-cost housing with gardens for strolling, with nearby gift and grooming shops, and a soup-salad-and-sandwich kitchen on the premises for senior citizens. They also could provide for a shuttle bus to go shopping, a greenhouse for puttering, and even a nearby pond stocked with fish for those who like to fish.

Such a facility should be non-profit and tax-free, even though it could pay for itself, if maintenance of the grounds, light housekeeping, errands run, and reading or just listening to these senior citizens were part of the local high school’s program. Students who take the "course," performing various duties in turn, would receive credit for doing so. The experience would be beneficial for the kids as well as the seniors.

The kids could learn about gardening while working with seniors or may even enjoy fishing with a "Grandpa," because they do not know their own. I am almost a fanatic about the wisdom of putting kids in the company of senior citizens, because many parents do not have time, even if they are so inclined. The elderly love to talk about the past, and can be frank about their mistakes, which delights the young who have been conned into believing that adults never make any mistakes, and wisdom is imparted.

The students could plant fruit trees, vines, and vegetable gardens. I know they can, because I took teen-agers into my home that were rejected by practically all authorities. They laid patios, made simple repairs around the house, planted, built raised beds, and mixed soil with compost. Then they called their friends to boast of their accomplishments.

Any small town or neighborhood could promote such a project to save the kids and help the elderly. Any time kids are given constructive things to do they are no so inclined to indulge in destructive behavior. They do need guidance, which shop, home economics, agriculture, and mechanics teachers could provide.

I know without any doubt that such projects would require much less tax money than prisons, court sessions, more police, and surveillance, in general. Why are so many politicians preaching about saving rodents, and even whales, when our kids are going down the tubes? We need to get our priorities straight.

Incidentally, kids that learn how to prepare meals, clean, or do simple repairs, and plant gardens have a good chance of surviving in almost any environment without resorting to theft. This letter is just a germ of an idea that I literally practiced and know that it works. Anyone with imagination and the energy and strength of a younger person could do so much more--if that person were also truly concerned about the welfare of kids--called love--which is an action. Ben Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," which we don’t hear anymore.

Instead, we spend billions of dollars for superficial cures, such as bigger prisons, detoxification centers, hospitals, a cure for AIDS, and over thirty other venereal diseases. The cures for diseases that are caused by alcohol and drugs, population control by murdering the unborn, and saving rats with disease-causing fleas that live in the desert represent even more profligate spending. It should make us sick, and it does--literally!

We are all sick from drugs, alcohol, depression, suicide, and grief over sick family relationships. Not to mention how sick we are of living at the poverty level because of wasted tax dollars on alleged art that benefits no one but those who could afford to pay for it--if it is "art."

We are indeed talking about gross poverty, of course, from taxation without representation that robs over a half-year of hard labor from the majority of families--even one-parent families. Jesus asked if there would be any faith in the world, when He returned. My question is, "Will He find any love in the world?

If you put a lobster in cold water, and turn the burner on under the pot, the lobster is cooked even before he feels the heat. That is a metaphor for what has happened in this country in the last forty-odd years.

Over forty years ago, humanism (based on Nietchske’s allegedly brilliant "God-is-dead.--Man-is-his-own-god" philosophy), Shavianism (George B. Shaw’s unisex ideas in which elite women had masculine traits, and peasant women "should be paid to bear the children"), and sexual gratification without any taboos was touted as being "safe" because of condoms and penicillin to cure venereal diseases), became the new standards of "freedom."

One leading proponent of this "new philosophy" was Hugh Hefner in his magazine, Playboy, in which he opened the door to pornography by winning the freedom to publish his naked women as an "art form" in the name of freedom of the press. He still boasts that he set women free. We now have all the ingredients for gourmet lobster fare.

How Shaw’s misogynic philosophy, Shavianism, became corrupted into Chauvinism or fanatical patriotism (Chauvin was not a woman-hater, but a pawn of Napoleon’s,) is anybody’s guess. But the fact that it happened is evidence that few men, if any, think for themselves, and repeat what they hear like parrots. "male Shavianist pig" would have been more accurate. My target is "female Shavianist prigs," who sold all women into slavery.

Feminism, the demanding of women’s rights, has also been the rabid rage for the past forty years. As if women being forced into the work place is a "right!" Initially, Adam had a "right" to provide a living for his family, and Eve had the "right" to experience painful childbirth. Now women have achieved the "right" to do both or commit murder. Thanks to the N O W and ERA crowd, not to mention the "Mzzzzzzz" Lesbians.

As for the heat that no one has felt for the last forty years, fear is rampant so that even the mayor, threatens to call out the police when a citizen makes a legitimate complaint. That’s right! It happened to me. I could not believe it. I could not run fast enough to catch him, if I tried, and I could not get away from him, if he chased me. So, what was he afraid of? Why did he think he needed the police? "The wicked flee, when no man pursueth," according to Proverbs 28: 1. The fact is that we are now living in a police state where everyone is terrified, and nobody felt the "heat" that caused this pot of water we are in to boil over.

I observed first hand that a police state does exist in this county. They have the power to search cars on suspicion without a warrant. "Suspicion" is justified if the driver is in his teens--and for no other reason. The police stop these cars--even if an adult is also in the car--and command the driver to convey threatening messages to others under "suspicion." That happened to me, also. If anyone complains, they are told that complaints are not recognized unless first approved by the local police.

I think we could call that hiring the fox to investigate "who stole and devoured the chickens." But that is exactly what happened to me with a teen-ager driving my car in Champaign County. Do not bother to complain about police harassment in Champaign, Illinois. It will get you nowhere. But our local politicians are hot and heavy after higher taxes for more police, prisons, and better law enforcement. And all the students aspire to be attorneys-- "where the real money is!" And to think, we aspired to be missionaries!

The Constitution was designed to guarantee real human rights and freedom for all citizens. Instead, the checks and balances that our forefathers intended have been totally nullified. Is the lobster complaining? Of course not! He is fully cooked and ready to be devoured! If you recall, I titled PART IV, "LOVE LETTERS as in LOVE YOUR ENEMIES." I dealt with what love is, and now I will deal with who the enemy is, or the enemies of the Lord. It is the same. I truly want ALL to be saved.

YOUR NEIGHBOR.

This message is for vicious, malicious, domineering women who know exactly how to push the buttons of men to provoke them to anger, when they do not get their way without question. They accomplish this with expressions of "righteous indignation"--no matter how unfair their selfish demands may be.

If the males involved become so provoked that they respond with a shove and a "get out of my face," or a shake of a fist, and a shout, "You bitch," then these vengeful females call the police, and lie blatantly, saying, "I feared for my life." Even though these men leave the house promptly, the police track them down and arrest them on the word of the alleged female victims.

By this time, I know I have the attention of many males out there who have been victimized by such women. Incidentally, the only definition of "bitch" that is ever used today is the one in Webster’s, "vicious, malicious, domineering female." No one would ever insult a faithful female dog by calling her a "bitch," considering the present-day connotations of that term.

My final word to these "bitches:" Man was created in God’s image, described as a God of wrath. If you do not believe Jesus ever became angry, read His scurrilous indictment against the self-righteous, hypocritical Pharisees in Matthew, chapter 23.

How are you "ladies" going to respond to the Lord’s anger on Judgment Day? Are you going to call the police and play "victim"?

May 7, l998

Several years ago, I watched a talk show in which four incarcerated-for-life burglars were asked the best way to protect one’s home from being burglarized. They discussed iron bars, gated properties, high-tech alarm systems, and courses in self-defense, but these professionals maintained they knew how to "get around" all of these. I remember what else they said, but not the name of the show.

First, join the National Rifle Association. I decided this letter was timely, because our Constitutional right to bear arms is under vicious attack, and the NRA is especially being maligned. These convicts said they were reluctant to invade residences that had NRA stickers on the doors and windows, because these residents were undoubtedly prepared to defend their families and property with guns which they probably knew how to use.

Secondly, beware of barking dogs. Alarm systems can be disconnected but barking dogs cannot. Even if everything else points to the absence of the owner (no lights, signs of life, or car in the driveway), that dog strongly suggests that someone willing to use a gun is probably home. Few dog owners leave a dog alone for long--especially, not overnight--because dogs need attention.

Finally, avoid little old ladies who have NRA stickers and a dog, because no jury in the land would convict a terrified helpless widow who shot first and asked questions later. Th interviewees were unanimous, "Don’t even think about it!"

October 7, l997

Thank you for publishing Peggy Patten’s letter concerning gun control laws alongside John Naese’s comments for the purpose of comparison. Patten reported that 5,254 children under age l9 died of gunfire in l995, and Naese reported that guns used defensively by peaceable citizens prevented from 700,000 to 2.6 million deaths. Patten said more children die from guns here than in Israel or Northern Ireland. Do they have gun laws over there?

Probably, many more lives of children were saved by guns used by peaceable citizens, as reported in Naese’s statistics (700,000) than 5254. After all, guns are used to protect families, not just individuals, and these lives were usually saved "without a shot fired," according Naese.

Criminals are not law-abiding. They obtain black market guns or manufacture their own lethal weapons--bombs from cutoff aluminum baseball bats and guns from lead pipes. Peaceable citizens who abide by the law are the ones left without any defense. Seven hundred thousand lives might have been lost--a few more than six thousand deaths-- preventable by safety classes, perhaps?

I never owned a gun, and do not know how to use one, but I support the NRA. They send me stickers for my windows. I believe that NRA stickers in themselves are a deterrent against criminal attack. My barking dogs would alert criminals that I could "grab my gun," if necessary. Reassuring, since criminals can accomplish their goals in seconds, before the police could arrive, if I were able to call them.

THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

Why do I get discouraged? Because all men are motivated by self-love--whatever position they take on any question. The pendulum swings in a free society--from rebelling against tyranny of government, then religion, and/or big business, because men were born to be free. A two-year-old forced to sit as punishment is still standing up inside.

God was against the Jews’ having a king (political tyranny), but gave in to their demands. Jesus Christ condemned the religious tyranny of the Pharisees, and Jewish law stated that men who charged interest (usury) on loans to the poor were thieves to be stoned to death (tyranny by businessmen).

Jesus Christ said that if law and fear of torture, imprisonment, and death worked to create righteousness (tested for 4000 thousand years and failed), He would not have had to go to the cross to set men free.

The Sermon on the Mount was not given to condemn men but to make them realize that even the most law-abiding (outwardly) needed to change from being corrupt, adulterous, and murderous in their hearts and to become totally concerned for the welfare of others.

Knowing man’s basic nature, The Lord gave only one Commandment (paraphrased to explain the misunderstood word, "love"). Love the Lord (trust and obey his laws for OUR sakes), and be concerned for the welfare of all others as we are--by nature--concerned for our own welfare. Please tell me that you understand why "love" fulfills the whole law!

January 2, l998

I couldn’t stop laughing--even in the middle of the night--at the objections raised over a catalog that purports to identify Christian businesses; even though all Christians know that some folks would lie to be listed in such a directory to attract potential suckers. However, those critics who objected claimed to be conscientious label-objectors--not anti-Christian per se.

I couldn’t help wondering if these righteously indignant objectors have opened an Ameritech telephone directory lately, and if they write letters to Ameritech hotly decrying their use of labels? My directory is just full of labels, listing attorneys under "Attorneys," physicians under "Physicians," and used car dealers according to specific models, yet!

Religious organizations in the area are all listed under their respective faiths to give folks free choice, which is the reason for labels, I thought.

C’mon, Guys! Admit that labels have a purpose. If you wanted to buy a Ford SUV, would you really want to drive all over town looking for a business that sold your particular preference? Even Judeo-Christian labels are useful for alerting atheists and infidels as to which businesses to avoid, since they obviously prefer doing business with those who have no respect for obeying the Ten Commandments.

As for me, I would defend to the death those laissez-faire label lovers who make free choice possible. They are the peacemakers who most assuredly shall live long lives--even throughout all eternity--or so I choose to believe.

I could not believe the position taken in a letter, advocating the very measures--giving police the power to search without a warrant to deter crime--that drove our forefathers to endure unbearable hardships, and an extremely hazardous and lengthy (about three years) journey across the Atlantic to escape.

When threatened by government oppression, tyranny, and terror they escaped to this country, fought hard at great sacrifice (their very lives) for freedom in the Revolutionary War, and devised a Constitution with checks and balances that was designed to prevent such conditions in this country.

I think that the obviously very young and shortsighted critic does not have a clue as to what she was writing about. Those refugees from Europe risked everything to be free from police breaking into their homes and searching for anything they could use as an excuse to cart victims off to prison, because they did not need a warrant to search to do so. I am certain that they would have tapped phones illegally without conscience or reproach, if phones had been invented at the time.

Think about it, little girl. What is the most dangerous scenario that man can live under: Being terrorized by those who have a legal right to do so, or being terrorized by criminals that have no legal right to do so. Frankly, I prefer a government that has laws to protect citizens from the police. Any man with too much power without exception is always dangerous. I am certainly glad that our forefathers realized that, but I am equally appalled at the number of persons who want to nullify what freedoms we still have left.

If you read the previous letter, you will realize that the police are already searching without a warrant, which is against the Constitution. Unfortunately, no one can complain, because the police would not approve the complaint. I hope someone reads this letter in Champaign County who has the power to correct this appalling situation!

FREEDOM IS EARNED May 18, 1998

Our forefathers fled to this country from tyranny. They established a Constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that freedom from unwarranted government controls would be maintained. They also wanted freedom from high taxes to spend their hard-earned money as they saw fit.

They wanted the right to bear arms, not only to hunt, but also to prevent government from making decisions they believed belonged to individuals as to how they should worship or what they should teach their children. They wanted freedom of speech and the press so that they could speak out against abuses before they became dangerous.

They designed our government to protect all Americans from the most dangerous criminals on earth--dictators who usurp authority to legally drag thousands who question their power to prison, or to be tortured and executed.

We have a president who insists on "bigger government" because he cannot trust himself--hence nobody else--to handle freedom responsibly, so he and activists who agree with him insist on these "dangerous criminal rights" leading to an authoritarian government.

We don’t lose our freedom; we throw it away by behaving irresponsibly. Each time a man abuses his family members or a woman calls the police as a "power play" rather than because she "fears for her life and/or limb," he/she irresponsibly costs all of us more freedom. Because activists insist on more police, more jails, and more laws that are already included in the Ten Commandments. I pray that God will forgive us all for trusting more government instead of His laws.

I was astounded at Gene Silmone’s declarations that "liberals" were responsible for The Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase, end of slavery, Land Grant Act, Homestead Act, purchase of Alaska, vote for women, National Parks, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Whatever Silmone thinks is the dictionary definition of "liberal" is, the political definition has nothing to do with individual freedom. "Liberal" today means higher taxes, more government control, and robbing individuals of their right to keep their earned money and decide for themselves how to spend and invest it on the grounds that individuals are incapable of making these decisions themselves.

Our forefathers believed that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton), so they created a Constitution with checks and balances designed to limit the powers of big government at every possible turn, which is not an idea favored by "liberals" today.

Most of the acts of Congress, that Silmone mentioned, created more independent and responsible landowners, free education for all citizens, including women and blacks. Their goal was to prepare more citizens to be responsible enough to govern themselves, and ultimately shift power from government to more individuals, which is not the goal of modern "liberals."

The only ideas promoted by "liberals" in this century were welfare programs and socialized medicine designed to raise taxes so high that it is impossible for individuals to make decisions concerning the money they earn to care for their own--young or old--as citizens did in the past. "Liberal" is not synonymous with individual freedom, Silmone!

It was arrogant of Steve Smith to think he was qualified to give me a grade in history--"A" or "F"--because he obviously is oblivious concerning the present. I do not know any single mother who works only 8-hour days, five-day weeks, who isn’t a slave to two jobs just to put food on the table--thanks to the Democrats whom Smith call "liberal."

As for history, I remember well when F D R ran for office. I witnessed and experienced history, and remember the quality of life before the "liberals" raised taxes, and how they have distorted history to prove "their right" to continue a program intended only to aid victims of the depression, while making expensive promises just to get votes.

I took issue with the word "liberal" used to refer to lying, thieving, and murderous Democrats, who want to abort all babies on welfare (real reason for banning last-trimester abortions). General Powell wisely resigned, because he did not want new recruits to be subjected to sexual harassment by homosexual officers, because Clinton made promises to gays to get their vote, knowing their concern was free treatment for AIDS in military hospitals. Blacks support all that?

"Liberals" raise taxes, so that very few can spend their money to meet their needs.

As for my being ungrateful for alleged benefits, I refused to teach in public schools that prevent teachers from teaching the truth about the quality of life deteriorating, because

"liberals" make promises they don’t intend to keep.

October 13,1998

WHAT? ANOTHER "F" IN HISTORY?

Steve Smith knows I have never pretended to be a history buff, but giving me an "F" in secular history is a compliment, because it is replete with lies, prejudices, omissions, and ignorance concerning the how and why events have occurred. Each author writes from his own narrow perspective and distorts facts, according to his idea of "the end justifies the means."

Examples of "politically correct" distortions include the minimizing that early Christian settlers fled European persecution to find religious freedom in America. Also,

Columbus recorded in his journals that he sought a new route to the Far East to fulfill Christ’s Commission to preach the Gospel worldwide as a condition of His return.

As for my affiliation with the "political right," I vote according to my Christian values, shared by Democrats many moons ago. I support pro-life, sanctity of marriage, equality of all men under God, and freedom from government interference in rights guaranteed all citizens by the Constitution and the high taxes attached to that "interference."

Smith obviously was brainwashed in the 60’s to reject traditional values that he calls the "progressive movement." His anti-defense posture is not based on the blood shed in the Revolutionary War to gain the freedoms he enjoys, but on his unfortunate experiences in Vietnam which made him bitter and shortsighted.

I call Smith’s "progress" regressing to the years Before Christ. Our present economy, "Stupid," is grand larceny of the quality of life we had, when men made the living and women made the living worthwhile.

October 30, 1998

Contrary to certain published presumptions concerning me, I don’t write strictly political or religious letters. I am a dedicated non-denominational member only of the body of Christ by faith. I obey His instructions befitting my personal calling (not necessarily applicable to all).

I write about issues that concern Our Lord. I know--and so does everyone else--exactly what those issues are, if they have read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters, 5, 6, and 7.)

The Lord condemned the practices of hypocrites (e.g. If you look upon a woman with lust, you have committed adultery in your heart.). I know that this nation will pay, if voters continue to condone sinful practices for monetary gain.

I will quote Holy Scripture to support my unwavering position. God and my friends and family know I practice what I preach or daily confess and repent of my mistakes--at some cost-- but also with incredible spiritual blessings.

"The love of money is the root of all evil," I Titus 6: 10.

"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceits? There is more hope for a fool than for him," Proverbs 26: 12 (Clinton).

"He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous him shall the people curse. Nations shall abhor him, but them that rebuke (impeach) him shall be a delight and a good blessing shall come upon them," Proverbs 24: 24.

If you want our nation to be blessed by Our Lord, then vote against those who offend Him.

November 3, 1998

Letter-to-the-Editor:

Recently, I was accused of hiding behind God, because I was not "successful." I laughed, because we studied Rudyard Kipling’s poem, "If," in grade school. The line I remember best stated that the human ambitions, "fame," "wealth," and "power" were "imposters." Since biographies fascinated me, I learned at an early age the validity of Kipling’s philosophy.

My favorite "success" story is about a virtually blind young man who came to our factory-based home seeking work. He was twenty-one and a devoted husband and father of two children. He was also desperate but optimistic, and so were we, but my sympathetic husband offered him a job unloading bricks for one afternoon.

Months later, the young man showed up again seeking temporary work. He laughed merrily as he told us he had been in prison one year for breaking into eighty-seven filling stations in Champaign before he finally attracted the attention of the police.

I had read the story in The Champaign News Gazette (recognizing the culprit’s name), that the police were finally "successful" in solving eighty-seven robberies by catching the thief, who readily confessed to all.

The young man wanted to go to prison, because blindness prevented him from getting work, but his family could not receive welfare if he lived with them. He told his story to the authorities, served his sentence, and was to begin training the following week at the state’s expense for a job that a blind man could do. So, what is "success"?

THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

November 7, 1998

I read John McGill’s letter several times explaining the Machiavellian principal of government, concerning his "Bread and Circuses" strategy for keeping the people from posing problems for the political elite. McGill stated that the Romans understood this Machiavellian principal of government’s provision for the masses very well. (As an "opiate of the masses"? Karl Marx said religion served that purpose!)

If McGill ever writes a history book concerning this philosophy and the ultimate effect it had on the Roman Empire, I promise Steve Smith--who gave me an "F" twice in history--that I will read every word. I think McGill understands history and the long-range effect of government’s wasteful handouts the same way I do, but he expressed this view so much better than I ever could.

With the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was plunged into ignorance, poverty, and total enslavement of the masses, which historians dubbed, "The Feudal Age." I understood from my elementary history courses that Rome fell because of excessive concerns with prurient pursuits, sadistic entertainment, and inattention to military defenses so that marauding tribes from the north caught them off guard.

Mc Gill implied that taxpayers "must take notice" of the fact that history is destined to repeat itself, if we fail to check government’s unprofitable spending programs, because each alleged benefit by government for the people at their expense means more loss of freedom resulting in ultimate enslavement.

I hope Smith read McGill’s letter and gives him an "A" in history in his response.

THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

If you do not know what egregious means exactly, do not worry. You will have a very good idea before you finish reading this love letter. What does it mean to protect the environment? Does it mean to prevent careless men from polluting it by wantonly dumping it toxic wastes without any concern for one’s fellowman? Or does it mean that men have a right to play God by attempting to control nature? Egregious environmentalists think they have a right to play God. They are extremists to the point of being absurd.

Farmers who raise grain, fruits and vegetables, and nurture cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, poultry, and even dogs, cats, and bees and those who manage forests and fisheries have always been the most constructive and efficient environmentalists--because it is to their financial advantage to be so. They cannot afford not to be!

Also, it is their job to provide all man’s most basic needs--including natural fabrics for clothing and wood fiber for the most effective tool for communication--paper. Until recently, they have been free to do their job without government interference.

Furthermore--at no cost to taxpayers--farmers prevent plagues that wipe out civilizations by controlling pests in domestic animals and plants. These same pests infest wildlife in all its forms; such as fleas, ticks, mites, fungi, mosquitoes and other blood-sucking parasites--reeking death and destruction all over the world. But farmers go a long way to prevent invasion by these pests into the products (animals, especially) most of us consume.

Incidentally, regardless of what you see on TV, the number one killer in the animal world is the mosquito, because it transfers disease-bearing blood from one host to another. Fleas, ticks, and mites, and some flies do the same, but the mosquito is the worst offender. Whole populations have been wiped out by yellow fever, malaria, and some believe that the mosquito may be a carrier of the AIDS virus, especially in swamp areas.

But I want to write about political parasites that are even more dangerous than the mosquito. Actually, man is the number one killer in the animal world. The mosquito is a poor second. This human parasite claims that he wants to spend your blood, sweat, and tears to protect alleged endangered species of both plants and animals.

In Illinois, the silver maple was named an endangered species. I had one large tree in my yard that sent its winged seeds fluttering by the buckets full into my raised flowerbeds, and required constant raking and sweeping on my terraces to keep them from sprouting between my patio blocks. It is a noxious weed, which chokes out desirable plants. However, they planted hundreds along the river that flowed through my property. Also, they labeled my property a wetland, which meant that I could not do anything on it, even if I wanted to do anything.

What I don’t understand is why they did not plant trees of value that used to be native to Illinois. Persimmons, wild cherry, peach, and plum, mulberry, sassafras, red oak, sugar maple, dogwoods, red bud trees, and crab apples are disappearing from our woods, because folks dig them up to put in their yards.

But they are not in the business of thinking of what is best for all, they just want to save alleged endangered species to impress the eggheads who do not have a brain-cell working, either, and to raise taxes for their own purposes. Millions would be saved in taxes, if these do-goodies were paralyzed by taking all laws that are designed to control owners of private property off the books, and let the farmers, ranchers, and foresters go back to deciding what should be encouraged to survive, and what should not.

In Illinois, a kid who finds a baby wild animal and tries to make a pet of it can be heavily fined and/or put in jail. Who benefits from that law? If you support these arrogant law-breakers instead of your Lord and true caretaker of the environment, then you deserve to pay egregious taxes you already pour into their "save-the-rat" holes.

THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

Question: Why is it that those who want freedom of speech to prevent destructive, deviant, disease-spreading heterosexual and homosexual practices, and to protect impressionable children from being exposed to violence and pornographic materials, are accused by those who disagree, of "WANTING TO IMPOSE THEIR CONSTRUCTIVE VALUES ON EVERYONE ELSE?

These accusers are absolutely right, of course, but they are hypocrites, because the constructivists are not asking the destructivists to spend tax dollars to support their views. The destructivists want freedom to promote their ideas at the expense of the constructivists--and all other citizens via tax dollars.

The destructivists insist that the constructivists have a choice as to what they watch on TV, read in the newspaper, or check out at the library. But kids do not have a choice as to what they are forced to study in school or do not have a choice as to what they are allowed to read or study in school, if the destructivists have their way.

"Their way" is to force acceptance of deviant life styles that are dangerous at best. (I have in mind venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies, which have increased to epidemic proportions, since the discovery of condoms and penicillin.)

The fact is that the destructivists also have as much choice as the rest of us do, but they do not have a right to impose their choices on the majority or force the majority to finance their choices.

Incidentally, it is time we stopped labeling according to political parties, liberal and conservative, or according to race, color, creed, religion, or denomination. Either our purposes are constructive and designed to promote the welfare of all, or they are destructive and designed to ultimately destroy us all. Even pre-school children know the difference.

Everyone is up in arms about polluting the earth, but no one seems to object to the polluting of the minds of people. Even now, Congress is seriously engaged in debate to approve the five-year budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, a federal agency which funds the artists, and the arts.

For example, tax dollars have gone to support a show that included a so-called artist who submerged the cross in his own urine. Another large sum was paid to a New York theater where hard-core porn actresses urinated on stage and masturbated with sex toys. Other funds have supported alleged art depicting Christ shooting heroin, and homosexuals performing the same acts on stage that resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by God (anal and oral sex called sodomy).

It is your money, good people, if that is how you want your government to spend it in the name of free speech. But keep in mind, that same government dickers over cost-of-living increases on your Social Security and Veterans checks and cannot balance a budget.

Is that distant rumbling that I hear, the noise of a coming revolution over taxation without representation? Or is that noise just the grumbling of old men? No wonder the righteous are secretly stashing arms against the day Congress decides to take away the rights of Americans to bear arms and worship God as they please, while they defend the right to pollute minds in our schools, libraries, theaters and every other form of communication in the name of free speech.

Public monies should never be used for anything that does not promote the welfare and good of the majority in a democracy. If our representatives observed that rule, we could balance the budget.

I agree with Paul Vallandigham in general and in principle--that "censorship is no answer to society’s problems." But I do not agree with those that somehow construe the objections most of us have to the use of public monies to promote racism of any kind or distasteful and destructive sexual practices as being a form of censorship.

Our forefathers did not intend for the federal, state or local governments to be entertainment committees that spent public monies to satisfy the lusts and deviant pleasures of those who are sick or have criminal tendencies. We are guaranteed free speech in the Bill of Rights, but the Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation--not primarily for the squelching of freedom of expression.

If my tax money is being spent to entertain or promote racism and criminal sex activities, I am not being represented. Perhaps, Vallandigham is young or has a bad memory, but John Hirschfeld and I can recall when such terms as "sodomy," "lesbian," and even "rape" were so uncommon that even educated adults had to refer to Webster to determine their exact meaning. And my Second Edition of Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, purchased in l949, does not even have the word, homosexual, in it!

My old classmate, Hugh Hefner, opened the door to legalized pornography when he won the court’s approval of Playboy Magazine as a work of art and not pornography.

I do not think it is a coincidence that Hefner’s "New Morality" and the increase of pornographic materials in public schools, libraries, and institutions at taxpayers expense has occurred simultaneously with the very dangerous and destructive sudden rise in the "Old Immorality" in criminal proportions.

If I understood the tone of Vallandigham’s letter correctly, I don’t think he wants to support the habits of these poor devils either--even in the name of free speech.

September 24, l997

My first cousin was one of the more talented pianists in our family, most of whom sang, played musical instruments, and/or produced literary and/or artistic "masterpieces" for family, church, and community members to enjoy. When my beloved cousin and her fiance’ were killed in a tragic accident, the dormitory where she was living on the U. of I. campus was renamed in her memory, MARY ANN WOODS HALL.

Did she or any other member of our family request, receive, or even think they deserved a grant from the National Endowment of Arts to further their careers in the arts?

Of course not! A poet once wrote about gorgeous desert flowers blooming and dying without being seen to make the point that God has always been extravagant in bestowing beauty and talent for His own pleasure and ours--not to be exploited for money, fame, or power.

Every tiny community has talent that far exceeds that which can be viewed on TV or at the movies. A seventh grade classmate of mine in Newman, IL, painted Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that equaled those drawn by Disney artists--just for us kids to enjoy--mounted on the seventh grade display border.

Why would anyone argue for higher taxes to promote the questionable value of fame, when other kids are starving, because their single parents are burdened with taxes? Truth and beauty are not to be bought and sold--only to be shared and enjoyed. I practice what I preach!

Concerning the library controversy: Children are not qualified to vote--according to most adults--because they have not developed enough judgment through education and experience to do so. The freedoms as described in the Bill of Rights were intended from the beginning to apply only to adults who were qualified to vote and who proved they were capable of making well-informed and wise decisions as responsible citizens.

Government by the people always has meant government by the responsible citizens in society who were to be guaranteed freedom of speech, press, religion, right to bear arms, etc. Our forefathers believed that freedom and responsible behavior were Siamese twins and could not be separated without causing death to both.

For that reason, the Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to children, criminals, the mentally ill nor was it intended to extend even to uneducated women and slaves. Actually, the main argument used at the time for free education for all was to create a society in which all men would be qualified to govern themselves. Fortunately, it was extended to girls and later to blacks, or they might never have been enfranchised!

In any event, all responsible adults of society were expected to deprive the irresponsible members of society of the freedoms that were intended to be guaranteed only to themselves, or license and fear would reign, depriving all of us freedom.

Apparently, library committees are taking a position contrary to the freedom of speech amendment as intended by issuing pornographic materials to children. That is just another reason why responsible citizens are forced to put iron bars on their windows and doors, and are losing their liberty, while the irresponsible are given license to destroy.

August 18, 1998

Nat Hentoff in his comments on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s approval of vouchers to subsidize primary and secondary Christian schools indicated that they violated his idea of separation of religion and state.

As a Jew, Hentoff stated that he was uncomfortable being compelled to sing tributes to "Jesus, the Son of God," in public schools. Of course he was, because his parents indoctrinated him into the Jewish faith--their choice and their right. It is inappropriate to expect Jews to sing praises to Jesus Christ anywhere.

However, two important points are missing in Hentoff’s reasoning. First, his parents would have chosen (Trust me!) a private Judaic school where he could meet academic requirements without embarrassment, if available.

Secondly, each student’s share of tax money in private schools should equal any other students share in public schools, if we are committed to provide free education for all. Why shouldn’t public taxes be used to pay the cost of educating all children equally whether in private or public schools, if they meet the state’s academic standards? If parents choose Christian schools to indoctrinate their children into the Christian faith, they have that right of choice.

I doubt if Hentoff can name any Jewish child who was not indoctrinated by family and teachers, while Christians have been brain-washed, intimidated, humiliated and penalized (grades) for their faith in public schools, and who said that Jews encourage Christians to express their faith in Israel? Or who believes that our public schools meet minimum standards?

July 15, l998

Nat Hentoff wrote objecting to taxpayers funding religious schools by making it possible for Christian parents to receive tax money for tuition to choose private Christian schools.

Hentoff quoted James Madison concerning the First Amendment (against any government-established religion) that public money should not be used to support private religious institutions (his opinion).

Because I agree with the "Establishment Clause," I have objected to Christian tax money being used to ridicule Creationism, and to promote Darwin’s theory of evolution as "Gospel"(despite mounting evidence that it is mathematically improbable). Furthermore, I was outraged in l967 that Christian tax money was used for library books at Champaign Central High School promoting the major Oriental religions while Judeo-Christian literature, which inspired the greatest Western classics ever written, was banned. Also, tax money was used for books describing deviant sexual practices and extra-marital sex as an option (in Hentoff’s words, "for impressionable youngsters").

I taught Oriental literature to gifted classes at Central High, and the education department required me to take psychological tests and hours of psychiatric sessions conditional to being certified. Because I gave students the option to compare a passage from Kalidasa’s 16th Century play, Shakuntala, based on Buddhism, to I Corinthians, chapter 13 (a definition of love). I gave the assignment to demonstrate that "love" is a universal idea as demonstrated in literature, not to promote a religious idea.

Since then, dangerous homosexual practices are taught at the expense of Christian taxpayers. Incidentally, I was certified, and the psychiatrist expressed regrets that public schools lost (my choice) a righteously indignant but highly gifted teacher.

THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

The 1996 election is over, and everybody got exactly what everyone wanted. Clinton is president for a second term--with a Republican Congress that he can and will blame for not keeping his promises when the country goes down the tubes.

Perot and all the Christians in the country got what they wanted--the opportunity to say "I told you so" in the near future, and Dole is probably relieved that he did all he could, and can now retire from the rat race. He probably did make a difference.

The rest of the country got what they wanted--one more excuse to celebrate the "happy hour," which is the story of their lives. Have a good day, even if it doesn’t last.

Oh, yes, the Lord got what he wanted, too! Millions will be crying out to him in desperation in the next four years to be saved.

That thought makes me happy, because I want all souls to be saved. These bodies are only temporal. The Lord is so good, and merciful.

September 22, 1998

I anticipated the White House scandal, because of my own private prejudices. I am equally certain that Southern white Christians have prejudices toward us Yankees, but we Northerners are less likely to admit our bigoted notions toward our Southern neighbors. We like to think that only Southern hard-shelled Baptist Democrats are bigots--which we are not!

However, after listening to President Clinton for 4 1/2 hours, repeatedly parroting his original declaration in response to all questions while defiantly biting his lip to reinforce his determination not to budge an inch, I decided I would confess and maybe someone will prove me wrong--I hope!

My unexpressed bigotry toward white southerners has been mostly directed toward women, who give the name "lady" a foul name. No doubt, historical novels have influenced me by giving the impression that these Southern belles loved to party while leaving all the home-making chores, nurturing of children, and satisfying their spouses sexually to their "inferiors."

Women knew their husbands exploited slaves in the past, prostitutes, and other women they called trash--unless they were retarded--but they were "ladies" and expected to be treated as such--not stooping to unselfishly serving.

I have secretly believed that hard-shelled Baptist Democrats were arrogant, hypocritical, and narcissistic preserving their own images at any price, while expressing their true natures under sheets and in closets, while justifying all of it with Scripture. Unfortunately, history will support those prejudices, thanks to the Clintons.

The following letters are warnings against Public Enemy # 1, Satan.

February 3, 1998

The statements made by various witnesses in response to inquiries made by any number of journalistic investigations continue to include President Clinton’s comment that he has never committed adultery. On one occasion, he allegedly stated that he had searched the Scriptures and is convinced that oral sex is not adultery.

Women who are saying that they have had "affairs" with the president confirm that these affairs do not include "penetration" or normal sexual intercourse. They do not disagree with the president that he does not "commit adultery" per se." However, they admit to performing oral sex on him, or invited to do so, and to being "fondled" by him.

In any event, The Lord God Jehovah did not destroy Sodom and Gommorah, because the citizens were committing adultery. He destroyed the cities because they committed what God considered to be much more degrading, sodomy.

In fact, the term sodomy was named after the city, Sodom, where that detestable, depraved, perversion--oral sex--was practiced to the degree that not one citizen could be found who was innocent--resulting in fire to rain down from heaven and destroy that city in a matter of seconds.

Isn’t it amazing how far some masters of self-delusion will go to convince themselves and others that they are innocent of wrongdoing! Prophets of old in both

The Old Testament and The New Testament insisted that there was definitely a connection between depravity and an increase in natural disasters. Hot lava doesn’t have to fall on my head to convince me! (See Hebrews 2: 11-12: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.")

Satan can speak high-sounding words that are like Ivory soap, 99.99% pure, only softer, and capable of soft-soaping the most cynical and suspicious of skeptics. The .01% of what Satan has to say which is not so pure includes: pretense, hypocrisy, corruption in high places, flattery, fraud, sophistry, chop-logic, treachery, false teaching, betrayal, guile, underhandedness, deceit, subterfuge, duplicity, and collusion. He uses the Lord’s name in vain, promoting his vanities and lies for personal gain in the name of the Lord, as did the Pharisees and "money changers" in the temple at Jerusalem.

According to Proverbs 26: 18, even April fool jokes or lies told in jest are as a mad man who throws torches and death. You can understand why, if you think a minute.

Anyone who is lying in jest feels superior for making a fool out of someone--often a little child--who trusted him. Maybe the liar thinks it is funny, but the victim never does--when someone makes a fool of him--even if he laughs because he/she wants to be a good sport.

In any event, the child learns not to trust so quickly again, and that makes him lose the innocence that makes trusting children so charming. Teasing adults rob children of this precious gift. Cynical wiseacres--scoffing disrespectful children--are not born that way. Adults, who tease children just for the fun of it, create distrustful cynics. It is no wonder that children have become so suspicious and paranoid that they cannot get along with their parents or other children!

And hear this: Satan quotes Scripture exactly to prove lies unto the destruction of men. It is not the Scripture that is false, but the interpretation that Satan gives. If you have the Holy Spirit and knowledge of the whole Word of God in context, then you are much less likely to fall for false teachings.

Satan deceives by playing on your vanity, and flattering you. Sadly, pretentious intellectuals are most likely to be deceived in this way, because they pretend to know, when they do not know. Satan never uses simple language but prefers to confuse with flowery language and the jargon used in many professions such as legal and medical terms. Unfortunately, pseudo-intellectuals are so impressed by these absurd grandiloquent affectations that they quote them ostentatiously without a brain-cell of their own working.

Who is it that doesn’t understand anything Satan has to say? Fools, yes, but more than likely they are educated fools or "eggheads," who end up with egg all over their faces, too. These points are just two important ones that I failed to cover in my other writings. Therefore, I wrote this letter--just in case.

I wish I could remember who said, "Some ideas are so absurd that only intellectuals believe them." Since I cannot, I really shouldn’t quote him or her. Maybe, next time.

Satan has many names: Father of Lies, Deceiver, Destroyer, Devil (D-Evil) Accuser, god of this world, Murderer, Thief, Wicked One, and Old Serpent to mention a few. He is also known as the Antichrist, which should give you a clue as to who he is not. He deserves every one of those names, because his main object is to separate God’s people from Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is called the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition," which means eternal damnation or destruction--Hell.

His favorite way of deceiving is to accuse, tempt, and seduce man into believing that God does all the things that he himself does "in the name of the Lord." He uses the Lord’s name in vain--for his own vain purposes. For example: He murders blacks and Jews (K K K) and quotes Scripture to justify his evil deeds. He murders and destroys in the name of Jesus Christ, causing many victims to believe that The Lord is worse than Satan. Satan instills fear and he is behind all activity of terrorists.

That is the best reason I know for learning the names given to Satan and those given to Our Lord. If you know and understand their names and what their goals are, you will not so easily be taken in by Satan’s lies. Since Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, then you cannot recognize him by his eloquence, beautiful language that is so seductive, or by the way he dresses, and especially by the offices he holds or the professions he practices. He always manages to have the right credentials according to the standards of this world, and he promotes himself as an authority to convince the naive.

Your major defense is to know him by his goals and deeds. If anyone advocates murder, then he/she does not speak in the name of the Lord. If anyone puts a guilt-trip on you for your sins, then Satan is behind it. The Lord said that He came to save, not to condemn.

The Lord’s name is Savior, and Satan’s name is Destroyer. Satan would have you commit suicide by making you believe that you are worthless. The Lord is gentle and Satan is harsh and encourages revenge and violence. Satan is the author of "Don’t get mad--get even." He is known as the Antichrist, and his henchmen are called antichrists.

The Holy Bible says, "...the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

That is his purpose, and he will agree with anything that Jesus taught except the Gospel--or the Good News that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved and will be given eternal life. Satan will not say or permit any unsaved person to say or believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh who came to save us from our sins and set us free.

If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God and do not understand that Truth, then you are definitely enslaved by Satan. He is in control of your mind and thinking, and you are not free. The Word of God states that no one can say that Jesus Christ is Lord (Jehovah) but by the Holy Spirit. No one can have the Holy Spirit, unless he/she accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior on faith. Only the Holy Spirit can teach you the Truth after you confess your sins and agree to turn away from them by totally submitting yourself to Jesus as your Head.

I John 4: 2-3, "Hereby know ye the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. And this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come: and even now already is it in the world."

Do not think that "Christ," is Jesus Christ’s surname--like "Smith" or "Jones." "Christ" is a description of who He is. He is the "Christ" or the "Anointed One," who has God’s Spirit in Him, because He came out of the bosom of God the Father.

Satan will not permit anyone to believe in "The Christ," or recognize Him, because his goal is to destroy man or separate man from God. Since believing in "The Christ" is the only way man can be saved, Satan will do or say anything to prevent man from believing in Him.

Satan also tries to make us believe that God’s ways are a pain, boring, no fun, and will make us miserable, unhappy, emotionally ill, depressed, unworthy, poverty-stricken, lonely, and confused. But "God is not the author of confusion," I Corinthians 14:33.

One of the most important exercises you can do is study the names of the Lord, and confusion over the differences between the Lord and Satan will become clear. Confusion from trying to find your way in the dark will suddenly turn into the Light of day.

The Lord’s names are so many and so beautiful, that I cannot even begin to list them all. His best known names are Master, Teacher, Counselor, King of kings, Lord of lords, Savior, True Vine, The Anointed One, Emmanuel (God with us), Mighty God, Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and The End, Son of God, and Bread of Life. Please notice how many names that applied only to Jehovah in the Old Testament also apply to Jesus in the New Testament, because "Jesus" and "Jehovah" refer to the same God.

The Lord is Our Good Shepherd, The Lily of the Valley, The Door or The Only Way that we enter into the Kingdom of God. He is The Everlasting Father, The First and the Last, Head of the Body of Christ, Image of God, Judge, High Priest, Lamb of God, Lord of the Sabbath, Redeemer, Messiah or The Promised One who came to save the world.

He is the Prince of Peace, and the world will not be at peace until He returns. He is called a Great Prophet by all, but all do not believe His Word. He is the Resurrection and the Life, Rose of Sharon, and the Morning Star. He called Himself the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. He is the Light of the world, and no one can hide from Him, because His Light will expose all darkness and sin.

Finally, John said that He was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then John said that the Word created all things. Read John 1: 1-5 and then read verse 14, which says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Now, do you have a better idea concerning the difference between the Lord and His archenemy (another of Satan’s names)?

If we know the Lord’s names, we begin to know who Jesus really is and we can begin to draw closer to Him. Best of all, knowing the Lord’s names helps us to worship Him more effectively and sincerely. I know that I can praise the Lord wholeheartedly as I call Him by His names, which are a reminder as to who He is, and what He has sacrificed for us. And what He is willing and eager to continue to do for us--comfort, protect, teach, counsel, and provide for our needs. He also is our healer. The best way to worship the Lord is to exalt Him and magnify His Holy names.

While in San Jose, CA, we visited Winchester House. Since Shirley MacLaine advocated spiritualism in her movie, Out on a Limb, I wrote her a "love letter," and enclosed an account of what a monstrosity Winchester House was. I advised her that a widow who had dabbled in spiritualism until her life became a living hell filled with dread and consuming terror built the house.

The widow of the inventor and manufacturer of the Winchester rifle turned to spiritualism for solace after losing her older husband and their very young child within months of one another. She actually contacted spirits of one sort or another in an attempt to communicate with the only two loves of her life.

She had been a very bright, energetic, optimistic, and charming leader in all the best social circles on the East Coast. She was loved by all as a young, attractive, and gracious hostess. She and her successful husband had been very popular and sought after. It would seem that they had it all, and then "all" was taken away in a single breath--all but the vast wealth that the sale of Winchester repeating rifles had brought them. She was totally devastated.

Spiritualism was a very popular past time with the elite in the Nineteenth Century, and her friends offered to take her to a seance with the idea that speaking to her loved ones might give her peace. Unfortunately, she became hooked, and kept returning for more readings, which became more and more condemning and terrifying. She was advised by the "spirits" that she was guilty of spending "dirty money," earned by selling weapons of destruction. Her earnings, incidentally, were about $3,000.00 a day, a goodly sum in that day and virtually tax-free (about $50,000.00 a day now before taxes).

The "spirits" called themselves "guides" and presumed to give her advice as to how she could "do penance" for her sins--that of having wealth from an evil source. They "led" her to buy a farm on the west coast near San Jose, CA where Winchester House is now located. She continued to keep in touch with "guides" in her new home.

The "guides" directed her every move and said that she would suffer serious consequences, if she failed to do exactly as she was told. Finally, they told her that she must build on to the old farmhouse that was originally on the farm and continue to build without rest. If she stopped, she would die. That was the way she must spend the "dirty money" as a penance. She did as she was told, and the result was Winchester House, which at one point was almost destroyed by fire. Nevertheless, the remains are incredible.

We know that Satan was behind this, because Jesus said that He died for our sins and we are not required to pay for them. Also, the good that could have been done with so much money--and was done by Winchester himself as he donated vast sums toward the building of Yale University and other good works--was consumed by the devil on a useless, though very expensive, project. Also, the "spirits" also accused her of profiteering from the carnage her husband had caused. Satan is the accuser, not Jesus.

She kept building until she had built one hundred and sixty or so rooms, plus intricate gardens and outbuildings, but her never ending terror had turned her into a very bad-tempered recluse who was almost impossible for the workmen to please. She had them on the job seven days a week, day and night, and screamed when they needed time off, or wanted to quit. Naturally, she suffered even more, because of the constant loss of men who were not willing to work under those demanding circumstances.

Winchester House is a monstrous monument to the dangers of spiritualism. I cannot describe this project which is the epitome of all haunted houses. Extraordinarily expensive stained glass windows which depict spider webs, and other symbols we associate with Halloween. Since the widow did not really need the space, she was not too particular what was on the other side of windows and doors--just as long as the workmen continued to build.

Doors open to blank walls, and so do windows, so that it is impossible for light to shine through the stain-glass windows. Stairs ascend to nowhere. The original staircase was wide, but as the widow became older, she became arthritic. So, she had the stairs divided and added half steps between the original steps. The narrow staircases were easier to climb but were also dark and eerie, and they ended on a level with no rooms. "O. K. we can go back down--now that we saw this stain-glass window which opens to a blank wall!" we joked!

In addition to what is in the house, a countless number of building materials is stored in the warehouses on the property. Anyone want to buy an expensive but colorful owl or spider web? Not that they are for sale! The whole grotesque project seems to shout the warning of Jesus Christ, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." This lady definitely lost her life one terrible day at a time!

I never heard from Shirley MacLaine and did not expect to hear from her, but I do not believe that she is still "leaving her body." At least, we don’t hear as much about that anymore. Any attempts to seek guidance from spirits from the "other side" or dabbling in the occult (palmistry, astrology, numerology, Ouija boards, or other means of obtaining information from spirits) can be a means to inviting Satan to give the kind of guidance that will ultimately destroy. If you doubt that, go see Winchester House. It is an education as to how one should not spend one’s spare time. Why would anyone seek guidance from the Evil One, when Jesus offers so much more as a free gift?

The next letter was published in the local newspaper in response to the behavior of a presumptuous attorney, who thought he had heard it all!

Our son had called one attorney after another who could not for one reason or another represent him in a child custody case. One attorney agreed to an interview, and we accompanied our son to witness what was said, as the Lord Jesus Christ directed us to do.

The attorney was rude, crude, and insulting from the first word he spoke. He would not permit our son to explain why he wanted primary custody. Instead he asked irrelevant questions, permitting only "in one word" answers. (Yes or No). He concluded, "Unless your wife is on drugs, I see no reason why she should not have custody of the child."

I was so outraged that I interrupted, saying "No wonder our kids are getting pregnant out of wedlock, committing crimes, turning to drugs in their misery, and committing suicide, if everything goes but doing drugs!" Until that outburst, my husband and I had simply sat by and said not a word.

As I spoke, I handed the attorney a letter written to our son’s ex-attorney in response to a letter his ex-wife’s attorney had written him with false accusations and making unreasonable demands. Since our son had no attorney "of this world" at the time, and his ex-wife’s attorney asked him to respond to the letter immediately through his attorney, the letter’s heading stated it was from the Lord Jesus Christ by His Holy Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit helped write the response, and that He did represent us.

(Mark 13: 11) states, "But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost."

This attorney took one look at me, scoffed, and stated, "I will have nothing to do with ‘Jesus ‘Freaks’." He abruptly left the room, and so did we!

(I should mention before quoting the rest of the letter that I was thoroughly convinced that the Holy Spirit led me to challenge this attorney, and hand him the letter. I also know that the Holy Spirit led me to write the expose and pay to have it published in the newspaper that is read by most of central Illinois. I know that, because the laws in the state of Illinois are a disgrace concerning the custody of children.

Attorneys and judges make no provisions whatsoever for the welfare of the child and make it impossible for a reconciliation to take place between the parents. But of course, there is no money for attorneys if the couple stops fighting and is reconciled! Satan is definitely in charge of the hell children go through in Illinois. Anyway--I’ll continue with the letter concerning that particular attorney’s outrageous and contemptible--but typical--behavior. The rest of my letter is addressed to the attorney’s remark about "Jesus Freaks.")

Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were "Jesus Freaks," who put their trust in the Lord and the Word of God. Washington flatly stated that no man could rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible as his guide. Lincoln also declared that the Lord led him in making decisions.

On the other hand, neither Saddam Hussein nor Hitler even pretended to be "Jesus

Freaks." Since "Birds of a feather flock together," I am totally convinced that the judges and attorneys of Champaign County are definitely not "Jesus Freaks." Make no mistake, persecution of Christians is being escalated and our children are being held as hostages by the god of this world, but Rejoice!

The Word of God states that increased activity on the part of Satan simply means that his time is getting short and he just wants to a get one last miserable lick in before Our Lord Jesus Christ returns and puts him out of business forever and ever.

I was called formally into service on my sixtieth birthday by the Lord to expose the deceptions of Satan. Since that time, the Lord has led me into one situation after another so that I would see for myself Satan’s wickedness and power to deceive. He even deceives Christians who are not walking close to Him.

Therefore, I cannot end this letter without asking all those who have been involved in battles in courtrooms, which is Satan’s territory (he is god of this world), to confess your sins, repent or turn away from them, and ask the Lord to be your Savior.

It is not too late until this fat lady sings her last song.

That is the end of the letter that was published, but I received more responses from it than from any other that I ever wrote. Since I lived out of town and our phone number was under my husband’s name (I write using my first name), it was not easy to obtain my phone number. However, many did!

But the one response I received that was the most rewarding one that I had ever received in my life was the result of this letter. A young man called and asked me if I was the lady who wrote the letter. I said, "Yes." He said that he had been contemplating suicide all night, trying to decide how to do it, when "something told him" to buy a Sunday morning paper.

He said that he did, and he opened it at once to the letter that I had written, which caught his eye (See headline above that caught his eye.). He said he read it over and over and over. Finally, he had a sense of peace, and decided he did have a reason to live after all. He concluded, "I called to thank you." It was about 4 p.m. in the afternoon. I was overwhelmed at his words, and stammered a question, "What was it that I wrote that made you change your mind or do you want to talk about it?"

He hastily repeated, "I just wanted to thank you." Then he hung up. I do not know who he was, but he certainly made me realize that the Lord is indeed with me, and if my writings never accomplish another thing, I will have that one phone call to reassure me that my efforts have not been in vain. This young man’s call also confirmed that some attorney may have almost caused a young man to take his own life!

This letter is a warning against PhD’s who write books. Unfortunately, inexperienced critics, impressed with credentials and masterful chop logic are too often deceived by the jargon of the worldly wise and the grandiloquent language of doctors and professors. So, they have nothing to say, but who cares? They say it so beautifully! Beware!

Have you ever played the game called "telephone" or "gossip" as a child? A dozen or so kids line up and the "head" whispers a brief message to the next child who repeats it to the next until the "tail" repeats what he heard aloud.

What began as a knock-knock joke is changed by a mischievous kid to "Margaret has knocked knees" and modified by one who pities Margaret to "Margaret’s dog has fleas" which is announced and all laugh. Note the subjectivity involved.

Psychologists, sociologists, and alleged educators are masters of this game. These "social scientists" ignore all the inductive methods of research, because they probably did not take (or could not pass) any science or mathematics courses beyond high school in the first place. Or so it would seem, considering the conclusions they reach.

Most of their books, which I tried to understand but they made no sense, rely on Mitler’s law ("Presume what you will, and obtain facts to prove the presumption."). The alleged authorities on the rearing of children and family problems are often single and divorced. If they do have kids, they obviously leave them with nannies and grannies.

Such "authorities" quote other "authorities" who quote others ad nauseum to prove their points. And they make a point to pick and carefully choose those statements that support their original presumptions (Remember: Mitler’s law?). To check that statement out, do as I did to qualify me to make it in the first place. Actually, look up their sources, which few people do, unless they are writing a book that they want to validate.

With diligence, persistence, and determination, you will "consider the source" and learn that much is lost in the translation or invented. However, the worst scenario is that these pseudo-scientists often base their presumptions on pre-historic relics. They "psych out" what pre-historic man allegedly thought on the basis of his thigh bone which is connected to his missing knee bone on one end and his missing hip bone on the other, yet somehow can emit vibrations given off by his brain, which has turned to dust.

They not only can tell you what the man thought and did, but they presume to know "why he did it" without any written records to support their "guessological" (I made that word up) conclusions. If you fall for that nonsense, ask God to save you. He shall, and that is a law that has been tested and proved by millions.

Statements and testimonies concerning God’s willingness to save us are well recorded and have survived at least 6000 years. But if you prefer to believe some modern guru who reaches his "scientific conclusions" by waving his magic wand above a jawbone, then why should I not shake the dust from my feet?

I probably won’t, because I hate it when little minds are deceived. It’s a

"God-gone" shame!

Unfortunately, these "old fools" are regarded as authorities, and are quoted without question by thousands of parrots all over the world who are more impressed with titles than they are with diverse and sufficient data to warrant logical and objective conclusions. The problem may be that it’s more like little boys playing games with other peoples lives than a case of "old fools" without a brain cell working. Maybe both!

I apologize for expressing what sounds like utter contempt for such apparent ignorance and/or innocence instead of being more compassionate, but does anyone really want pity or would they prefer to start thinking for themselves?

I implied that no one is stupid just because he/she believes those whom we all have been conditioned to believe since early childhood--doctors, attorneys, professors, the boss, and even the president! I just want to advise that all of the above authorities are mere human beings subject to the same prejudices, bigotry, character weaknesses, pride, and self-interest as all other men regardless of their station in life. Only the "elite" that I just mentioned can be infinitely more dangerous--may even cost you your souls!

Educated fools are more articulate in the art of deception, more likely to achieve positions of wealth and power, and--unfortunately--they are much more prone to exercise their authority to oppress, rob, and exploit.

It is not the troubled kids on the street or even the ones who are in gangs who can hurt you as much as the fools in high places that mankind is inclined to trust. I have learned over the years to test all that I read by comparing it to the Word of God. If the material is not according to God’s Word, then I just put it on a shelf in my brain, until more evidence is discovered. So far, science has come full circle to proving that God’s Word was right in the first place, and I have read nothing that has proved it wrong. Have you heard the latest about when dinosaurs roamed the earth?

Darwin’s theory is impossible to believe, unless man can believe that spontaneous generation is possible. The whole idea hinges on the fact that millions of years ago spontaneous generation occurred "when conditions were right" for the simplest form of life to come into existence--then subsequently evolved into higher forms of life.

Problem: Only one example of "spontaneous generation" has ever been recorded in the history of the world, and the "conditions for life" have vastly improved since the earth was nothing but bare rock surrounded by mist!

Yet, one scientist thought he discovered such a case, because he observed what he thought to be a horsehair swimming like a living organism in a horse tank, and submitted for publication his hypothesis that he had discovered a case of "spontaneous generation" from a horsehair. The publisher of the scientific journal obviously bought the story.

Later, a scientist investigating the case observed an organism that resembled the alleged horsehair emerging from a dead cricket. He suspected that the organism was a parasite of crickets and proved it.

I find it easier to believe that the most ideal conditions for spontaneous generation to occur is the womb of the highest form of life on earth--the womb of a woman--than to believe that a horsehair could suddenly become a living organism in a horse tank!

The egg in Mary’s womb had all that was needed to sustain life, except a trigger--a microscopic sperm. Man is an arrogant jackass to insist that his sperm is more potent than God!

The sex of unborn offspring is determined by chromosomes that produce females called "X" chromosomes, and chromosomes that produce males called "Y" chromosomes. The females produce only eggs with "X" chromosomes, and males produce sperm cells with both "X" chromosomes and "Y" chromosomes in equal numbers.

Since the female egg has an equal chance of being fertilized with an "X" chromosome producing a female offspring or a "Y" chromosome producing a male offspring, all gamblers know that an equal number of females and males would be produced by chance--or by design?

Statistics bear out the fact that throughout recorded history, an equal number of females and males have been produced in all nations and all tribes. My question: Was this phenomenon planned by a master planner, or perhaps, the academic hustlers of Darwinism have a better explanation--unless they also taught themselves to read in one day at the age three.

As a 17-year-old naive teenager, I raised such questions in biology class at our great university, and was ordered out of class without any explanation. "No wrath like that of a woman scorned," especially a dedicated Christian without fear and engaged in spiritual warfare against atheistic propaganda promoted by Satan.

One section of the book that I wrote, The Voice I Hear by Nai-Eve, is called "Love Letters as in Love Your Enemies." I even pray for them, but intend to mercifully expose deliberate deceptions to prevent the enemies of Our Lord from exploiting others.

The Letter-to-the-editor below was written in response to mine but was totally beside the point. (Published September 21, 1997, in The News Gazette, Champaign, IL 61820.) I "corrected" the misunderstanding in my next letter.

In a recent letter to The News Gazette, Pat W---- recounted her experience at age 17 of being thrown out of a university biology class for asking a simple question --is the equal production of sexes in humans a result of divine planning or chance?

From an evolutionary perspective, stable sex ratios are most likely due to natural selection that operates in a frequency-dependent fashion. An elegant test of this hypothesis was performed recently by Alexandra Basolo at the University of Austin (American Naturalist, vol. 144, p. 473).

Dr. Basolo studied a species of fish in which sex is determined by three genetic factors. By manipulating the frequencies of the genes, he was able to alter the sex ratio from 1:1 ratio typical for the fish to 4:1. Within two generations, the sex ratio of the population returned to the 1:1 ratio.

What had happened was quite simple. Basolo observed that the majority sex had difficulty in finding mates and consequently produced few offspring. The gene combinations that caused the sex ratio to be skewed were then selectively disadvantageous, and in relatively short order, gene combinations resulting in the production of equal numbers of sexes prevailed.

Although human sex ratios are largely controlled by two genetic factors as explained by W---- sex ratios at birth are rarely exactly one female for each male. In most human populations, there is a statistically significant excess of males. The excess is not great; it’s on the order of 1 to 5 more males than expected in a sample of 100 individuals. Factors such as race, season, birth order, and the father’s age also influence human sex ratios at birth. Wells can now take comfort that an answer to her question has finally been provided.

ARTHUR ZANGERL, Urbana

September 22, 1997 NAI-EVE

Arthur Zangerl missed my point--that chance determines the sex of offspring. Granted--genetics determine that male sperms have "X" chromosomes and "Y" chromosomes in almost equal numbers and that female eggs have all "X" chromosomes.

But I question what evolution has to do with which sperm fertilizes which egg. If by chance, mathematicians state that eventually it must result in a 1:1 ratio.

Since the female survival rate exceeds that of the male at birth and because females are less violent and less inclined to take risks, I also suggest that the Lord planned for the slight excess in the production of "Y" chromosomes to compensate for these factors. Zangerl agrees that a significant excess of male chromosomes is produced. Oddly, even more "Y" chromosomes are produced in time of war! Explain that genetically! I say that God wants all of us to have mates, and has arranged for that to be so.

Neither mutations, environmental conditions, nor induced trauma by ambitious scientists (Dr. Basolo, for example) have been able to permanently alter the 1:1 ratio of sex determination. Basolo’s experiments only reinforces my point, since the sex ratio of the organisms in his experiments reverted back to the 1:1 ratio in two generations, according to Zangerl.

Incidentally, the professor who rudely ordered me out of his class did so when I asked about the symbiotic relationships between organisms in which both organisms are mutually dependent on factors in each other for survival. Does one organism hang in limbo, while the other goes through "thousands of years" of mutation to satisfy the other’s needs and/or vice versa? Are you "comfortable" with that "frequency--dependent" question, Mr. Zangerl? My professor was not!

(Zangerl ignored the fact that the ignorant professor taught at the University of Illinois!)

The average age of death of the eight males and eight females, listed in the obituary column of the Sunday, July 20, issue of The News Gazette, is age 74 for males and age 81 for females--a difference of seven years.

Not much has changed in forty years, despite breakthroughs in medical science and/or a life threatening increase in air pollution, toxic materials in foods, and substance abuse. So, what are the factors most important to longevity?

My cousins who have either MD or PhD (research scientists) after their names, have privately expressed the following opinions at family reunions (paraphrased):

1. I am forced to prescribe medications that I know patients do not need, because they insist.

2. Young women use advertised douches that destroy the most potent safe germicide known to man which naturally exists in the vagina, and then expect me to cure burning, itching, and malodorous vaginal and urinary tract infections that would not exist if they did not douche.

3. The best medicine for viral infections that do not respond to antibiotics is chicken soup, liquids in quantity, complete bed rest, and aspirin to relieve malaise ("can’t get comfortable" feeling).

4. If I could prescribe only one miracle drug, it would be aspirin, which reduces inflammation, temperatures, relieves pain and malaise, prevents blood clots, and is generally safer than less effective drugs.

5. Eliminating cold symptoms (higher body temperature, nasal mucous, and coughs)--which are nature’s way of destroying bacteria--by taking over-the-counter drugs and anti-histamines only prolongs the illness in the long run.

Longevity may improve if fear promoted by hawks selling beauty, health, youth, and escape-from-guilt in bottles were replaced by faith in God’s power to heal that is within us all (our natural immune system).

October 4, l997

As a Christian who never identified with any political organization and separated myself from dogmatic and divisive denominational creeds as a youngster, I think I am qualified to explain the Promise-Keepers, who have done the same. We are members of the body of Christ, because we have made Him Our Lord and Savior by faith, even though we may have various church affiliations. My two oldest sons are in Washington D. C. as I write, and have supported Promise-Keepers from the beginning.

True Christians belong to no exclusive clubs controlled by Satan and designed to confuse and deceive both men and women--bringing them into bondage to be robbed and destroyed. Jesus Christ came to set all mankind free from that bondage to divisive political, religious, social, and economic leaders in power who insist on "individual rights" at the expense of others with opposing but equally destructive viewpoints.

The Lord called Himself a jealous God comparing Himself to a husband, who wanted all men and women to have a personal relationship with Him--not depending on any other individual or organization--which He called idolatry, comparing the unfaithful to an adulterous wife. No one has ever shown more respect for women than Jesus did.

However, the Promise-Keepers regard women as equals to men.

Recognizing that the majority--regardless of race, sex, or religious affiliations held Christian values, the Republicans adapted their platform to the pro-life, pro-family, anti-sinful agenda a la Martin Luther King and Billy Graham. Politics adapted to Christians--not vice versa--to get votes. Unfortunately, the Democrats took money from the mafia, homosexuals, and the NOW-ERA man-haters, none of whom are PROMISE-KEEPERS.

October 8, l997

Our eldest son attended the first Promise-Keepers meeting in Colorado in 1991.

He said that none are encouraged to attend conventions, but none can stay away for bringing guests. Since each man pays his own expenses, attendance is easy to calculate by the independent auditors who manage the finances, but is considered irrelevant to their cause and announcing their phenomenal successes only arouses jealous back-biting.

Our son, an electrical engineer employed by Guidant Corp. in St Paul, typically understates everything. He said that the reason Promise-Keepers do not request donations, is that each man--regardless of any or no past affiliations--pledges his life and income to serve his first love, Jesus Christ, and receives the Holy Spirit, who guides, directs, comforts, delivers, and teaches each man individually, changing his life.

Each man pledges to serve his family first, then his community, his Church, and his state, believing the nation will follow. He also pledges to give his testimony to others as to how the Holy Spirit changed his life.

If two believe and each one of them wins two more, then the Gospel will escalate around the world without cost to anyone. Naturally, government officials, Evangelistic Associations, and denominations, that insist "it takes money," criticize Promise-Keepers.

Read the parable, "The Wedding Feast," in Matthew 22, describing what Jesus can and will do by His Spirit. The "wedding garment" is the Holy Spirit Jesus gives to sincere believers, available to all who confess, repent, and ask.

October 19, 1997

The two fastest growing grass-root groups in this country are made up of men--the Ku Klux Klan and Promise-Keepers. These two groups have similar goals but are diametrically opposed to each other as to how these goals can be achieved. Paradoxically, both groups claim to be inspired by the Lord Jesus Christ, but one of these groups must be the Pretender, or the Antichrist, led by Satan. One group is composed of wolves in "sheet’s" clothing, and the other is composed of sheep.

As for philosophies, both groups are against "big government" which both groups believe is not qualified to solve all the problems of all the people at the expense of all taxpayers. They both clearly see that the government’s attempts to do so have been colossal failures. They both believe that it is their personal responsibility to solve these problems by governing themselves and others, if this country is to survive.

The KKK members believe they must take law enforcement into their own hands, because they are sick of living in fear of other terrorists, gang members, drug dealers, escalating crime among juveniles, which they blame on the ineffective bumbling, fumbling court system, which obviously favors the lawless over victims. They also blame aggressive women, blacks in ghettos, illegal aliens (Hispanics), disease-ridden addicts, homosexuals, and political leftists, whom they claim have been appeasing minority groups by favoring their rights over the rights of the majority--"themselves."

The KKK (Kill, Kill, Kill) members believe it is their responsibility to correct these evils personally, because the government has failed at their expense.

Men in Promise-Keepers think that it is their responsibility to govern themselves. But they see Jesus Christ--not as an avenging god--but as One who laid down His life to save all mankind, loving, giving, serving, and forgiving, and tearing down Satan’s prisons to set all men free to govern themselves, their own families, and their own property.

They see no need for higher taxes for more social workers, more government, and more police attempting to provide for and protect that which they admit they failed to do themselves.

One group agrees with the Moslems and the Israelites--at war with each other ever since Abraham--that God is a vengeful, eye-for-an-eye, no-nonsense god, who inflicts the ultimate punishment on those who break his laws--prison, death, and eternal damnation. The other group sees God as One who desires to bless, serve, give, forgive, and promises eternal life to ALL those who accept Him as Lord and Master, or He MUST (is required to) separate all rebels from believers forever on Judgment Day to ensure everlasting peace. One wicked person can destroy the peace of many.

Even now, as the Word of this same God--claimed by both sides--states, the sheep and goats are being separated--but not by race color or creed--because members of all races lean towards one of these philosophies or the other. Members of all ethnic backgrounds, denominations, religions, evangelistic, political, social, and intellectual persuasions either agree with the philosophy expressed by the KKK or that expressed by Promise-Keepers. Forget the labels and decide which one is your philosophy. You are free to choose.

The sheep are from all classes and so are the goats. Problem: Which group represents the Antichrist--the Pretender--Satan? And which group believes that Jesus Christ’s way, as they understand it, is the only way to peace, which will ultimately triumph.

You know what you believe in your hearts. Which philosophy scares you? Do you agree with the KKK or Promise-Keepers as described above? I hope I clarified the confusion--which obviously exists from what is published in this newspaper--because that is what the Lord Jesus Christ called me to do. Give Him a break.

October 21, 1997

In Greek mythology, Narcissus, the son of a god and noted for his beauty, was warned that seeing his own reflection could cost him his life. Vengeful gods caused him to fall in love with his own reflection in a spring and--according to one account--he fell in love with himself and drowned trying to reach is "beloved."

In psychiatry, the mythological term, narcissism, describes a subject, intensely concerned with his own body to the point that gratifying his own physical pleasures, lusts, and welfare takes precedence over all other concerns, regardless of any grief, pain, or loss he may inflict on others. The narcissistic personality is likely to become the worldly-wise sociopath, who is an unconscionable confidence person, capable of committing horrendous crimes, assuming the air of an innocent victim.

In recent years, the narcissistic sociopath has increased in epidemic proportions. Since heredity remains at a relatively constant rate, a drastic increase in any particular personality disorder MUST be attributed to environmental conditions. Since most imprisoned violent criminals who lack remorse come from fatherless homes, and single mothers have radically increased, isn’t it logical to relate these two phenomena?

So, why would anyone fear men who admit their past failures as responsible fathers and husbands and are committed to being better MALE role models for their offspring as caretakers and loving servants of their own families? Promise-Keeper members pledge themselves to give, forgive, love and provide for the welfare of their own families. Perhaps, their critics have a hidden political agenda of their own?

November 9, 1997

The Promise-Keepers’ march was in sharp contrast to the black women’s march and to the black men’s march in one respect. Only black folks were involved in the latter marches, stating their unity as Afro-Americans, but not as Americans of all races. Despite the lack of coverage by the national media of the Promise-keepers, I was able to "attend" the entire session via WFHL, the Decatur-based Christian station.

During the entire program, men representing a diversity of backgrounds sat on the platform, while the speakers of equal diversity addressed each area that the Promise-Keepers pledged their lives to fulfill when they returned home. They pledged to serve Jesus Christ first, family second, then local churches and communities, and finally their respective states and our country.

One man wore a striking Native American costume with Indian headdress, one man wore the robe and skullcap of a Jewish rabbi, one was of Hispanic (Catholic) background, one was definitely an Afro-American in beautiful native robes, and one man was Chinese-American. All of them pledged their lives to serve the Savior of all men in unity and brotherhood, Jesus Christ.

Even more impressive was the camaraderie expressed by all the men, seen when the TV cameras panned the vast audience made up of as many black and brown-skinned men as white, greeting one another with warm expressions of mutual love in Christ. Their sincerity inspired tears of joy as I prayed, sang, and praised the Lord along with those men, thankful that one march was not racist and divisive.

Who has not heard the alleged myth about the Tower of Babel? The tower was to be built in Babylonia, reputedly the seat of wickedness, which the builders hoped would reach the source of all wisdom and power, we call God. However, God reportedly put a sudden halt to the project by causing the builders to speak in different languages resulting in total confusion.

I referred to this incident as an "alleged myth," because God has continued to create barriers in communication to confound men, preventing them from becoming too powerful in their attempts to brainwash the common man for personal gain. The legalese jargon of lawyers as well as medical jargon are examples of these attempts to deceive clients and patients to make them unnecessarily dependent on them.

However, the theories of one generation are discounted by those who invent new jargon and definitions related to the same basic facts (concerning nutrition, weight loss, and ads for non-prescription drugs, for example), causing discord within the ranks.

The same phenomena occur in all academic disciplines, because all alleged information is based on half-truths and the vain imaginations of bigots and/or others that have personal agenda to promote for the sake of power and to satisfy greed.

Only one set of books--66 in number--have stood the test of time and survived all attempts to distort the original text and meaning, The Holy Bible, written and preserved by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Those books are still best sellers.

September 3, 1997

An ancient East Indian allegory is about an elephant observed by five blind men touching different parts of an elephant and reporting what they learned. One man holding the elephant’s tail said he was like a rope. The others in turn said his side was like a wall, his leg was like a tree trunk, his trunk was like a python, and his ear was like a large fan. None of them were wrong per se, but none of them knew what an elephant was like.

The most pathetic human beings on earth are those pseudo-intellectuals who think they know it all, when "all they know"--or are willing to acknowledge--is what they can observe through their five senses. These blind guides refuse to recognize any other "knowing" without realizing what we learn through our senses is "not knowing" anything at all.

A child can be taught to count to ten, and even be taught to point to specific objects as he "counts," but he cannot be taught to make a connection between the abstract idea of numbering objects to numbering other objects. Abstract knowledge that can be applied creatively comes from within--in a flash of "inner knowing."

What man learns through his five senses may be factual, but it often leads to self-deception, rather than to understanding of truth. The "elephant never forgets" refers to rote memory, but the elephant analogy refers to spiritual "memory" brought to our conscious minds from within--namely "absolute truth."

September 4, 1997

Why are the rich and famous celebrities using Diana’s death to attack the paparazzi (free-lance photographers), instead of considering the real cause of Diana’s death? Is it because photographs don’t lie, and celebrities are more concerned about suppressing truth than about changing their sinful life styles?

Instead of blaming the driver’s drunken state for his speeding, why did the allegedly "responsible multimedia" suddenly switch to attacking the paparazzi? Was their concern really that the tabloids encourage free-lance photographers with high prices to catch the rich and famous in sinful acts of fornication, drug and alcohol abuse, and homosexual or other abusive and destructive practices?

Do not be deceived. Instead of canceling tabloids, boycott those slick publications that are pawns of the wicked powerful, and fawn over every superficial detail of their lives (dress, diet, exercise, cosmetic surgeries, and allegedly saving their multi-marriages with bizarre sex indulgences over and over and over ad nauseum).

No wonder John Kennedy, Jr., who lost a dad and an uncle to cover-ups, exposed his family’s dirty linen, and raised the question in George, "Is their hope for this nation?"

"George," (Washington, the hero of the cherry tree myth?) has ever been symbolic of TRUTH.

September 9,1997

I am unconvinced that the alleged unfortunate experiences of celebrities are sufficient excuse for curtailing our guaranteed basic freedoms. Freedom of the press, exercised by courageous reporters everywhere, has exposed fraud in the billions at all levels of government, and ensured the safety of private citizens from political crimes, persecution, torture, and even mass murders.

Patrick Henry stated that he may not agree with his opponents, but he would fight to the death to defend their right to express their opinions. He was defending freedom of expression--press, speech, and religion. I heartily agree with his position--not that the press has been kind to me! Slanderous publicity cost me my home and only possession!

All too often, mass hysteria results in public outcries to curtail our precious freedoms, so that everyone pays dearly for the sake of a few. We should review why our forefathers fought so hard for our freedoms, before we permit isolated tragedies to trigger thoughtless reactions to trash the freedoms designed to protect us all from exploitation by wicked oppressors in power--who have always attempted to tyrannize the masses.

Free-lance photographers have risked their lives for riches to provide the tabloids and other media with hard evidence that prevented many of their alleged victims from denying their guilt. But can anyone estimate the millions of dollars and number of lives they might have saved? We should think twice before we open a can of worms that could devour us all.

THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

September 14, l997

Princess Diana is the Roman goddess of today, named for Diana, goddess of the hunt, domestic animals, and fertility. Women worshipped her and expected her to protect them in childbirth. The worship of Princess Diana ("Loved" is an abuse of the term, because no one knew her.) is tantamount to the pagan worship of gods and goddesses in decadent Rome.

Elvis, the King--also worshipped and even resurrected periodically--and Diana are sex symbols. Both celebrities courted publicity as long as it "favorably" projected the "right" image, which included the flaunting of their sex appeal and conquests. Hollywood "gods" and "goddesses" as well as political idols are also noted for their self-indulgences in alcohol and drugs, which are related to pagan orgies and sorcery.

Diana declared her desire to promote charities to benefit the poor--winning the friendship of Mother Teresa. In reality, Diana promoted her decadent lifestyle, inspiring millions to invest in cosmetics, surgeries, diet programs, and revealing fashions instead of donating their time and money to the poor. Diana posed with the needy, but "sacrificed" lip service only, not literally tending to their needs.

Regrets were expressed that these two "beloved" women died so close together, because Mother Teresa’s death was clouded by Diana’s extravagant publicity. I believe that the Lord took Mother Teresa home when He did to dramatize just how decadent the world has become. He wanted to remind us how much we need to repent before it is too late!

September 27, 1997

I pray for my enemies, because I KNOW they will suffer eternal damnation, if they do not repent. I KNOW that Jesus Christ exists, and is God in the flesh, because He healed fourteen huge crippling carbuncles on my legs by the next morning after I prayed at the age of four asking Him to do so.

At the age of nineteen, in gratitude for countless blessings, I organized over seventy high school students to present the story of Christ’s birth during the Christmas Holidays called, "Star Over Bethlehem."

I chose a lovely compassionate girl who was seriously crippled from polio to play Mary, who gave a "prophecy" concerning "her Son’s" suffering to come. I rehearsed every detail of the pageant personally, made the costumes, paid all expenses--including the largest auditorium in town--while fulfilling my responsibilities as a rural school teacher--including janitorial chores and building fires for heat every morning--and even tutoring students in their homes after hours--Christy style. My salary was $125.00 a month.

The auditorium was packed, admission was free, and my parents said there wasn’t a dry eye in the audience--at first, too stunned to applause--but finally giving a standing ovation. So, why does David Kaul presume that nobody wants to be like Mother Teresa, saying she gave "only comfort," when lives were drastically altered because of the faith she and other saints have fostered? Why would anyone take Kaul seriously? He is so blind as to what really matters, and cynical about those who do understand.

Of course, the Kaul’s of the world could never have deterred Mother Teresa or me. They should be pitied, more than blamed. I should drop a quarter in Kaul’s hat!

On the other hand, I once asked the Lord, "Why don’t my enemies in this county believe me?" He answered, "Welcome to the club. They don’t believe me, either."

Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" And men have been perplexed by that question throughout all recorded history.

Jesus proclaimed that He was the Truth, that the Truth would make men free, and that no one could come unto the Father (God), except by Him.

George Bernard Shaw said that anyone who dared to speak the truth had better make it funny or "they" would kill him. "They" did kill Jesus!

The best-known and best-loved humorists practiced speaking the truth, exposing the hypocrisies of rich and powerful men who nearly died laughing at their "jokes."

"Died" is appropriate, because the rich and powerful throughout history have met their demise, because of cartoonists, court jesters, satirists, and buffoons, who wielded their deadly wit as a two-edged sword so skillfully that their unsuspecting victims plummeted to their "graves" chuckling--tickled to death.

Volumes are filled with Lincoln’s droll remarks that vanquished his foes, and Jonathan Swift’s, Gulliver’s Travels, satirized England’s elite so successfully that all England got the message--except "the elite."

Carroll O’Connor, Jeff Foxworthy, and even Will Rogers, Bob Hope, and Mark Twain still leave their victims in stitches over their own shortcomings and weaknesses.

If wit is a gift, The Lord gave it to peoples who have undergone years and years of persecution by half-wits. Jews and Blacks, I believe, make the funniest jokes. I consider a sense of humor one of the more priceless blessings from the Lord, because I love the truth, especially when it makes me laugh.

My Epitaph will read, "She loved the Truth above all else. No one dared say, Here "lies" Pat Wells." Christians don’t "lie" in graves, either.

I love to write about all the times the Lord pulled my irons out of the fires of hell, because I am deeply grateful, but His teachings are so much more fascinating--partly because he can teach profound lessons based on the simplest events or even something a little silly!

Most of you have watched commercials in which a little bunny keeps going and going and going, because he is powered by Energizer batteries that never say "die."

For a while, this very famous bunny escaped from various wicked attacks by those generally associated with satanic forces. The Wicked Witch from the West failed because she began melting, while the unconcerned little pink bunny just kept going.

He escaped from the vampire that fell from exhaustion while the bunny kept right on going. Vultures, circling overhead, expected the bunny to succumb to the desert heat, but they fell to the ground, while our bunny continued unaware on his way.

Maybe the cute little bunny is unaware of all the evil predators around him, because he is wearing dark glasses. Or maybe he is just single-minded about his goal, because he looks neither to his right nor to his left. Either way, he knew no fear.

While I was laughing at one of these commercials, the Lord spoke to me, saying,

"I want you to be like that bunny, because you are powered by my Holy Spirit, and no evil can ever befall you. Do not let anything frighten you. Just keep your mind on me, and keep going and going and going." I really needed to hear that at the time.

Because Aaron and Miriam, siblings of Moses, were critical of Moses for his choice of one wife, a black Ethiopian beauty, the Lord appeared to the three of them. He said he called Moses into service, because He could speak to him in a way he had never been able to speak directly to any man before. God called Moses the meekest man who ever lived in Numbers 12:19.

The Lord explained that Moses was meek, which meant that Moses was more open to teaching and capable of understanding. He hearkened to God’s messages, meaning he listened and promptly obeyed God. God did not mean that Moses was weak. The Lord was angry with Miriam and Aaron for criticizing Moses whom God had chosen and favored.

"Meek" as most of us understand it today means "weak and wimpy," and it is not a word that I would have chosen to describe the most fearless--and probably greatest leader of men who ever lived--during Old Testament times. Therefore, I found that particular passage to be very enlightening--and useful as it turned out!

Years went by and my children became teen-agers. Oh, glory! Let’s face it. I did on occasion raise my voice to them, especially when they seemed to be ignoring my sage advice. They loved to needle me about my not quite measuring up to my deepest religious convictions. That accusation annoyed me no end!

One day, one of them challenged, "Mom, why aren’t you meek like Jesus tells us to be. I really do not think you have a chance in a million of inheriting the earth!"

That is when I remembered! I retorted, "Moses was called the meekest man of all men who had ever lived, because he LISTENED! Did you hear me? He LISTENED!

What do you want me to do to prove I am meek, kill six Egyptians? (I have six kids.) Or smash tablets of home over their heads." That was the last time they said I wasn’t meek.

February 10th is my birthday, and the weather outside is usually frightful. Most of my birthdays found me alone and quite often snowbound. Just the day before my 68th birthday, a young man had appeared on my doorstep, and I was alone then, also.

All the teen-agers who were in and out of my home and even the three who were making their home in my residence were on errands or working. I should mention my own children were grown and gone. These kids were those who needed a place to stay for one reason or another. My husband had died, and I began by hiring them to do yard work. The rest escalated from there.

I did not recognize the face above the over-six-foot and almost 200-lb frame. He was polite and asked me if he could spend the night. This was not at all unusual. Many kids showed up on my doorstep with that request, and I do not recall ever turning any away. Not that I wasn’t warned that my "open-door" policy could be dangerous! Because I knew that some of the kids who came to me were desperate. I even had a sign on my door saying that I never called the police, but I informed all of them that if the police came to my door looking for them, I would not deny them entrance. I also told them that I would not lie for them, and that I would give the police permission to search the premises without a warrant.

Furthermore, my home was posted, "No drugs, no alcohol, and no paraphernalia for drugs. If I see any, I’ll trash it, and I will be looking." I told them that if the police found drugs in my home, then we could all lose our residence. They knew the laws better than I did, and they definitely understood that one!

The best part was that most of the kids wanted an excuse to say, "No," and their excuse was noble, which always appeals to teens. "We wouldn’t do anything to hurt a nice lady like Mrs. W----." And I knew they would not.

So much for the circumstances, now I shall tell you the story. I guess I live by the verse, Hebrews 13: 2, "Let brotherly love continue. Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unaware." I also liked to remind myself that "Love casts out fear." In my case it did, because my heart really went out to these kids. But no one who knew me thought I was foolhardy, either! Anyway, the Lord told me a legion of angels with drawn flaming swords protected the premises. What was so funny to me, is that the kids said they saw them! I knew they were not afraid of the police, who did harass them.

I asked the stranger, "Who sent you to me?" He told me, but I did not recognize the name, and it wasn’t on my list of about sixty names with phone numbers in case I needed to contact anyone’s parents, guardians, or whatever. Something told me it was safe to invite him in, and I knew it was the leading of the Holy Spirit. I know His voice.

When the other kids came straggling in, they noticed the newcomer asleep on the sofa, and asked, "Who’s that dude?" Before I could answer, they began lecturing me for my "fool-hardiness" and for letting complete strangers in when they were not home. They said that I could get killed or something. I could not believe my ears!

I reminded them that they were complete strangers to me, when I took them in. But they insisted, "that was different," because none of them knew who this guy was.

When I told them who sent him, they were really upset! They obviously did know him!

Incidentally, the seventeen-year-old runaway from Oregon had hitchhiked to Illinois and met the guy who sent him to me. Before he fell asleep, he poured out his troubles for two solid hours. I must have said all the right things, because the next morning, he awakened, and asked if he could shower, because he was planning to return to Oregon and make peace with his dad, who was divorced from his mother. I fed him before he left. I loved that birthday present, but that is not all.

That same evening, dozens of kids--some I had never seen before--filed into my very large great room--about 32 by 50, included the open kitchen, at about 9: 30 p.m.

The whole area was full of shining, smiling faces still rosy from the bitter cold outside.

They came to sing "Happy Birthday." Their faces shone with the happiness of youth and the fact that they had surprised me. What more could I ask for--at my age!

They robbed us of our youth. They stole our strength. They tossed away our peace as we tossed away in sleepless nights. All that we gave seemed to be wasted. We wanted nothing in return but to hear their laughter, but we heard nothing but curses and complaints.

We tried to teach our children to be independent, but they scoffed, threw our words back in our faces, and refused to listen to God’s Word. Their ingratitude destroyed our joy. They said, "You have no right to tell us what to do." Yet, they were throwing away their lives and our lives that we had invested in them.

We wept and were grief-stricken over the way they insisted on wasting our investment, but they only resented our tears and blamed us for our sorrow and grief. They falsely accused us and vowed they would pay us back every penny that we spent on them.

But how could they repay us for all the sacrifices we made, the years of our lives we gave them, and for all the pain and grief they had caused? How could they mend our broken hearts and restore our happiness?

All we ever wanted was their happiness, and they said they would be happy, if we had been "better parents." They accepted all that we gave--but grudgingly accused us of hypocrisy, because they insisted that they did not ask us for anything. Yet, they blamed us for not doing more.

Why? Their grief is our grief and we cannot be consoled. They became more and more miserable and restless, saying they wished they had never accepted anything from us at all, instead of saying that they appreciated what we had done for them. We needed no thanks other than knowing that they were happy, but they refused to be happy.

If we could just believe that all our efforts had not been in vain, but they bitterly hardened their hearts against us, and insisted on their rights to destroy themselves--as did the Prodigal son.

Why, Lord? Why don’t they repent as the Prodigal Son repented and come home? Why don’t they turn away from their anger and bitterness, because of their own sins so that they can have peace and joy? We love them and want them to come home.

That was my prayer, and the Lord answered, " I wonder about that myself. Why don’t you?"

I was stunned. I never even considered it in His Light. I stopped my complaints and entered into the Lord’s rest. That is the best thing we can do for our kids.

February 2, 1998

I watched 60 Minutes Sunday night in which two committed parents--the father, a successful businessman, and his wife a full-time mother--believed that all men should walk in faith--trusting the Lord Jesus Christ in all things and obeying his Commandments.

This couple had thirteen obviously intelligent, beautiful, healthy, naturally attentive and courteous children, who from infancy had been lovingly taught to share the faith of their parents. The family members did not believe in seeking professional medical attention, and until two of their children suddenly became ill, they did not need these services.

When both children died--one from an ear infection and one from a diabetic attack--the authorities brought charges against both parents, because they refused to permit the children to be treated. The seventeen-year-old diabetic made that decision herself.

One teen-aged son explained that life is precious and the loss of his siblings caused grief, but added that death meant only temporary separation. He stated that he did not fear death, and would make the same choice his sister made, because walking in faith generally ensures health and long life.

The parents were convicted and sentenced to the maximum five years in prison, forcing the eleven surviving children into foster homes.

I laughed at the oxymoronic stupidity of that decision, when so many parents are experiencing kids who court death--abusing drugs, alcohol, and sex (murdering their unwanted children), and are committing suicide to escape fear and despair with no hope or desire to see alleged loved ones in the next world.

I watched Biography on cable T V, which featured the life of Hugh Hefner of Playboy Magazine fame and a classmate of mine at the University of Illinois. "Hef" as we called him, boasted that he did the world a service by setting women free from Puritanical taboos.

Essentially, he was saying that women are now free to commit fornication and adultery as men have always done--they have been set free from the "double-standard." As if, two wrongs make a right! Unfortunately, no one was set free of the jealousy that always leads to divorce and broken homes.

However, women who exercise these "death rites," are the ones left "holding the bag." They have "free choice," of course. They can spend their lives struggling to rear their children in poverty out of wedlock, or give them up for adoption, or murder them.

Men are not troubled by these decisions. Who did "Good Ol’ Hef" really set free--women or men, who have no consciences?

"Hef" sat on the porch swing of Colonial Manor, across from the Steak and Shake on Green Street, courting Millie Williams, a committed Catholic whom he married. But he could not resist jumping up when I approached to challenge my Puritanical values, which I called "self-preservation" values, which Millie probably shared until they wed.

Wimpy "Hef" wore a silk scarf, European style, to hide his scrawny neck, but he is not a "reformed sinner." His arrogant claim to fame destroyed family values he now hypocritically enjoys with his second wife and their children. His mother-in- law, I understand, ordered all the "Bunnies" off his famous playground, and now it has been completely equipped for the enjoyment of his children.

He deceived everyone into bondage, children became the victims of incest, poverty, drugs, alcohol, and violence, and all men pay exorbitant taxes for their "free sex" to solve problems that begin in broken homes.

The only weakness of the male of the human species, according Freud, is that he is willing to give all that he owns to satisfy his sexual drive.

The female of the human species, of course, uses that weakness to satisfy her major drive--which is to gain control of everything the male owns.

The Freudian error is that Freud presumed that the male and female have the same drives--a natural mistake, because he was a male.

As a female, I think the arrangement is a fair trade-off, because it takes everything the male owns to satisfy the fruits of his pleasure (his children) while the female instinctively does everything in her power to see that they are provided for and protected with their father’s money. If she did not have this instinct, the human species would not have survived for a single generation. All females of the species know that Freud was fraud, because they think like God. The dilemma of modern civilization is the Freudian error.

January 31, 1998

Has the double standard always existed and even persists to this day? The comments in THE NEWS GAZETTE’s "Street Sense" indicate that it does, as everyone seemed to take for granted that Clinton was guilty and lied. However, one man stated "If his wife doesn’t care, why should we?"

The presumption seems to be that "his wife" does not care, but most women know she probably cares as much as Kathy Lee Gifford and Tammy Wynette cared. However, women have traditionally "played dumb" or "denied," to protect that which matters to them most--family and their husband’s reputation related to family income and provision.

On the other hand, men traditionally are not so tolerant of infidelity, possessively preferring virgins if they can find any, and willing to commit murder to protect what they value most--which is not necessarily family values.

Women have agreeably shared their husbands with slaves, concubines, and other wives, as long as their husbands protected them and their children from poverty and violence--even rape--as guards were often eunuchs. However, women have not "acted out" their feelings concerning their husband’s infidelity until recently, because they think they can support themselves. However, now they find that they sometimes must submit sexually to their employers or lose their shaky security, and it is not an easy life.

Would any struggling wife of one faithful husband trade places with the rich and famous Hilary, Kathy Lee, Tammy Wynette, Princess Diana, or O. J.’s murdered spouse? In 46 years, I had no reason to consider such an option, because my husband was an emotionally mature man who took his responsibilities seriously. Praise the Lord!

February 25, 1998

Lately, more men are expressing disgust over the attention given to "a private matter--the adult sex acts" of the president. I question Chuck McCaffrey’s term "consensual," because performing oral sex on any man as powerful as President Clinton is suggestive of something more like sexual harassment than mutual agreement; it cannot be "mutually pleasurable!"

Also, some women have suddenly turned against this president they supported, since "sexual harassment" makes his "women’s rights" position a mockery. I cannot imagine any woman who would be so gullible as to not be outraged by a man who thinks he is "above the law" where this despicable crime against women is concerned.

Daily, more evidence--tapes, facts, and testimonies by credible witnesses--is uncovered that Clinton did indeed psychologically seduce women to satisfy his lust by kneeling and performing heinous acts with promises he didn’t intend to keep.

I laughed at McCaffrey’s suggestion that it did not matter that Clinton lied. He has obviously forgotten about "no wrath like that of a woman scorned" by men who make promises (all lies) to satisfy their lusts and dump their victims. The attitudes of men and women as expressed in this column are full-blown examples that the double standard still exists. Fortunately, more women than men go to the polls to vote.

Women do care about the hungry, homeless, and unemployed, plus skyrocketing crime costs, substance abuse, and teen-age murder and suicide, because they pay the price, while irresponsible dads are engaging in "consensual" sex. Women despise the shenanigans of "Clintongate," because his promises don’t hold "Watergate."

September 26,1997

The Lord created animals with traits that caricature those of mankind. He Himself used animals in His Word as examples of wicked human traits as well as noble ones. The cunning fox confuses his enemies by backtracking as he flees causing them to lose his scent and to circle in confusion. Men who live by their wits are compared to the fox.

Rabbits flee and are metaphors for cowardice. The lion is noted for his dignity and courage--the bear for his bad disposition. The jackass is symbolic for stupid stubbornness, and the possum plays dead to deceive his enemies, symbolizing duplicity. Porcupines are "female."

The porcupine is an independent, freedom-loving, non-aggressive, herbivorous animal--but not anti-social. She wants only to be respected. The porcupine neither seeks to flee from her enemies nor does she attack them in her own defense or in retaliation. She simply turns her back on them in contempt, warning them that if they persist, they will only injure themselves. Those who ignore the warning end up with a snout full of quills, which were used to make pens in the past.

As a child, I refused to be comforted by those who offended me, when I knew that I was right. My dad affectionately called me his little porcupine, but he respectfully did not try to comfort me, when he was the offender, until he had regained my trust. Love must include respect and does cast out fear and distrust.

The above story is a modern Aesop fable, perhaps. The name "Aesop" is a Greek acronym from combining "aei" meaning "eternal" and "soph" (sophia) which means "worldly and spiritual wisdom" combined. The Greek letter for "ph" was later "anglicized" into a "p." How do I know that? At age six, I dreamed I was a woman writing fables and signing them with my pseudonym in Greek letters, "Aesoph." How can anyone doubt that, considering no one has ever explained the mystery of Aesop’s identity so well?

I really enjoyed Steven Kellmeyer’s letter poking fun of all the "reasons" irresponsible men give as an excuse to use and abuse women "just for fun."

Has anyone ever heard of a woman, who aborted her child, say, " I was just exercising my right to choose"? Oh, sure you have!

Instead, they say, "I had NO choice, NO money, NO father, NO education, NO judgment, and a NO GOOD BUM, who urged me to exercise HIS rights to use MY body for HIS pleasure." Doesn’t everyone think that hit-and-run drivers deserve to lose their licenses? (A new Illinois law so penalizes men who do not pay their back child support.)

Kellmeyer mentioned many of the utterly ridiculous excuses such men give, including the fact that Clinton vetoed a bill that would outlaw the destroying of full-term fetuses by sucking out their brains, crushing their skulls, and forcibly removing them--risking the mothers’ lives.

Kellmeyer also brought up the American Civil Liberties Union, National Organization of Women (As if they represented the majority of women!), separation of religion and state, and even the Constitution and the Supreme Court! Formidable arguments to justify murdering one’s own child!

As if women abandoned by men, "who did not father a child (only a fetus)," according to Kellmeyer, has anything to do with the above arguments! Men say women take thing’s too personally, but what is more personal than that?

Incidentally, have you ever heard an expectant mother refer to her "fetus" as a non-child, or an "unbaby"? And if she is the mother, why isn’t the man who conceived the fetus the father as in "father of his country" or of "an idea"? I thought Kellmeyer’s letter was one of the best satires that I ever read. I am still laughing. (He was kidding wasn’t he?)

I watched, fascinated, Pride and Prejudice based on Jane Austen’s novel. How tragic for women to have lived in those times of sexual harassment! How dare those tyrants label women who were used and abused by unscrupulous scoundrels of being cheap and unworthy sluts in the name of "honor"?

What woman would want to live under such unenlightened circumstances after enjoying all the sexual freedom they now enjoy without censorship? The audacity of men, who believed they were being honorable, because they denied women the freedom that men have enjoyed though out the centuries!

How fortunate women are now to provide for their own children as single mothers, earning equal pay for equal work, and no longer must depend on "tyrants" who control the purse strings!

How lucky to be set free from the drudgery of child care and having at least one "trained teen-ager" to care for their children along with fifteen or twenty others, who are infinitely better qualified to do so than their mothers!

Any lady who needs reassurance that all of the above is true, should watch Pride and Prejudice and realize, "You’ve come a long way, Baby!" Anyone can see that the youngest daughter of five, who "enjoyed sexual freedom", was the luckiest of them all!

Or maybe you’ll decide that women have "No" power, but now they do not use it! Maybe you’ll decide women always had free choice to choose men who were willing and able to provide for them and their children, if they insisted on a license first, and decided that old-fashioned values do have some merit after all.

Maybe, men should be asking themselves why Jane Austen’s novels, in which women are denied all the "rights" they now enjoy, are so well loved by so many women.

Wake up, America! Times are changing, but you wouldn’t know it by all the antiquated humanistic drivel women’s magazines still publish! I am surprised they all don’t go broke! LOVE, YOUR NEIGHBOR (A Commandment)

I am amazed at the ignorance of women today, concerning the nature of men. They think that they can control men either by imitating them by being aggressive, threatening them, attacking them verbally, or by simply not communicating with them--except through their attorneys.

The ways of the Victorian women worked better. These women enjoyed the power they had behind the scenes, simply by being true to their own feminine nature and by being willing to let men have all the glory for implementing the ideas they suggested.

Also, no Victorian lady was ever "date-raped," because they understood and respected the nature of men. My grandmother shared her wisdom with me when I was eleven. She said, "I am telling you this while you are young enough to listen, even though, you will not understand until you are older. I want you to remember exactly what I am saying."

She continued, "There is a bull inside every man. Do not wave red flags at that bull or you just might get gored. Waving red flags is encouraging him ‘just for fun,’ and then saying, ‘Stop.’ Such taunting and teasing enrages that bull in EVERY man."

However, a Victorian woman would encourage "Mr. Right" (her choice) to chase her all the way to the altar where he gratefully paid the price for her exclusive favors. Why would any woman want to change men--especially at the expense of her own nature?

In a pro-life society, in which all life is revered and protected at all costs and no life is risked except for the greater common good, then a reasonable amount of safety and peace may be enjoyed by all.

In such a society, abortions are performed after all other means of saving the life of the mother have been exhausted. Executions are reserved for madmen beyond any hope of rehabilitation. Wars are declared only to stop aggressive tyrants who are a threat to other nations, and who torment and torture any of their own citizens who oppose them.

Law enforcement officers are carefully selected and trained to protect the lives of those they serve, if possible.

In such a society, the fetuses that have aborted naturally could feasibly be used to save more lives and possibly to cure genetic diseases such as Parkinson’s, but only in a dedicated and committed pro-life society where abuses would be virtually impossible.

In a pro-life society, men are guaranteed, relatively speaking, freedom from fear. But in a pro-choice society, in which everyone has license to do as he pleases, nobody is free from fear and nobody is safe.

The wages of sin are indeed disease, death, and destruction. Men must conform to the immutable laws of human nature--even God cannot change--because we are created in His image.

God warns us that if we abuse our own nature, we will die. That is a warning--not a threat--as so many suppose. Why would anyone want to behave like the devil unless he or she is a child of the devil?

Are Satan’s ways really that much fun? Or do those who fall for his false promises generally end up in tears--even gut wrenching sobs of regret.

Pseudo-scientists, alleged authorities, political do-gooders, and intellectual fools—all insist that fetuses are "things"--or just globs to be discarded. They are liars. I will explain.

Everyone talks about teen-agers, but folks would never say that a teen-ager is just a thing. At least, they wouldn’t say it to their faces. A teen-ager is not a "thing," nor is it a human being, per se, because "teen-age" refers to a stage of development of a living human organism between the ages 12 and 20.

Applying the same logic to the term fetus, a fetus is neither a "thing," nor is it a human being, per se. The term fetus refers to the fetal stage of development of a living human organism, if being carried in the womb of a female human being.

The stage of development called "fetal" is between three months of prenatal life to nine months, the time the fetus is delivered. At delivery, the human organism is in the stage of development often referred to as "infancy." No matter what stage of development the living human organism is experiencing--fetal, infancy, teenage, or senility--the organism is both living and human. To destroy a living, human organism at any stage of development is murder. Murder is a crime.

I compared the teen-age stage of development to the fetal stage of development of living human organisms, concluding that destroying that organism at any stage of development was murder. For making that comparison, I was accused of being simplistic, then was blasted with justifications for "killing" any other living human organism by an anonymous call on the phone--after which he hung up.

I did not discuss all the aspects of "killing" versus "murder" in the essay on the definition of the term, "fetus," because I could not do so in a few words. I will explain.

If I were discussing murder, I would begin with the most common and obvious ideas most of us agree to be a reasonable definition of "murder," that is, "deliberately destroying the life of a normal, healthy, and innocent living human organism." Then I would be obliged to define what most of us may or may not agree are the reasonable definitions of: "deliberately," normal," ‘healthy," and "innocent." I will explain.

For example: Did the drunk driver who killed two people "deliberately" murder them? Did the man who shot to scare another man but killed him instead, "deliberately" murder him? Does the doctor who gives a woman anesthesia, crushes the skull of her unborn child, and sucks out his brains, "deliberately" commit murder?

As for "normal," try to find a psychiatrist who has studied dozens of textbooks for an equal number of years who would admit that he is qualified to define, "normal." Or a physician with credentials equal to the psychiatrist’s who would profess to his ability to explain what "healthy" means. They would have difficulty determining these factors in individual cases, much less as applied to "all living human organisms."

As for "innocent!" Go to the law library, and ask the librarian for information on "innocent." If she doesn’t scream for the paddy wagon to come to take you away--or herself, then think: O. J. Simpson trials in terms of "guilt" and "innocent."

Most of my friends wish I were simplistic, or even simple-minded like someone who attempts to explain "murder" in a few snapped-together sentences in anonymous phone calls.

Comment: Since when, does anyone have the right to "choose" to take the life of a healthy, normal, innocent living human organism? If "healthy," "normal," and "innocent" cannot be easily be defined, then only experts would be able to settle the matter after careful deliberation. Every living human organism is guaranteed a trial by jury of one’s peers who are determined to be without bias or prejudice under the Constitution of the United States, before being condemned to die. Without "bias" means without any "conflict of interests," which would exclude doctors who perform abortions for pay.

ESPECIALLY IF SHE IS PREGNANT!

Every time a man speaks out or writes a letter in which he is in favor of pro-choice or says he would support his daughter’s decision to murder her own child, because she has a "right" to do so--as President Clinton said—I get mad as hell!

I find it impossible to forgive a man for having that attitude. It would be easier for me to decide that such a man be hung by his heels from the rafters, be drawn and quartered and left for the buzzards to devour his entrails or--at the very least--ordered to be castrated.

Does that shock you big-hearted compassionate gentlemen who profess to be so sympathetic of women who find themselves pregnant with YOUR CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK--LEFT TO REAR THEM ALONE? Why would you be so shocked?

Don’t you realize that every woman who ever found herself in that situation, and was abandoned by the man she thought really loved her feels exactly the same way--may God forgive them? He probably will forgive them, but do you expect God to forgive you?

Not one living male can say that he has not witnessed the wrath and /or fear of a woman who discovered she was pregnant with some man’s child, who was unwilling to take responsibility for the "fruit of his pleasure." But he was perfectly willing for her to decide to destroy the child (letting him off the hook)! Such men do not want to be responsible for the decision to commit murder. Therefore, they say, "You have the right to decide, concerning your own body."

She is the one who is left with that decision for the rest of her life--not the men who had all the fun, but these men are guilty on three counts, lying, desertion, and murder. "Supporting women to murder, instead of supporting your kids, sucks, gentlemen!

Of course, the last thing you want to do is to pay higher taxes to support these half-orphans! Why are you promoting murder instead of abstinence, or the idea that women protect their own bodies before she is pregnant by exercising her "No Power"?

Oh, No, not that! Anything but that! Right, Gentlemen?

I thank the Lord every night that He blessed me with the above-described sense of self-preservation. That is why I never found myself in such an unfortunate situation. I just wish that all women were so blessed! If they were, families would be wholesome, again.

Men, who do not respect the immutable laws of human nature, are self-destructive. I will compare the law of supply and demand, taught in Economics 101, to the sexual behavior of men to make my point.

A hypothesis is an untested educated guess; a theory has been tested but not proved to have no exceptions; and a law has been time-tested and proved without any exceptions. The law of supply and demand paraphrased states that hard-to-get goods and services command high prices, and "easy-to-get" have little or no value. Consider the outrageous prices that the "unique" trash of Princess Di and Jackie O commanded at recent auctions, for example.

The sexual behavior of men has altered with the ease that they could satisfy their lusts. The Victorian male catching sight of a woman’s ankle was ready to pole-vault over the nearest object. Nowadays, a bikini-clad lady leaves most men cold. Normal sexual stimulation is so commonplace, that men have become inured--even impotent--at the idea. (Otherwise, so many would not be stampeding to drugstores for Viagra. Right?)

"Easy sex" has created an insatiable lust for the forbidden--deviant heterosexual experiences, then pedophilic desire for younger and younger virgins, and finally homosexual and sado-masochistic experiences--including date rape--as each in its turn became insipid.

The timeless, mysterious, and mesmerizing effect of the elusive smile of the Mona Lisa is something that modern women need to learn. No one can pass laws governing human nature.

This message is for vicious, malicious, domineering women who know exactly how to push the buttons of men to provoke them to anger, when they do not get their way without question. They accomplish this with expressions of "righteous indignation"--no matter how unfair their selfish demands may be.

If the males involved become so provoked that they respond with a shove and a "get out of my face," or a shake of a fist, and a shout, "You bitch," then these vengeful females call the police, and lie blatantly, saying, "I feared for my life." Even though these men may leave the house promptly, the police track them down and arrest them on the word of the alleged female victims.

By this time, I know I have the attention of many males that have been victimized by such women. Incidentally, the only definition of "bitch," that is ever used today is the one in Webster’s, "vicious, malicious, domineering female." No one would ever insult a faithful female dog by calling her a "bitch," considering the present-day connotations of that term.

My final word to these "bitches:" Man was created in God’s image, described as a God of wrath. If you do not believe Jesus ever became angry, read His scurrilous indictment against the self-righteous, hypocritical Pharisees in Matthew, chapter 23. How are you "ladies" going to respond to the Lord’s anger on Judgment Day? Are you going to call the police and play "victim"?

I am NOT a sexist. I have always known that the term "man" included both males and females or all humankind, making women equal to men. Who are these female sexist prigs who are arguing over semantics which separate women from our rightful equality with men? These upstarts will only succeed in taking away our rights by quibbling over the he/she, him/her, his/hers and endings that identify women as such--not to mention the nonsensical problems that all this fuss-budgeting creates for serious authors.

The devil would like nothing better than to call God, "she," because much of the imagery and symbolism which is used to explain God’s truths are based on the traditional male-female relationships, and Satan loves confusion. For example, the Christian Church is called the bride of Christ, but both male and female Christians are "subject" (to be submissive) to their "husband," Jesus Christ. Both males and females are equal in Christ and are to honor and obey "their husband"--equally.

God compares men who trust Him, believe Him, and have faith in Him to a faithful and dutiful bride or wife, so that all men will understand the relationship God expects men to have with Him. In turn, God promises to protect and provide for all men as men at one time were expected to protect and provide for their wives in this world. Actually the National Organization for Women and the Equal Rights Amendment crowd have ruined the relationship between husbands and wives in this world as well as the metaphor for the next.

God also compares adulterous wives in this world to idolatrous men and women who are unfaithful to God and fall into slavery to Satan. God calls himself a jealous God, so that men will understand how God feels about idolatry--the same way all men feel if their wives betray them by committing adultery. This is the imagery that women’s libbers seek to destroy with all their inane, vain, frivolous, and ludicrous fussing over semantics!

The only thing women who try to change the Word of God for their own silly and vain purposes accomplish is to prove that they deserve their reputation for being easily deceived and in need of protection and control by men. Such foolishness and lack of trust of men or God is a shame and a disgrace to the human race. Don’t women know that their distrust of men and God is basically their own fault, because they believed Satan when he tempted them into thinking that they could trap a man into marrying by giving him sex? It is time to stop all that foolishness!

Women are waking up to the fact that they have been robbed of all the freedoms that truly matter to them in exchange for enslavement to promised freedoms that most of them did not want or need in the first place. They lost their freedom to stay home as housewives and mothers, in exchange for the highly questionable rights to have sex outside of marriage and to work outside the home.

They thought that they had no power, and they did and do. They just did not know how to use it effectively to obtain what they really wanted. The trick is to use that "No" power over your own body, before finding a man who is willing and able to marry you, support you, and provide for his own kids. A man will sell his soul for sex, but not if he can get it for a token or a hamburger and coke in the back seat of a beat-up jalopy.

Women have the power to say, "No," to the following:

1. Say "No" to sex outside of marriage.

2. Say "No" to working outside the home.

3. Say "No" to wasteful spending by Congress. Therefore, husbands will keep more wages than most women earn.

4. Say "No" to politicians who want to provide day care so women can work and owe more taxes.

5. Say "No" to leaving children with hirelings who couldn’t care less whether they are loved and reassured--a need and right of all kids.

6. Say "No" to women’s magazines that continue to promote how to please men in bed, which comes naturally, and fail to promote stopping exploitation of women by men and the government.

7. Say "No" to the lies still being promoted by out-of-date women in power who think sex should be "free" and all women should have "careers."

8. Say "No" to the values these imposters have imposed on society, which left women deceived, neglected, ashamed, and poverty-stricken in mind, soul, and body--literally thrown to the wolves to be used and abused--if by wolves we mean men who lust after the flesh of women and children.

9. Say "No" to taxation without representation by women that would use tax money to murder children, just so men can continue to use and abuse women without paying the price.

10. Say "No" to fatuous arguments for freedom of speech or any other liberty that disguises license to exploit women and children--such as no-fault divorce.

11. Say "No" to fornication and adultery and set protective measures to prove it--such as separating young girls from horny boys in dorms and other facilities.

12. Say "No" to death. The wages of sin is death. Say "No" to insisting on women’s "rites" as in funeral rites. "Freedom and responsibility are Siamese twins." Attempting to separate the two results in death. Women must take responsibility by using their "No" Power or all of us will die. The human race will become extinct!

A man was consumed with depression and fear, so he went to a psychiatrist in desperation. The assistant to the assistant was told to administer a word-association test to determine the cause of the depression.

Naturally, the psychiatrist already knew the cause--repressed sexual desires--or just plain insatiable lust. Nevertheless, the test was given to reassure the patient that he was in the hands of professionals who knew what they were doing.

The flunky said, "lawyer," and the patient said, "liar."

The flunky said, "doctor," and the patient said, "Frankenstein."

The flunky said, "politician," and the patient said, "thief."

The flunky said, "food," and the patient said, "cancer."

The flunky said the key word, "sex," and the patient said, "AIDS."

The flunky said, "safety," and the patient’s mind went blank as he shook his head in despair.

The flunky said, "pleasure," and the man hesitated (because of guilt), and finally muttered, "kill." Then he blurted out with gut-wrenching tears, "I dream about it all the time!"

Is this man insane? Should he be locked up as one who is potentially dangerous? Perhaps! On the other hand, do we have enough prisons to lock up all the men who think like that? If you identify with this man in any way, I suggest you listen to Channel 23 in this area every morning until noon, if possible, or every Sunday afternoon--starting at noon. You will hear the same message from Gentiles, Jews, Blacks, one who is part American Indian, and those of Oriental descent.

Take your choice, because it doesn’t matter. They are all speaking of the same "Source" of hope, faith and love and the "solution" that they offer is the same. They speak of an "unquenchable fire" in one’s heart that gives only joy.

Incidentally, "this "Source" does not see divisive white, black, yellow, or red. He sees clearly and not through the dark clouds of bigotry, prejudice, pride, and sin that blinds the rest of us. He sees beautiful shades of brown from pale beige to dark chocolate, and that is the truth! Listen to the "Good News" channel, Channel 23. It could change your life!

I asked the Lord, "While we’re on the subject, Lord, what about cursing and swearing?"

The Lord answered, "Let your speech be ‘yea’ and ‘nay.’ No one who is telling the truth needs to swear by Jehovah, or the Bible, or by the Church. Nor does anyone need to quote a so-called authority, which is the custom of men, to support what needs to be said. The truth is readily recognized, because it appeals to the hearts.

"The poverty-stricken frustrated housewife, who idly curses cockroaches and other vermin should be informed. If that woman should reverently call upon the name of the Lord in faith to damn the roaches and vermin, believing that He would answer her prayer, her prayers would be answered. I cursed a fig tree once for not bearing fruit, and it was destroyed. I would not have cursed my hammer as a carpenter, if I had struck my thumb!" I laughed.

The Lord continued, "As for calling upon the Lord to damn one’s neighbor, nothing could be more evil. Those who call upon the Lord to damn their neighbors know not what they do. Rather should they pray that their own tongues be cutoff, or better still that their neighbor is saved, so that he will stop being such a nuisance.

Calling upon the Father to damn anyone who has offended you--whether they have robbed you, raped you or a loved one, or murdered a loved one--is tantamount to calling upon the Lord to damn yourself. To condemn anyone is to condemn oneself by the same measure. To damn someone is to ask the Father to condemn him to Gehenna (hell or the second death), forever separated from the Father and existing in torment. Such a curse is more evil than murdering an enemy in the electric chair, which only destroys the body--not the soul.

As for swearing, a liar will lie with his hand on the Holy Bible as easily as he lies with his hand on his own evil heart. A man with an evil heart has no reverence for God and no faith in His Word. Rather than swearing in court, the judge should begin the proceedings with a sincere prayer to the Father in Heaven to let the truth be known to the jury and that justice be administered for all.

At the end of the trial, all should bow their heads again and pray for mercy and forgiveness in the hearts of the victim or victims, and that the defendant repents, receives the kingdom of Heaven, and is saved. If he does, and is sincere, he will not cause anyone else any grief, loss, or pain.

If men were really sincere in wanting to empty the prisons, men would pray for the prisoners and preach the Gospel to them. However, it is not a good time to pray that all prisons, poverty, and sickness should be abolished. The Father allows these circumstances for a reason. If men did not suffer at all, they would never see the need to be saved. That is why the rich often do not see any need to come to the Father, though their need to do so may far exceed that of a poor beggar. The body suffers, but that is not as bad as losing one’s soul." I thought about what the Lord said and related it to what I had observed.

Many in poverty, or in ugly and infirm bodies, and even some in prison can laugh, while many who think they are rich and free are imprisoned by their own evil hearts. Outward beauty and health in the eyes of the world often disguises inward restlessness, misery, and even insatiable lusts and grief. Suffering is within and has little to do with outward circumstances.

Solomon was the richest man who ever lived, and had vast landholdings, a gold-plated palace, the hanging gardens that have never been duplicated in beauty, and over a thousand beautiful virgins for wives and concubines. Yet he died saying that it was all vanity, because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to dwell within men, and he knew he was destined to die. He said that a man’s life was worth no more than grass that withers in one season.

Even though men can now choose to have what Solomon would have given all he had to gain--eternal life--many today die in their sins--Howard Hughes, for example. He also had worldly success in every possible area of his life. He had fame as a pilot, movie mogul, and financier. He had beautiful women willing to do anything for his favor, yet he was ruthless and cruel to those who offended him, and used women for his own pleasure until he tired of them.

His wickedness led him to be suspicious and even terrified for his life. He imagined retaliation. He imprisoned himself in a penthouse that could not be easily reached. He did not even trust his most loyal aid, and he required him to taste his food, before he would eat it, believing that even he would poison him. Misery was his only companion." I mused concerning these experiences, when the Lord spoke again.

"Cursing and swearing is not holding the Lord’s name in vain, per se. Holding the Lord’s name in vain is speaking vanities without the leading of the Holy Spirit, or preaching for personal gain rather than preaching the Gospel, or pretending to perform miracles with the power of the Holy Ghost. Anything that a man does in the name of the Lord without the leading or the power of the Lord is using the Lord’s in vain.

"This in one of the most serious offenses against God the Father, because it drives men out of the Kingdom of God, creating cynicism instead of building faith, and causes many souls to be lost forever." At other times, the Lord had given me a similar insight as to the difference between cursing, swearing, and using the Lord’s name in vain. But each time, I find that I understand more in depth--more to add to my writing.

I heard portions of Jim Bakker’s confession on television (spring of l997), and wept, knowing and feeling his sincere remorse. Listening to Bakker brought back the memory of Brother Swaggart’s tears of remorse over his transgressions.

Because of the seriousness of the events that occurred in the late eighties, I went to the Lord in prayer, concerning all the confusion in the minds of millions of Christians at that time. The Lord spoke to me, and I prayed that He spoke to countless other Christians across the country at the same time. As a result of that conversation with the Lord, I wrote the following resolutions that I intended to follow:

1. We must stop expecting perfection in all of our Christian leaders who have been called by the Lord to serve as evangelists, pastors, ministers, healers, teachers, and other leaders. We must in our maturity realize that ALL of us have feet of clay, and are subject to the temptations of Satan, and ALL are worthy of forgiveness, when we confess our sins to one another in sincerity and remorse.

2. We must--under no circumstances--sit in judgment, criticize, find fault, or condemn lest we be judged by the same measure. We must realize that when we point the finger of condemnation at others, three fingers of condemnation are pointing back at us. We must remember how many times we have prayed, "Forgive us our trespasses--AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US." We will be forgiven exactly to the degree that we forgive others, no less! Dare we withhold forgiveness to anyone?

3. We must--under no circumstances--use the weaknesses of a few Christian leaders as an excuse for not giving to other Christian ministries. We must remember that they are all subject to many more temptations and are attacked by Satan more viciously than most of the rest of us, because they are definitely attracting the attention of Satan by causing him so much trouble. Praise God!

4. On the other hand, we must immediately stop giving to "Country Club" ministries in which the leaders are misappropriating funds--channeling our monies into projects in which too large a percentage of the money is being spent "salting" one another, causing the Lord to have a "bitter taste" in His mouth. We are indeed the "salt of the earth," but a little salt is supposed to go a long way. It should be sprinkled on the "unsalted," and not poured on ourselves, and especially if the "clubs" are so exclusive that the membership is made up of those who think of themselves as being "a little too special"--too exclusive!

5. We must stop putting our leaders in a position where they must beg for our tithes and offerings. Too much money is being used on letters of requests, offering gimmicks and "gifts" that none of us need, just dust collectors or ego boosters. For the love of God, we are not being called to sacrifice our lives as missionaries in the wilds of Africa! For the love of God, we are simply being asked to pay our tithes! It is our responsibility and duty to do so.

Is that really too much to ask? I am on Social Security, also. I like to think that if I pay my tithes up front, and run out of money for food at the end of the month, then that gives me the opportunity to FAST and pray for my enemies! We should be opportunists, and not think of our giving as a sacrifice. In fact, that attitude makes it fun. My enemies are REALLY in danger of being saved, when I FAST and pray for them! "Revenge" is so sweet!

6. We must keep to the forefront of our minds, The Great Commission, as our personal goal. The sooner the whole world hears the Gospel, the sooner the Lord shall return. That is His promise, and it must be the Blessed Hope of all committed Christians.

7. We must pray for the soon coming of our Lord, so that love, peace, and the brotherhood of all men will reign forever and ever. Amen! MARANATHA!

September 11,1998

The confusion concerning whether Clinton should resign, or be impeached if he doesn’t, arises from sympathy and pity for the man, and outrage for what he has done as President of the United States.

Since many sympathizers are quoting Scripture ("He who is without sin may cast the first stone."), I want to remind these good-hearted Robin Hoods of two other cases in which evangelists were involved--the worst scandal in the history of Christendom in the United States.

Jim Bakker defrauded the IRS by misusing Christian donations for which he was convicted and sent to prison. He also committed adultery that he tried to excuse. At the time, he and his wife, Tammy, were very successful television evangelists.

Also, Jimmy Swaggart was caught engaging in voyeurism by paying prostitutes to perform lewd acts for his viewing. Like Clinton, he rationalized that he did not--strictly speaking--commit adultery, although Jesus said that looking with lust was adultery. (Matthew 5: 28)

The Lord forgave both, who confessed with tears of regret, but he permitted them to be discovered, disgraced, and removed from positions of influence and power, because they no longer represented Him, even though both these ministries were extremely effective in winning souls to Christ.

We should forgive Clinton, but he proved that he is not qualified to represent this country. He also demonstrated that he is too weak to make objective decisions aside from his own welfare--decisions that could affect world economy or lead to mass destruction.

Sometimes the Lord awakens me in the middle of the night and inspires me to write some message that is totally unexpected. I often do not know where He is leading me as I write, but He must have intended this particular message for all of us. Somehow the message reminds me of the Lord’s message to Job, following Job’s ordeal.

Who are you, MAN? That you think you can control floods with your puny dams and pitiful sandbags? That you can pass innumerable laws to protect the environment which only create confusion and waste tax monies in your efforts to nullify my efforts?

What makes you think that millions of dollars in taxes--or billions--will save the environment, if I decide to lift my little pinky and destroy it? Do you not know that I have marked this planet for destruction, because of your sins?

What makes you think that you can save any endangered species on the West Coast, or anywhere else, when that whole area is destined to drop into the ocean? Why are you persecuting landowners with threats, when they will soon lose ALL? Why must this destruction be? You ask. Why must you sin and persecute one another? I ask.

Who are you, Little MAN? That you think you can come unto me by bypassing My Only Begotten SON, whom I gave to save your unrighteous souls? Do I need to compare you, LITTLE MAN, to the stubborn, stupid, and arrogant Jackass that I created for that exact purpose, so that you will understand who I think you are?

My Only Begotten Son raised the question as to whether there will be any faith in the world, when He returns. What is your answer to that? If you have faith, you will go to your knees, confess, and repent. Salvation is not a "do-it-yourself project" which can only fail." Thus saith the Lord who truly loves you unconditionally.

(I AM JUST YOUR NEIGHBOR.)

The formula for getting along with others seems almost too easy, but apparently it must be difficult. However, it works, and may be the only thing that does.

It is not the mistakes in life that destroy our relationships with others. We all make mistakes. We all do things that hurt others. We all SIN, which is by definition-- doing anything that shows a lack of concern for our fellowmen. What trips us up is the way we handle those mistakes.

Do we lie and deny? Do we excuse them? Do we try to rationalize them away, or fantasize about them or blame others for them? All of the above fall under one heading, "neurotic behavior." All are negative--destructive of ourselves as well as others--and definitely unproductive in achieving the most desired results--the love and respect of others.

The only correct, constructive, and productive response is to admit unqualifiedly that one is wrong, made the mistake, or admit that he/she has been unfair and had no right to say what was said. The correct time to do that is as soon as one realizes the truth about his/her behavior. Then promise to never make the same mistake twice, and make certain that he/she doesn’t. If restitution is in order, arrange to restore in full.

The above formula was given to all of us by God, and He calls it "Confession," and "Repentance." God says that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness, I John 1: 9. But the amazing thing is-- that since we are created in God’s image, we are also inclined to respond in the same way to sincere remorse and a sincere desire to reform.

If a few hard noses refuse to forgive under any circumstances, then so be it. You can do nothing except forgive them for being hard noses. Nevertheless, most of the time, the formula works in a way that nothing else will. But "sincerity" is the operative word.

YOUR NEIGHBOR

October 10, l997

I have a charming little 8-year-old black neighbor girl as my guest after school from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. every evening, because her daddy, who has custody of her, does not come home until five. To return the "favor," her daddy offered to take me to the grocery story (I do not have the courage to drive in this town.) to pick up anything I might need.

This very bright child and I have fun together singing, "dancing," (She dances, and I limp along in time to the music.), and playing the piano, which she is learning to do quite well, picking out tunes she knows by ear. At my suggestion, she also made flash cards from index cards, using my black marker, to memorize math tables.

I have a large collection of classic videos--including Old Testament stories faithfully reproducd by that conscientious Jew, Cecil B. DeMille, who obviously was dedicated to honor God’s Word by reproducing it on tape for all posterity as all Israelites are instructed to do. No one could have parted the Red Sea more grandly on tape than he did. My young friend watches these classics, as well as many other "good ol’ oldies."

She sings along with my Karaoke machine, and we learn new words the old-fashioned way--by methods used to teach Shakespeare, and most of the great writers of the past. Why would anyone want to tamper with perfection?

We learn orthography--Latin roots, and how prefixes and suffixes alter the meaning of words--and mnemonic aids for rules of grammar and spelling. We act out prepositional phrases by crawling "under the table," throwing paper wads "over the chair," and acting out "up the stairs," "down the hall," "in and out of this or that," as well as about fifty other prepositions used in phrases.

I think she even understands that these phrases tell "what kind" and "how, when, and where," but we really haven’t got into that, yet. So why don’t kids like school? Is it the tests or the "attitude" of most educators who think threats and rewards are the most effective ways to "motivate" kids to learn? Kids love to learn, but hate school! Why?

I accepted the offer of my little friend’s daddy to take me to the grocery store and she always accompanied us. Once, she disappeared with my cart just before we were ready to check out. I searched and called out her name, but could not find her, until finally she responded, "I’m over here." I admonished her for running off with the cart. She was penitent, so I gave her a hug of forgiveness, saying, "Promise me that you will NEVER do that again." She apologized and agreed.

As I went through the line, she disappeared again. When I asked, she said, "I went out to check on my daddy," who was waiting in the car. I laughed, "That’s right! We ladies must keep check on our daddies. That is our job, and we have to set a good example for them, too. If we want them to tell US what THEY are up to, we must make sure we tell THEM what WE are up to. Right?"

She grinned and agreed with authority, "That’s right!" Expecting children to act like adults is much more effective than threats, bribes, or promised rewards, and I have six honorable children of my own--ages 37 to 50 at this writing--to prove it.

For the last forty-odd years, a myth has been circulated that man has been the victim of antiquated religious laws, which men invented to control and exploit the masses. Since most of man’s laws and doctrines have their roots in religious law, then these alleged authorities insist that man cannot be "free" unless he is set free from "religion."

Marx popularized this idea with his oft-quoted statement, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." I can explain why I call this rationale a myth by this example: If a man steals from his neighbor, he knows he is guilty of doing what would make himself angry, if the same thing were done to him. So, he lies and denies that he stole, if accused, because he knows his neighbor could retaliate and even kill to recover goods of any value.

All "moral laws" against lying, theft, adultery, murder, and coveting, that leads to the other crimes, or behavior that causes pain, grief, or loss of life results in guilt. Guilt is always followed by fear of detection and retaliation by one’s victims or his loved ones--making moral law indigent to man’s nature. Moral law cannot be "imposed" by men or society or governmental agencies. No one can control the behavior of others. Men ultimately control themselves according to their own human nature.

"The wicked flee, when no man pursueth," Proverbs 28: 1. We imprison ourselves with guilt and fear, even though no one suspects we are guilty. Therefore, we cannot blame society, the government, and God for man’s propensity for evil. The automatic fear of reprisal that follows enslaves him.

Only confession, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ can set a man free from fear and guilt. Denying guilt only increases one’s bondage. No one can nullify natural law, by pretending that man can control fear and guilt or repeal God’s law. Adultery has come to be socially acceptable, and murder of spouses has increased proportionately.

I. Love God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 13: 10, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE WHOLE LAW. If you have unconditional love for everyone, (genuine concern for their welfare) you cannot possibly break God’s laws or man’s laws.

II. Obey God’s Word--both Logos and Rhema (The leading of the Holy Spirit). If you love others, how can you do anything to hurt others? How can you steal, bear false witness (lie and deceive), commit adultery, murder, covet out of envy or jealousy, and how can you not honor your parents, even though none of us truly deserves to be honored? For that matter, how can we hate, envy, resent, be vengeful, or waste time and energy to cause destruction, and be concerned for the welfare of others at the same time?

III. Exercise Temperance. We cannot succeed, if we drink alcohol, smoke tobacco products or marijuana, or use drugs of any kind. Although we may have fame, money, and love, we cannot have joy and peace, if we are slaves to alcohol or drugs. Also, we cannot find happiness by being promiscuous. We are admonished in the Word that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are commanded not to defile it.

IV. Set reasonable goals and follow a step-by-step plan for accomplishing them. A good way to clear a forest is to cut down one tree at a time. A good way to accomplish long-range goals is to schedule one little task at a time within a reasonable time frame, write it down, and cross it off your list as you complete the task. Such a practice encourages you, as you make positive progress toward your ultimate goal, one day at a time.

V. Seek wise counsel. Consider everyone and every resource as a learning source. Do not close your minds to advice. Rather, listen, evaluate, it, and then determine whether you can use it to accomplish the goals you have set for yourself. Keep a green point growing within yourself all your life. You are never too old to learn. I am seventy-one years old, and I am typing these last four of over 500 pages into my computer.

Fourteen months ago before I purchased this equipment, I would have jumped on a chair, if any one said, "mouse." I won’t claim that it is easy for old dogs to learn new tricks, but it is possible, and it is also fun, when you are not tempted to take a sledge hammer to the tools of your trade, because they refuse to respond to your tricks!

How do I feel right now? In another hour or so, I will have completed the final draft of two manuscripts that I have been working on for well over ten years. How do you think I feel? Have you ever witnessed a little seventy-one-year-old lady turning mental cartwheels? Don’t give up. With God, all things really are possible.

6. Perform plastic surgery on your credit cards, and postpone all purchases for at least a week before you decide to buy them. I have saved more money, because I didn’t have it, when I thought that I couldn’t do without an item another minute. When I finally could afford the item, I realized that I could do without it forever. Our closets, drawers, and shelves are full of junk we do not need—and worse—we didn’t even use it. I’ve bought shelves that I stored on a shelf—not even out of the

original package—for years!

VII. Be free to follow your own star by breaking free from bondage to Satan.

John 8: 32-36, "I f ye continue in my word then ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Satan will impose all kinds of "obligations" or useless and unfruitful tasks for you to do to distract you from the goals that God has for you to accomplish, which are the goals that will give you the most joy, when you accomplish them. Study the Word to stay on track. Time really is money, and should be spent wisely

Many congregations try to fit God into a burial box, and they hold regular funeral services for parts of "His Body." These services usually begin with "Some people can’t be helped." These same congregations try to collect God in their collection boxes.

I do not choose to be a part of any such congregations, because MY GOD DOES NOT FIT IN THEIR BOXES. LOVE, YOUR NEIGHBOR

In this love letter to John Hagee and all those who are teaching fear and punishment instead of LOVE and forgiveness, and insisting that there will be "two Raptures," I will explain with Scripture that Jesus Christ did not teach either.

The Lord advised me that the only ones who REALLY hold the Lord’s name in vain are servants, and not the unsaved who curse and swear on street corners. Anyone who preaches vanities in the "name" of the Lord without the leading of the Holy Spirit holds His name in vain, and they drive men out the kingdom of God.

Jesus cursed a fig tree once, and "swearing" is useless more than wicked. Jesus said to simply speak in Truth, saying "yea" and "nay" without swearing by anything of the Lord’s. Swearing does not make a lie into the TRUTH.

Before I continue, I am requesting all of you to think. Try very hard to think of one individual who has ever been able to come to the Lord, or even comprehend the Word of God, or have any faith at all--much less resist the wiles of Satan--WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT.

If you can think of one case, then I will take back my greeting and admit that I am the one who is guilty of speaking vanities. I will go to my knees and beg the Lord for His forgiveness, and pray that you can forgive me for falsely accusing you.

On the other hand, if you cannot think of one case, then all of you are guilty of falling for Satan’s lies and teaching them, and I can prove that statement by the Word of God. Well? Were you saved without the leading of the Holy Spirit? I certainly was not, and I would not expect to be either. I am neither that smart nor that righteous, but that is exactly what certain men and women are teaching--that the Church (Holy Spirit) "will be taken out of the way" before the Tribulation.

I not only believe that Pastor Hagee is deceived, but I also believe that those who agree with him are arrogant jackasses and blind guides with no apologies. No, I am not persecuting you. I am calling you to stop walking in fear, and to walk in faith by the Holy Spirit. Next question: Do you honestly believe that "more souls than any man can number" could possibly be saved during the Tribulation without the Holy Spirit, or did I misunderstand your words in your latest "prophetic book," Beginning of the End,

Pastor Hagee?

In fact, you apparently think that these souls do not even need to read the Word of God, if they read "your words" in "your book." I intend to quote you exactly, Pastor Hagee, so do not permit your pride and stubbornness to blind you just yet. If you have any conscience at all, you must have guessed by now why I am calling you an arrogant jackass, blinded by Satan, and have come very close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit by setting yourself up above Him. Do you need to see more evidence from the Word of God? That is what I do best, because that is what the Lord called me to do.

I refer you to "your words" in "your prophecy" on page 135, paragraph two. You have written, "This information about how to identify the Antichrist is of no practical value to the Church, since we will be watching from the balconies of heaven by the time he is revealed."

The Word of God does not say that at all. In fact, the King James version states quite clearly in II Thessalonians 2: 3 and 4; "Let NO MAN DECEIVE YOU BY ANY MEANS, for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The son of perdition is the Antichrist, and he will not be revealed before the Holy Spirit permits him to reveal himself--after the temple is rebuilt. That is what it means for the Holy Spirit to step aside or be "taken out of the way," and has nothing to do with the Church being "Raptured." God decided when Satan would be permitted to reveal himself.

Your suggestion that the Holy Spirit indwelling the Body of Christ or the Church MUST be taken out of the world before Satan could reveal himself is ridiculous. I think that all the Holy Spirit would have to do is lift His little pinky off Satan’s neck without even taking one step backward to permit Satan to give the time of day. Would you like to reconsider your unscriptural opinion? Particularly, the part about all those souls that you expect to be saved without the Holy Spirit!

The Lord states in His Word that false teachers will deny the power of the Holy Spirit in the last days and have "itching ears" for false teachings, doesn’t it? I do not blame anyone for weak faith. I have wavered on many occasions myself, but I am certain that the Lord will save all of us from more than we can bear. Just do not include the Holy Spirit and the whole Church in your weakness and fears, using it as an excuse to rewrite God’s Word. Some think it a rare opportunity to "lose one’s head" for the Lord.

You do not know when to quit, do you Pastor Hagee? You continue, "those of you who are reading this book after the Church has been taken in the Rapture, and for those of you who come to trust Christ during the Tribulation, you will have the ability to confirm which personality rising out of a European federation is the devil incarnate, the son of Satan." Really, Pastor Hagee! Men will come to trust Christ without the Holy Spirit?

Incidentally, why couldn’t they determine that from reading the Word of God? Oh, that’s right. No one can understand the Word of God without the Holy Spirit. But they could understand your book without the Holy Spirit. Or am I the one who is confused? Vanity! Vanity! Methinks thou name art Pastor John Hagee, speaking vain words in the name of Jesus right off the tip of your tongue.

At this point, I would like to refer you to verses that the Lord Jesus pointed out to me, when I first began feeling very uncomfortable with the enthusiasm concerning the teachings of some lady about two raptures. My first reaction was that these sheep were seeking to save their own lives, instead of seeking to lose their own lives for the sake of the Lord. Whereas, I thought we were supposed to reach as many souls as possible before the one Second Coming described by the Lord Himself--not in secret--but in full view for the whole world to see. How could we do that, if we were taken out of the way?

Jesus prayed for His disciples in a long passage in which He discussed "coming out of the world" but not "leaving the world" in the book of John. I will quote only verses 16: 33 and 17: 15. "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have TRIBULATION, but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." Jesus is praying for the disciples in 17: 15, "I pray not that thou shouldst take them OUT OF THE WORLD, but that thou shouldst keep them from evil."

Are we more valuable--or just more vulnerable--than the disciples that we deserve to be spared persecution while "more than any man can number" remain unsaved and/or WITHOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT TO HELP THEM ENDURE TO THE END?

You surely know better than that! Consider those who have been severely persecuted over a long period of years for refusing to give up their faith--and in your lifetime! Who’s side are you on, anyway, that you are unwilling to lay down your life for the Lord. Well, maybe you haven’t been forgiven enough to love the Lord that much. When I hear you rage against your enemies and self-righteously demand their execution, I am convinced that you may be incapable of loving and forgiving at all--at least, not in the way Jesus loved you!

You do realize that the earliest Christians fully expected the Lord to return in their lifetime, or Paul would not have written those letters to the CHURCH at Thessalonica in the first place--describing what must happen before He returns. So, that message was definitely for the Church that you insist is going to be "Raptured" before the son of perdition is revealed. Remember? The Thessalonians were just waiting and praying, and had stopped providing for their own basic needs. Paul was deeply concerned about their welfare. I hate to admit this, but I have noticed that many Christians today have stopped laboring to bring in the harvest of souls.

A lukewarm attitude, I think! "I’m saved. They had their chance. Why should I worry about drug addicts, homosexuals, broken homes, gang members, murderers, thieves, and adulterers? "I’m out of here!" If that is not your attitude, Pastor Hagee, you could have fooled me! Whatever happened to, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto Me."?

Why don’t you stop dwelling on the Ten Commandments which never saved anyone and were not even taught by Jesus Christ (See the enclosed message entitled, "Did Jesus teach the Ten Commandments?"), and concentrate on reading I Corinthians, 13.

This chapter has been called the "Love Chapter," The Golden Key to all Scripture, and the description of the Lord God Almighty, Himself, of whom John said in his first epistle, "God is Love." Read it every night for a year, until you get the message in you Spirit, and pray for understanding. I read it almost daily, all the years that I was rearing our six children, and it saved their lives (from their mother!).

For the benefit of all those who cite Noah as an example to justify their belief in two "Raptures," consider the facts again. Noah was not taken out the world. He was simply kept from the evil one, until the flood was over. That is an excellent analogy, if you understand that we also can be protected from the evil one while yet in the world--if the Holy Spirit is still with us. I get the impression that Gloria and Kenneth Copeland would go along with that, if you need a confirmation of that statement.

Actually, I have never heard the Copelands speak of an early Rapture, and that may be the correct position to take. We have not been called to be taken out the world, but to witness and share the gospel to overcome Satan--and to claim the blood of Jesus.

I was deeply concerned when I read that Morris Cerullo believed that Pat Robertson denied the "Rapture" altogether, but I will say now that he did not. I checked and double-checked. He obviously believes that he has been called to preach the gospel--not the Rapture, but he has written in one--or possibly more--of his books that he expects to be caught up in the air at the Second Coming of the Lord. He believes that every word of the account of the Second Advent can be taken literally. I was truly relieved to learn that, because that is what I believe. James Robison believes in the Second Advent, but seldom preaches it--nor have I heard him predict when it shall happen.

I know that the Lord intends to protect His Church and strengthen the members of His Body so that they can and will endure to the end--not the beginning, not the middle, but to the END OF THE TRIBULATION.

Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, and I am just as eager for His return as anyone, but I also trust the Lord God Jehovah to decide when. I am ready, and want every other person I know--or don’t know--to be ready also. Jesus said, "I came to save ALL." Well, let us be about the business of saving ALL.

Anyone who still doubts what I have been saying, please consider Revelations 7:13, "What are these arrayed in white robes? And whence came they?" They were described in verse 9 as a "multitude which no man could number." In verse14 the question is answered with "they which came out of great tribulation."

Now, skip over to Revelation 20: 4, and read, "And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Does that sound like the saints who are going to reign with Christ (The CHURCH) escaped out of the Tribulation? I pray that I am able to refuse the mark of the beast and joyfully elect to be beheaded instead. I believe that many of us would welcome that opportunity to express our love and gratitude to Our Lord by sticking around until ALL are saved and courageously singing on the way to the guillotine as the early Christians did on the way to the lion’s den. "Jesus Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings."

Maranatha! Oh, what a triumph! What a glorious day that will be! As I said earlier, I cannot wait to "lose my head" for the Lord.

PAUL SAID THAT LOVE FULFILLS THE WHOLE LAW.

September 4, l997

My favorite passage in God’s Word is I Corinthians, chapter 13, loved by Christians and non-Christians all over the world. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt declared that this passage influenced their lives more than anything they had ever read, and neither one of them were professing Christians. In fact, both believed that most professing Christians did not practice or understand this message of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthian Church congregation.

I have wondered myself, sometimes, if most Christians have even read it. Abraham Lincoln understood it, and even said that he would attend church, if he ever found a minister who was willing to preach the Word as it applied to ALL MEN, not just to themselves. From childhood, Lincoln read the Holy Scriptures and believed them to be the infallible Word of God, but did not accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior until much later in life.

In any event, most serious students of the Holy Scriptures believe they were written by God’s chosen prophets, as inspired by Jehovah, and agree that this particular chapter--rightly called, The Love Chapter--defines the heart of the Lord, because it is a definition of God’s love. John the Apostle stated quite simply and without qualification, "God is Love." The Love Chapter describes love--not as an emotion as most folks suppose love to be--but as an action or behavior that the Lord commanded us to DO. All definitions of love in this chapter are expressed in verbs.

The Lord knows that all of us are able to control our behavior, whether we can control our feelings or not. He expects us all to obey the only Commandment that Jesus Christ actually gave, that we love the Lord God Jehovah with all our hearts, mind, and strength, and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Lord took for granted that men did. Think about it. When push comes to shove, whom do we put first--instinctively?

We all love ourselves. Even when we are declaring our own unworthiness, we are hoping to get sympathy, which is self-love. We all behave in any way we know how to behave to get our own way or protect our own interests. Many folks attend church and pretend to be believers, because "it is good for business."

The Love Chapter exposes that kind of hypocrisy very clearly by stating, "Even if we give our bodies to be burned," it is worthless if we are not motivated by concern for the welfare of others--God’s idea of love. Jesus Christ literally was commanding us to be totally concerned for the interests of others, and wanted us to be totally dependent on Him for our own concerns, trusting Him to be exceedingly generous where our needs were concerned, if we obeyed that Commandment.

Think! Have you ever performed an act that you hoped others would perceive as being an unselfish or honest act, because deep down you hoped it would promote your interests? We do behave that way--and often unconsciously! We often must search our souls to discover whether our motives are pure or a little mixed, perhaps. And Satan is always there to accuse you, making it even more difficult to know if it is your sinful nature motivating you or Satan’s attempts to destroy your faith by putting doubts in your head.

Most folks are shrewd enough to know that overt and blatantly sinful acts are never performed in our own best interests, but Paul makes it clear in The Love Chapter that any act not done to promote the interests of others is a sinful act. It does not matter how much of a sacrifice one makes to perform it. No other message recorded by any man in all human history makes that statement in just that way. However the passage has inspired much commentary contained in many volumes--but none ever said it so well!

The Love Chapter recognizes all nine gifts that believers are given by the Lord by His Holy Spirit, but states that using any of them without being motivated by concern for the welfare of all others (love) renders those works to be worthless.

Love for all others makes us blind to our differences, whether racial, color of skin, or what the world perceives as being handicapped physically, mentally, or old age, because love "is not a respecter of persons."

Because this chapter gives us such a definitive picture of what Jesus Christ demonstrated, and expects us to do also, it has been called, "The Golden Key to all Scripture." If any difficult passage is not interpreted in the light of the "Key" that is intended to unlock the true interpretation of ALL SCRIPTURE, then the interpreter had better search further for a deeper meaning. Go back to the drawing board, Brother, because you missed the point!
Some interpretations are obviously inspired by Satan himself whereby many destructive cults and alleged Christian dogmas have arisen. Any dogma or doctrine that sounds more like the rules and regulations of an exclusive country club has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, who declared that He came not to condemn, but to save ALL. Therefore we must conclude that the Word of God is intended to be inclusive of all mankind.

What does the above discussion have to do with my winning the lottery? Perhaps, nothing, but every time I wish desperately that I could win the lottery, it is because I am totally frustrated over not being able to help someone I love who is in need. It takes money sometimes, and I just don’t have enough to share after I pay my bills. Sometimes, in a moment of compassion, I do share and end up not being able to pay all my bills!

More often, I tell others (whom I cannot help without overdrawing my account) to commit their lives to God and trust and obey Him, and He will supply their needs as He has always supplied mine. I believe that to be 100% true from personal experience, but I also know that most folks haven’t practiced faith enough to find out how good that advice is. At those times, I explain to the Lord in prayer that I really do NEED to win the lottery, because I cannot bear to say, "No," and disappoint one more person another time. That is the moment that I feel closest to understanding the heart of God!

Call upon the Lord, because He loves you more than any of us can imagine. I know that His greatest desire is to bless you, but you must ask and believe without wavering. Even if I did win the lottery, my winnings would be a pittance compared to what He can do for you. He owns everything.

But do you know what? I buy one lottery ticket every once in a while and tell myself, "Buying one ticket is faith; Buying two or more tickets is gambling." Why? Because I believe the Lord wants to bless me, and that is one way He can do it. Besides, who needs more money than a Christian who loves everyone so much that it hurts?

That probably sounds like a rationalization to all of you red necks out there, and maybe it is. But the Lord does work in mysterious ways, and He did promise to restore what Satan stole from me.

I learned the hard way that our Lord refuses to conform to our ideas as to what He should do. That I believe, if I believe anything at all. The worst mistakes I have ever made was when I thought I knew where He was leading me, and I jumped ahead, because I tried to second-guess Him--based on some Scripture taken out of context.

What is the difference between faith and gambling? Some would say there is a fine line between the two. Guessing wrong leads to loss, but guessing right leads to blessings. "Wait on the Lord," until you know His leading, and you won’t have to guess. In most cases, the verse that applies to lottery winnings is, "He maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." But the Lord has the power to intercede. Sometimes, I believe He does! Those are the times that I buy "just one lottery ticket" and pray, "So help me, God!"

If I do win, I’ll know it is love not luck, but don’t expect God to answer your prayers, unless you are willing to love and forgive everyone unconditionally first. And you also can expect to be crucified for your generosity over and over again. Lottery or no lottery, I would make that commitment again. What we really need is His love that money can’t buy, and I give Him all the Glory for that. Incidentally, the Lord also said that if we are faithful in a few things, He shall make us ruler over many things. (See Parable of the talents in Matthew, chapter 25.) I think I can count on that!

July 18,1998

Unfortunately, even pastors (especially male) have problems keeping in mind that all New Testament references to marital relationships are metaphors for a spiritual relationship between Jesus Christ (metaphorically, the Husband) and members of His body or His Church (metaphorically, His Bride).

Consider Ephesians, chapter 5, which is very clear on this subject. Verse 22 says, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord," and verse 24 says, "The Church (both men and women) is subject to Christ."

Verse 25 says, "Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it," which means husbands should give their lives for their wives.

Verse 28 says, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies." and verse 30 says, "For we (males and females) are members of His (Christ’s spiritual) body."

In verse 32, Paul explains in plain words, referring to all of the above as a "mystery" or a metaphor for the proper relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church (all believers). Paul stated, "I speak concerning Christ and His Church," using what we understand in the natural to explain that all Christians should submit to their spiritual head or husband, Christ.

"The wages of sin is death." Unfortunately, Satan wants everyone dead, and tempts us not to submit to anyone, but to insist on our rites (funeral).

Fortunately, the U. of I. taught me the need to teach teachers first that only the truth (Christ) can set us free. Thanks, Guys!

June 30, 1998

I am responding to Donald’s Kaul’s repeated expressions of cynicism that he presumes is shared by the majority--particularly by the sophisticated among us.

The problem is that the "Kaul’s" of the world always preface "faith" with the word "blind"--at least in their minds--believing "faith" is based on conditioning from early childhood, rather than their own idea of reality.

I KNOW reality to be the Truth of Jesus Christ, which is his middle name. (He said, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life: No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.")

I also KNOW that the "Kaul’s" of the world are deceived by their limited knowledge--not recognizing the obvious--that they can memorize numbers to count their ten fingers. But unless they can apply that knowledge (a priori knowledge or inner knowing) to counting other objects instead of repeating what they "learned" like parrots, they are retarded.

God’s definition of faith is knowledge of that which we cannot know by our senses alone, but only from EVIDENCE that proves the reality of that which cannot be experienced by our flesh. Those who deny this reality are blind to it, because creative thinking is a gift from our Creator by the Holy Spirit to Christians. They are the only ones ever inspired by God to change the destructive works of men to the constructive works of God, because they are able to know the only reality—TRUTH as given by the Holy Spirit.

July 15, l998

Nat Hentoff wrote objecting to taxpayers funding religious schools by making it possible for Christian parents to receive tax money for tuition to choose private Christian schools.

Hentoff quoted James Madison concerning the First Amendment (against any government-established religion) that public money should not be used to support private religious institutions (his opinion).

Because I agree with the "Establishment Clause," I have objected to Christian tax money being used to promote Darwin’s theory of evolution as a fact, despite mounting evidence that it is mathematically improbable, especially when tax money is also used to ridicule Creationism.

Furthermore, I was outraged in l967 that Christian tax money was used for library books at Champaign Central High promoting the major Oriental religions, as well as books describing deviant sexual practices and extra-marital sex as an option, in Hentoff’s words--for "impressionable youngsters." While Judeo-Christian literature, which inspired the greatest Western classics ever written, was banned from their shelves.

I taught Oriental literature to gifted classes at Central High, and was required to take psychological tests and hours of psychiatric sessions conditional to being certified.

I gave students the option to compare a passage from Kalidasa’s 16th Century play, Shakuntala, based on Buddhism to I Corinthians, chapter 13, (a definition of love) to demonstrate that "love" is a universal idea. The assignment was to compare to passages as literature, not religion.

Incidentally, I was certified, and the psychiatrist expressed regrets that public schools lost a righteously indignant but highly gifted teacher.

LOVE, YOUR NEIGHBOR

Regarding Verna Brown’s terse comment in her short one paragraph letter-to-the-editor that I "definitely have a problem" I probably do, but I have never had any I couldn’t solve, or used any as an excuse to accuse or blame others! Anyone who sits in judgment of someone she does not know and offers no explanation whatsoever for that judgment definitely has more problems than I’ve ever had. Perhaps, since many have expressed curiosity concerning my identity, I should introduce myself.

But first, I would like to recommend that Brown and one of my other critics, Mark Hunter, read the agenda of some of the more vociferous anti-family minorities in the country. They include homosexual groups, extremist women’s rights groups, and many others who think that women who choose homemaking as a career have "a problem" like me. They also think that moral values are definitely not for today. Furthermore, such humanistic values have been religiously forced on our school children for the last forty years--like Verna Brown, I suspect!

Both Brown and Hunter must be brain-washed "kids," or you would remember when the word "homosexual" was not even included in the Second Edition of Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, or was not worth mentioning in psychology or biological science textbooks. The reason is that the term "sexual" has always referred to methods of reproduction in scientific circles.

For example, organisms may reproduce asexually, heterosexually (higher forms of life), or hermaphroditically (if copulation is between organisms of the same sexual orientation, such as earthworms), but never "homosexually." "Homosexual" is a bastardized term to describe a relationship that does not occur in nature, because sexual activity that is natural leads to reproducing an organism’s own kind.

Yet "homosexuals" insist that their orientations are genetic. Surely, they know that all mutations are lethal? Organisms that do not reach maturity cannot reproduce themselves, and homosexuals do not reproduce at all, so how can they pass on homosexual genes?

Of course, all through the ages, a certain percentage of men and women have been born with insatiable and abnormal sex drives, which led to deviant behavior. Deviants practice bestiality, pedophilia, incest, sexual abuse of the elderly and handicapped, sado-masochism, and sodomy (oral and anal sex) with both males and females and even sex toys. Nothing is beyond their imagination. I understand that some men have seduced their vacuum cleaners!

These deviants may very well have been born with an inordinate desire for sexual satisfaction. However, they choose to satisfy that desire in deviant ways, because they do not want the responsibility of offspring and/or spouses, and certainly have no interest in meeting the demands on their time by family members.

Also, you probably do not recall when mothers of young children were not forced to work outside the home to survive but have always had the option to choose a career if they desired to do so. I have several aunts in their eighties or nineties now, who earned advanced degrees to teach or practice medicine. I have so many cousins of the fair sex with doctorates, that I have lost count.

One cousin was graduated as valedictorian of her medical school and is head radiologist at the largest hospital in Oklahoma City, and her husband, who was salutatorian is head of the neonatology department in the same hospital. Another cousin is a dermatologist. One was a research chemist at a large eastern university, and another was just a professor at the U. of I. I know of none who are not at least teachers, and positively none who are attorneys or politicians. Thank God. I have any number of relatives who are musicians, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, engineers, and others who can think straight, but none that make it up as they go along as so many social scientists do.

When I was in high school, we had no mayor of our small town, no police, no crime, no broken homes among my classmates, no taverns in our town, three churches, no city water or sewage, and taxes were minimal. Kids bought their own books, and corporal punishment in schools was against the law. I have observed that violence breeds violence and a police force encourages women to bring false charges against men--called "power plays" just to get their way. I believe men react negatively and violently to women who threaten them, and respond positively to women who appreciate the nature of men.

As for our family, we reared six children and five have degrees: one is an electrical engineer, a daughter is a teacher in a Head Start program, one started respiratory therapy departments in hospitals that had none, and now he sets up computer programs in hospitals. A second daughter was a James Scholar studying to teach animal technology, when she developed a severe allergy to small animals. She switched to real estate. A third son is a chemistry, math, and physics teacher, and the youngest is a successful salesman for a large telecommunications company. None are divorced, except the youngest, whose wife abandoned him and their daughter for drugs. We do not know where she is, but she is in our prayers. So, you see, we do have a serious problem.

My own degree is in English and biology, because plants and animals are my hobbies, as well as landscaping, interior decorating, architecture, and writing poetry, but rearing children (mine and everybody else’s) and writing about the Lord Jesus Christ are my careers. We built our home with shovels, spades, concrete, mortar, and bricks we made ourselves, because we never earned enough to pay income tax, as my husband was a disabled veteran with a chronic bone disease contracted when he was struck by shrapnel in Germany. Naturally, we couldn’t get a mortgage, which was a blessing.

We both thanked God daily for our blessings, and I never really thought we had many serious problems, but somehow I suspect you do. I have had some experience in solving problems, however, and I would be more than happy to help you with yours. No matter how busy I am, I make time to clear up the delusions of presumptuous "kids"!

LOVE, YOUR NEIGHBOR. THAT IS A COMMANDMENT!

June 7, 1998

God sent a clear message of love to central Illinois for which all should be grateful. Yet, even Christians questioned why God permitted the Assembly of God Church to be bombed, seriously injuring many dedicated members. Smug atheists mocked that it was evidence supporting their unbelief, sneering, "God doesn’t even care about His own."

These scoffers couldn’t be more wrong! I will explain. Those who question do not have a clear understanding of the Lord’s priorities. He is in the business of saving souls--not necessarily in the business of saving bodies--or "animal skins" that clothe our souls, then they return to dust.

Right question: What message did God send to save souls? Answer: If we trust and obey Jesus Christ--loving and forgiving our enemies, as the church members clearly demonstrated--then we shall be blessed in this life (See Deuteronomy 28: 1-14 for list of blessings including protection from enemies, healing, peaceful relationships, and joy.), and have eternal life in the next.

God also admonishes us to forgive our enemies, saying, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," Romans 12:19.

Summary: A church was viciously bombed with intent to kill, but the members reacted with loving obedience, giving thanks for preserving all lives. The Lord responded quickly by exposing their enemy who committed suicide and sparing the whole county terror and an expensive investigation.

Finally, the Lord called His faithful brethren to demonstrate His Will, His Word, His Way, and His loving desire to reach unbelievers by demonstrating that He lives!

The Lord has a special message or revelation for those servants who can receive it and need to be encouraged. The sign of Jonah, spoken of by Christ, as reported in Matthew 12: 39-41, and also in Luke 11: 29-32, says: "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah.

If you recall, Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, and has often been compared by analogy to Christ’s presence in the grave for three days after His death and before His Resurrection. Jonah then decided that he had better deliver his message of death and destruction to Nineveh, a Gentile city and a microcosm of the world today, but the Ninevites confessed their sins and repented in sackcloth and ashes.

The Word says, "Therefore, God repented," or changed his mind and did not destroy the city. Exactly, what did Jesus mean when He said that in the last days the only sign given would be that of Jonah? The Lord instructed me to read the story of Jonah--all of it--and I realized that I had never paid much attention to the end of the story.

Jonah ascended a mountain and pouted, because he felt that God--by changing His mind and not destroying Nineveh--had made a false prophet of him. God took pity on Jonah and raised up a gourd vine to shelter him from the heat of the sun, then he sent a cankerworm to destroy the root of the vine. Jonah again complained. God admonished Jonah by saying that he cared more about the vine than he did about the hundred and twenty thousand people that God had spared.

The fact is that the prophecy Jonah gave failed, because the Ninevites sincerely confessed their sins and repented. What would happen if the whole world heard the Gospel and repented? Do you think that God would change His mind about the prophecy that He gave John as recorded in Revelations and decide not to destroy the world?

I Corinthians, chapter 13, tells us that prophecies fail, and they do. The sign of Jonah is very encouraging to me. I like to think that if we all really try, we can reach everyone, before it is too late. Maybe the disasters prophesied in Revelations can be prevented.

Just a moment of hating,

Just a moment of lying,

Just a moment of resentment

Any moment of loving,

Any moment of giving,

Any moment of thanksgiving

[Back to Top]

BACK TO HOME