Politricks’ and the English Language

Posted on November 30, 2014 by dknezacek

Having barely scraped through high school English, I really didn’t understand the importance of language, until I became a printer and graphic artist. I learned that errors in language can cost money, in fact small typos have cost me thousands of dollars!

So it is with chagrin that I have been watching the English language degrade to the point of being unrecognizable at times. The truth is that you can play games with language, and deceptive use of language can, and does, lead people into traps!

Communication is far more important than most people imagine, and without it lives can be lost, and money and time wasted. It is not okay to use a word that is sort-of-like the word you actually mean, you need to use the actual word itself!

The following article appeared on Pajamas Media this last week and it is so good I just needed to repost it.

‘Politricks’ and the English Language

In betraying language, Western progressives have betrayed the world of thought and the culture of freedom.

by
DAVID SOLWAY
Bio
November 27, 2014 – 10:27 pm

An infallible sign of cognitive degradation is the mutilation of language, a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly widespread in the current (anti) intellectual milieu. What George Orwell despaired of in the chronic usages of political language in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language“—it is “designed to make lies truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”—seems even more so today. Orwell’s “six rules” for good writing are not so much the issue here, and some of these have been ably contested by reputable authors. But he is right when he says that clear thinking “is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.” Poor thinking corrupts language; slovenly language corrupts thinking—and the inevitable result of these twin perversions is moral corruption and political barbarism.

Of course, one frequently comes across in the political writing of both the left and the right, “progressivists” and conservatives, all manner of less degrading blemishes — grammatical solecisms, logical infelicities, bad paragraphing, sloppy editing practices generating an abundance of typos (my favorites: the “Untied States,” the “Pubic Wars”), and the like. This is to be expected in the Age of the Internet, when one writes an article in the morning and posts it in the afternoon, rather than submit it to several days’ worth of revision. The Age of Rapidly Breaking News leads to critically broken prose. That we also live in the Age of Declining Educational Standards in which rigorous language training — spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, grammatical concinnity, reading with understanding — has gone by the board and in which the Image has come to predominate over the Word almost guarantees that far too many professional journalists and bloggers can no longer write properly – which means that they can no longer think coherently or even string two or three sentences into a meaningful thought-unit.
But such misfortunes seem like mere peccadilloes when compared to the willful devastation of language used almost exclusively for the transmission of lies and the practice of slander rather than for disciplined argument and conveying empirical verities. Regrettably, linguistic debasement has always been a mainstay of political discourse, whether for “reasons of state,” military purposes, electoral advantage, self-promotion, or the arts of persuasion. What we might call “word deformation” is a staple of political life and should not surprise us.

It must also be said that the receiver of the message is equally complicit with the sender, having put his critical faculties to sleep and accepted the eidolon for the thought. The legions of the credulous are ready to take it all in, crook, crime and stinker. Fiction and subterfuge serve the strategic purpose of convincing a pampered and affluent society of its moral virtue, as James Burnham points out in Suicide of the West, “by affirming [its] loyalty to the correct egalitarian principles…without costing undue personal inconvenience.” In other words, we need to feel good about what we feel bad about. We accomplish this feat by a kind of moral polarity, reversing the actual valence of objects or events in order to represent what they are not, and thus sparing ourselves the need to examine our motives, make genuine sacrifices, grapple with disagreeable issues and actively seek out truth.

There are, however, degrees of semantic depravity. Its most malignant form is inexorably associated with totalitarian regimes, wholly invested in the dissemination of what Goebbels called “the Big Lie,” the suppression or vitiation of truth and the inflation of its opposite as a systemic function of both governance and statecraft. Orwell’s 1984 is the classic text in the study and exposure of totalitarian discourse, though it is a mistake to read the book solely as an example of dystopian fiction or as a cautionary tale. It is a mirror held up to the actual practice of tyrannical and oppressively monolithic regimes. In recent historical times we have seen its pestilential force in fascist, communist and theo-political systems of mind-control: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and now triumphalist Islam.

This, too, should not surprise us. But what should not cease to astonish is the extent to which the language sickness has spread to the democratic West. Far from a mere aberration or an occupational hazard, the Big Lie has been installed among us as the primary form of political and cultural address along the entire gamut of disinformation, from outright interment of fact and customizing of inconvenient truths to unmitigated calumny and virulent libel. The Western media and the “progressivist” left-liberal political class have, over the years, incrementally adopted the discursive techniques of totalitarian states and theocratic dispensations.

One sees the neutralizing or flattening of language intended to mislead especially with regard to Islam. Muslim rapists and felons in the UK and Scandinavia are routinely referred to as “Asians”—a demographic blend that serves as a linguistic cowcatcher sweeping law-abiding Korean, Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese and Filipino immigrants into its purview. The distinction between “Islamic” and “Islamist” is another such evasion. A recent column in the National Post, relying on the default position of the MSM, speaks of “the perverted values governing entire Islamist-dominated regimes” (italics mine). But where are such “Islamist” regimes to be found? Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco, Mali, Syria, Iraq, Hizbollah/Lebanon and Iran, among the 49 Muslim-majority countries in the world, are not Islamist regimes, but self-avowedly Islamic. Indeed, Pakistan designates itself officially as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, not the Islamist Republic of Pakistan. Iran is the Islamic Republic of Iran, not the Islamist Republic of Iran. The terror regime that now controls one third of Iraq calls itself the Islamic State, not the Islamist State.

What, then, is Islamism? According to Daniel Pipes, Islamism is “the radical Islamic impulse to apply Sharia.” However, despite a process of re-interpretation and adaptation to changing circumstances over time, the application of Sharia — that is, Islamic law — is mandated in the Koran and constitutes the solemn duty of every believing Muslim. It is not radical but canonical. That many Muslims are indifferent to the command, or seek to edulcorate it, changes nothing; it is “on the books” and will remain in force or constantly be revived when it is neglected. Islam, not Islamism, is the source of Sharia law and the fount of all that we reprehend as radical or extreme or, as our Procrustean Bowdlerizers like to say, “anti-Islamic.” As Diana West puts it, the “anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism law under consideration here is itself Islamic — as quintessentially Islamic as the prayers themselves…sharia is the codifed mainstay of Islam.” Note: of Islam, not Islamism. It behooves us to get the language right. Are we so timorous that our greatest fear is of contravening the detours of political correctness — the technique of evasion — rather than of an adversary who aims to destroy us, whether through terror or demography? I confess that I am still hunting in vain for a credible definition of “Islamism” or for that mysterious entity known as an “Islamist.”

The slippery slope has now become a precipitous cliff-face. We note how academia has come to resemble the German universities of the 1930s, centers not of learning and scholarship but of political indoctrination. Our media outlets are like the Pravdas and Izvestias of the Soviet Union but to a more effective degree, since they operate under the guise of freedom and openness, thus deceiving a lazy and gullible clientele unaware that “News” has morphed into propaganda. The occupant of the most powerful office in the world, the American presidency, is the living incarnation of the Prince of Lies (the latest in an endless series of lies being that the Ebola virus is definitely not airborne and that the U.S. will not put boots on the ground in Iraq) and yet he continues to energize his electoral base and wealthy donors with an appealing façade and typically suave rhetoric. And the political elite with its hangers-on — feminists, race mongers, journalists, “pro-choicers,” radical bloggers, anti-Zionists, “social justice” activists, community organizers, liberation theologians — no longer even try, for the most part, to engage in argument and honest debate but have resorted to a broad range of rhetorical expedients: barefaced falsehoods, gross defamation, character assassination, crude hyperbole, and flagrant vulgarity. So much for the public conversation of ideas. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

One comes across innumerable instances of such malpractice every day. Just one hour of desultory Internet scanning yielded the following:

John Kerry, another master of mendacity, informs the world that global warming (the greatest scam of the modern age) is a more “fearsome threat” than Ebola or ISIS.
A Kuwaiti imam delivers a khutbah in which he affirms that ISIS is selling women, young girls and children to the Israelis.
MSNBC airs a segment in which Republicans are blamed for the outbreak of Ebola in the U.S.
Texas Democrat Wendy Davis publishes a wheelchair ad targeting rival gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott, who is paralyzed from the waist down. Shades of Texas state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, who said at a state Democratic convention that the GOP stands for “gringos y otras pendagos,” or “white and other assholes”; informed that Abbott was in attendance he replied “if I had known that I would told [sic] him directly to his face.” (Interestingly, Abbott’s wife is Mexican American.)
The blog Another angry woman instructs us that we live in a culture of gendered violence and that the patriarchy “oppresses the f**k out of women.”
A feminist video site employs young girls, who look to be about five or six years old, launching a barrage of F-words to further the cause.
Mustafa Hussein, aka Theodore Barrett, a convicted child molester helping to foment the Ferguson race riots, is the subject of “fawning, gushing profiles by NPR, Washington Post, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Bloomberg, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.”
Feminist diva Sarah Silverman attempts to justify voter fraud to benefit Obama and the Democrats, brazenly asserting that “lawmakers are trying to f**k you in your assho**s”; not content with concealing the fact that photo ID is required for almost every official transaction in the public sphere, Silverman proceeds to pound the drum for unlimited abortion rights, entertains an encouraging visit from “Jesus fu**ing Christ,” deplores that women seeking abortions are “forced to look at an ultrasound of the foetus” (horror of horrors); and continues to fracture language with a blizzard of jargony “likes” and generous dollops of sleaze and smut.
South Carolina Democrat gubernatorial candidate state Senator Vincent Sheheen tells supporters re. his opponent Republican governor Nikki Haley, “We are going to escort whore…her…out the door.” A gaffe? A Freudian slip, perhaps, but judging from Shaheen’s pleased laughter, one that points to a real sentiment.
A brilliant and passionate Rosh Hashanah sermon by Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Marietta, Georgia, anatomizing the spread of evil in our time, in which every sentence contains a lode of verifiable truth, is met by a cyber onslaught of obloquy, vile assertions, character innuendo, and lies of consummate vulgarity, while no attempt is made to rebut the rabbi’s claims with rational or evidentiary counter-arguments.

One recalls late French ambassador Daniel Bernard, a socialist of impeccable credentials, who rose to the heights of analytical brilliance and coruscating eloquence in his assessment of international complexities by proclaiming that “all the current troubles in the world are because of that sh**ty little country Israel.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

This from an hour’s worth of random Internet surfing. There are slip-ups on the right as well, obviously: the occasional use of intemperate language and defamatory episodes during in-house controversies, which I deplore but which are, thankfully, comparatively infrequent. Nonetheless, as Andrew Klavan consulting the Leftese dictionary has explained, “We stodgy conservatives are mired in the old-fashioned practice of using language to convey thoughts and ideas, but zippy, forward-looking, youth-oriented leftists use words that aren’t weighed down by things like ‘meaning,’ or ‘sense.’” For the liberal-left and its special-interest minions, the main purpose of language is to revile opponents, to bury or re-valence the truth and to convey fables and forgeries in its stead — for which, as Al Sharpton has richly demonstrated, bad grammar and tortured English are no impediments.

But the dilemma goes deeper than that, even among those who are capable of writing passable prose or speaking articulately. New York Times columnists Paul Krugman (solve the debt problem by creating more debt) and Tom Friedman (Israel employs “Hamas Rules” in Gaza and Lebanon) are good illustrations of reality-challenged ideologues blinded by their own preconceptions, plainly several bubbles off level. Islamic apologist Reza Aslan is another case in point, a man who, as Sam Harris writes, “cannot possibly believe what he says, because nearly everything he says is a lie or a half-truth calibrated to mislead a liberal audience. If he claims something isn’t in the Koran, it probably is.” Others like actor Ben Affleck, who appeared on Bill Maher’s Real Time interview panel with Harris, simply don’t know what they are talking about, trading in ignorant mystifications whereby words signal or attach to personally held concepts, prejudices or assumptions rather than to anything in the real world of political affairs.

In other words, the fundamental grammar of thought itself has been decoupled from the real world, floating off into the realms of fantasy and ideological semiotics — a mental field comprising the four states of myopia, ignorance, bias and deception — where the linkage between idea and fact has been thoroughly supplanted by a false vinculum, that is, by a connection between a signifier and a figment (what I like to call the Sigfig Nexus), an expression and a distortion, agitprop and illusion, a word and a non-thing — to say, as Swift put it in the Fourth Book of Gulliver’s Travels, “the thing which is not.” This species of cognitive transgression goes beyond Aristotle’s laws of thought in which “A” cannot equal “not-A.” Aristotle was concerned with logic, not duplicity, with non-contradiction, not deception. In the latter case, “A” is not meant only to equal “not-A”; “A” is also meant to equal zero. It says the thing which is not. In today’s “progressivist” milieu, the lie has become not merely a promiscuous aspect of discourse; it has become the essence of discourse. We see how well it functions in the recent practice of legislative Gruberism.

The term “progressive” or “progressivist” as currently plied assumes that ethical progress is historically determined, in other words, relying on the Marxist model, that it is a kind of dialectical moralism. Klavan illustrates by showing how the “idea of progress is built into another left wing phrase, ‘the 21st Century.’ In leftese, the 21st century means a magical place of peace and enlightenment. The phrase is found in such leftese sentences as ‘Putin can’t just conquer Crimea, this is the 21st century,’ or ‘No religion wants to behead non-believers and enslave women anymore. This is the 21st century.’ When this wonderful 21st century will actually occur is anyone’s guess. Probably not for hundreds of years. In the meantime, the phrase can be usefully employed instead of taking meaningful action.” Progressivism has institutionalized a parallel, disjunctive language that says the opposite of what is the case or asserts the thing which is not, in the interests of ideological bracketing. As David Gelernter laments in the Weekly Standard, the “victory of brainless ideology is on the brink of becoming institutionalized” — if it has not already. Gelernter is alluding to the ravages of the “feminist incubator,” but his dirge applies to “progressivism” in general.

At the farther end of this sliding scale of linguistic derailment, this campaign against truth, we find what is fast becoming the dirty shirt of ostensibly discursive garb; that is, the response to researched and lucid argument not only with deliberate fabrications but with volleys of obscenity, ranging from invective and insinuation to ad hominem attacks and the most sordid of profanities. Such is the language of the left, manipulating the lie in all its forms (omission, misrepresentation, exaggeration) and culminating in verbal assault and battery — all tried and tested means of avoiding rational debate and informed discussion.

Once language has been so thoroughly denatured, poisoning the wells of communication and rendering truth an archaic remnant of political nostalgia, the prospects for the recovery of honor, health and strength in a society fade into Spenglerian darkness. Western intellectuals, academics, journalists, politicians and civic leaders have learned from the West’s ideological enemies, having mastered the science of the Big Lie. And in betraying language, they have betrayed the world of thought and the culture of freedom, hawking the tainted wares of a demonic illiteracy.

___________________________________________________________________________

Note: A separate but related issue has to do with high levels of immigration. The 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) reports that 21% of U.S. residents speak a language other than English at home. Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, worries that “allowing in over 1 million new legal immigrants a year and to a lesser extent tolerating illegal immigration has important implications for preserving a common language.” However, as we have seen, the “common language” has already been blighted and debauched both by those who are partially agraphic and given to scatology as well as those who can write and speak intelligibly but put their facility in the service of chicanery and dissimulation. Many are merely foot soldiers and language goons; others occupy positions of authority and influence. This is the left’s poisoned gift to the “common language.”
David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, was released by Mantua Books. His latest book is The Boxthorn Tree, published in December 2012. Visit his Website at www.davidsolway.com.

Posted in World Events | Tagged clear thinking, Daniel Pipes, declining educational standards, george orwell, importance of grammar, mutilation of language, orwells 1984, Politics and the English Language, Sarah Silverman, willful devastation of language | 1 Comment

Violence in Ferguson Planned well in advance

Posted on November 26, 2014 by dknezacek

News media are reporting that the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, was a “reaction” to the grand jury announcement that there would be no charges in the shooting death of Michael Brown, back in August. As the author points out, the violence was preventable, but it looks like someone in high places wanted a spectacle.

This article was originally published by christianpatriots.org

We do indeed live in the days Paul spoke of in II Timothy 3:1

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”

Did They Want More Violence In Ferguson? 10 ‘Coincidences’ Too Glaring To Ignore

November 26, 2014 / Country Christian

Was it a conspiracy or was it incompetence? Those appear to be the only two alternatives that we are left with after the horrific violence that we witnessed in Ferguson on Monday night. The first round of Ferguson rioting back in August took everyone by surprise, but this time authorities had more than three months to prepare. They had the ability to control precisely when the grand jury decision would be announced and how many cops and National Guard troops would be deployed on the streets. But despite all this, the violence in Ferguson on Monday night was even worse than we witnessed back in August. Either this was a case of almost unbelievable incompetence, or there was someone out there that actually wanted this to happen. If someone out there is actually trying to provoke more violence in Ferguson, then the rioters are being played like a fiddle. Most of them have no idea that they could potentially just be pawns in a game that is far larger than they ever imagined. The only other alternative to explain what we just saw is incompetence on a level that is absolutely laughable. Something definitely does not smell right about all of this, and let us hope that at some point the American people get the truth. The following are 10 “coincidences” from Monday night in Ferguson that are too glaring to ignore…

#1 Federal, state and local law enforcement authorities had more than three months to prepare for the violence that would follow the announcement of the grand jury decision. The mainstream media endlessly hyped this controversy and everyone knew that trouble would be brewing. But despite an enormous amount of time to prepare, very little was actually done to prevent any violence from happening.

#2 Someone made the decision to make the public announcement about the grand jury decision in the evening. Anyone involved in law enforcement knows that crowd control is far more difficult after dark. This also ensured that instead of being tied up with work or school, a maximum number of protesters would be able to be involved in the violence.

#3 Fortunately for the mainstream media, the announcement of the grand jury decision was perfectly timed to provide the largest possible number of prime time viewers for the big news networks.

#4 Just like back in August, no law enforcement authorities of any kind responded while dozens of businesses were vandalized, looted and set of fire.

#5 According to Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, National Guard troops were purposely held back from intervening in the rioting that was unleashed when the grand jury decision was made known to the public…

In a press conference, he called the delay “deeply concerning” and said the Guard troops were available but were not deployed when city officials asked.

The troops had been readied last week by Gov. Jay Nixon as the grand jury announcement neared. But as gunshots rang out in the night and looters torched buildings, they were nowhere to be seen.

#6 It is being reported that the heavily armed National Guard troops were limited to “keeping the peace at a courthouse, patrolling the outskirts of town and preventing disturbances in other suburbs” as horrific violence raged in the heart of Ferguson on Monday night.

#7 Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder has accused Missouri Governor Jay Nixon of holding back the National Guard troops because of pressure from the Obama administration. On Monday night, he angrily made the following statement to Fox News…

“Is the reason that the National Guard was not in there because the Obama Administration and the Holder Justice Department leaned on you to keep them out? I cannot imagine any other reason why the governor who mobilized the National Guard would not have them in there to stop this.”

#8 The Washington Post has documented that Attorney General Eric Holder had been in direct contact with Governor Nixon and had expressed “frustration” with the fact that the National Guard had been activated…

A top aide to Holder called the governor’s office earlier this week to express Holder’s displeasure and “frustration,” according to a Justice Department official.

“Instead of de-escalating the situation, the governor escalated it,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the subject. “He sent the wrong message. The tone of the press conference was counterproductive.”

#9 Firefighters in Ferguson did not immediately respond to calls to put out the multiple fires that were set by protesters. As a result, many businesses essentially burned to the ground. But this did make for some amazing television footage.

#10 In the worst of the “war zones”, journalists with cameras and microphones were crawling all over the place while there were hardly any police to be seen at all. How is it possible that law enforcement could have failed so badly? Could it be possible that this was orchestrated on purpose?

Sadly, as I have written about previously, the civil unrest that we are witnessing in Ferguson is just a small preview of what is coming to America.

The anger and frustration that are seething under the surface in this country have reached a boiling point. Instead of coming together, we are seemingly more divided than ever. Americans have been trained to hate one another, fear one another and blame one another. I fear that we are not too far away from actually becoming ungovernable.

And when the next major wave of the economic crisis strikes and we start experiencing real suffering in this nation, the temper tantrums that we are going to witness in our major cities are going to make what is happening in Ferguson right now look like a Sunday picnic.

So buckle up and hold on, because it is going to be a really bumpy ride from here on out.

Ferguson is not the end – it is just the beginning of a horrible new chapter in American history.

Written by: MICHAEL SNYDER of THE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

Posted in World Events | Tagged conspiracy or incompetence, ferguson missouri, planned violence | Leave a comment

The Gay Agenda in the Light of the Gospel

Posted on November 16, 2014 by dknezacek

Recently the news came out that the openly Lesbian Houston Mayor, Annise Parker, had subpoenaed the sermons of five area pastors. Apparently these pastors had taken a stand against homosexuality and she wanted to find evidence that they had used their pulpits to make political statements.

Amazingly, the sermons in question are available on-line, free to the public.

So, why would she send legal demands for the information?

Obviously this is an attempt to intimidate and silence the opposition, but will it? Since the beginning of the Christian Church, pastors and their sheep have been dragged before kings, presidents, magistrates, and courts, and a great many of those men and women lost their lives for their trouble. Others spent many years in prisons and gulags. Even today there are many Christians locked up in labour camps in China, Saudi Arabia, and other totalitarian states.

So will her tactics work? Not if these are real Christians, and that is the big question. There are a great many pastors who view their status and prestige as more important than taking a stand for the truth. I am so glad that pastor Randy White said “never” to her demands! There is at least one Houston area pastor who has backbone!

But what does the bible say about homosexuality, anyway? There are a great many pastors who say that it is possible to be gay and a Christian at the same time. Does the bible actually say this? Because if it does then the Houston pastors would be wrong, and Ms. Parker would be correct for pursuing them.

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Leviticus 18:22

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13

Many of those pastors would tell you that “we are not under the law” and therefore Old Testament law no longer applies, during the Church age. Paul did indeed say that we are “not under the law, but under grace”, but this does not mean that God no longer expects obedience. Jesus did say “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18) God never changes.

Paul, addressing the subject of homosexuality (among other sins) said;

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:26-32

And, just in case we didn’t get it, Paul later spoke of homosexuality as a sin committed by the unrighteous;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-1

There have always been two divisions among homosexuals, those who are somewhat effeminate, and those who appear “hyper-masculine”. Paul is addressing both camps in this epistle. Notice also that these people are grouped with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers (a person who speaks abusively), and extortioners!

God views all of these people in the same way, and all deserve an eternity in the lake of fire! (We could add those who commit every sin in the bible as well; all sinners deserve death and an eternity in hell) The bible also says “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”(Romans 3:23).

That’s the bad news.

The good news comes in the next verse;

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Yes, there were former homosexuals in the early Christian Church, as well as former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. The author, Paul the Apostle, was a former murderer, who had actually led persecutions against the Christian Church (Acts 9:1). Some would excuse him since he had government authority behind him, but if we don’t excuse Nazi butchers, who also had government authority, neither should we excuse Saul of Tarsus. Rather, we can rejoice that God reached down and saved an undeserving sinner.

No doubt people like Annise Parker remember that, at times, people like her were imprisoned, and sometimes put to death, for the sin of homosexuality. And, others suffered social stigma and ostracism. No doubt she remembers that those who did this identified themselves as Christians! Her reaction to pastors who speak out publicly against her lifestyle is understandable.

What a lot of Christians, and even pastors, don’t understand is that the Christian Church is not commanded to take over society. Our command is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The 1930s Nazi movement in Germany was also full of gays, and they too sent many Christians to the concentrations camps. (not that there were all that many true Christians in Germany at that time). For those who are new to the idea of Nazi homosexuality I would recommend you read “The Pink Swastika” by Lively and Abrams.

How did the Old Testament Jews interpret the passages in Leviticus?

And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. I Kings 14:24

And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. I Kings 15:11-12

And Jehoshaphat;

And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land. I Kings 22:46

And Josiah, one of the last, and best, kings of Israel, and also a good, God fearing man;

7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove II Kings 23:7

So what should we take from all this evidence? God hates homosexuality just as he hates adultery, fornication, theft, murder, covetousness (envy), and the worship of false gods!

Nation-states have a vested interest in removing homosexuality, since homosexuals do not have children, which the state needs to fuel an economy, and join the armed forces for the nation’s defence. Everyone gets old and dies, and someone is needed to replace you.

God’s commands to individuals are different than His permissions for nations; a nation may do things that an individual may not, but that nation may be led by lost men who will also spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. Here is what Paul said when the gay Nero was on the throne of Rome;

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13:4

We could go back to the same passages in Leviticus and see that a man who had sex with his daughter-in-law was also to be put to death, as was a couple who committed adultery. Children who disobeyed their parents were also to be put to death!

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

There is no evidence that Israel ever obeyed this commandment. But the same God who gave the rest of the bible also gave that one. Stubborn and rebellious children do indeed deserve death, as to all sinners, but what God wants is repentance, not sacrifice.

Let me also say that in my youth I too was a stubborn and rebellious child. If we put to death all the stubborn and rebellious children, the world would be a very empty place, but God is telling us something about Himself in these passages;

He is telling us that only He is perfect, all humanity has sinned, and all sin is mortal!
We can’t, however just take some biblical passages and apply them without reading the last word from the Giver of the Law, Jesus Christ. Adultery was another sin for which the punishment of the law was death, yet hear the Word of the Lord in this instance;

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John 8:3-7

You need to remember this lesson whenever you read the law. You too are a sinner worthy of death. One who is worthy of death has no business taking the life of another. Those who have received the mercy of God need to be merciful toward other sinners, but at the same time, we need to call sin “sin”!

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

As the story goes on, all her accusers went away, and she was left with the Lord;

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The bible is correct that everyone who sins is worthy of death, but Jesus Christ is also telling us that those who are worthy of death themselves are not qualified to put another sinner to death!

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written,Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Romans 12:19

It is not for Christians to put other sinners to death, or to advocate the death penalty. If you preach the gospel, and the truth about sin they will hate you enough! We are called to preach the truth, but we are not called to force the world into our image! That is the Lord’s job when He returns! And, He will do it perfectly.

At the same time Christians ought to oppose gay marriage, for the simple fact that God instituted marriage between a man and a woman.

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matthew 19:4-6

Gay officials, like Houston Mayor Annise Parker, appear to be bullying the Churches out of fear that they might do to her what she would like to do to them. Or perhaps, it is out of fear that given the chance they might do what other “Christians” have done in the past. Maybe it is out of a spirit of vengeance, even though modern Christians are not the ones who did this, but other professing Christians several generations ago.

It is a shame that professing Christians have so frequently ignored the commands of Jesus Christ;

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Matthew 5:43-44

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Luke 6:27

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:19-21

See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. I Thessalonians 5:15

The Roman Catholic Church has indeed advocated the death penalty for “heretics” including bible believing Christians, as well as Witches, and homosexuals. There are even some among the protestant churches who would also approve of the death penalty for Witches and homosexuals, as well as Muslims, but we have seen above that Jesus does not approve of such a penalty, and neither did the early Christian Church.

For a Christian, our home is not this planet; “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Hebrews 11:13

It is a natural thing to want to do to ISIS, and gay supremacists, the things that they are doing to innocent people. It is natural, but Christians are called to be supernatural.

The aforementioned book “The Pink Swastika” documented some of the abuses that the Gay German Nazis did in the concentration camps in the 1930s and 40s, and they were horrific. They did indeed deserve the wrath of God, and God can, and will, bring judgment on them when He is ready.

Remember that you, too, deserve the wrath of God.

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Romans 3:22-26

You see, Jesus wants to save Anise Parker, and the men and women of ISIS. In God’s eyes their sin is no worse than yours, or mine. They are deviants, and murderers? Yes, but your sin and mine demands the same penalty; Separation from God for all eternity in the Lake of Fire! To God there is no difference between you and me, and Anise Parker, or the men and women of ISIS!

The bible documents how the whole human race is a family. You and Anise Parker have common ancestors. So do you and the people of ISIS. So do the people of ISIS and the Jews.

If you and I believe that Jesus took our sin upon Himself, then how can we withhold such a great gospel from other undeserving sinners? Members of the same family?

Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking you deserved the gospel. You did not! God in His mercy reached down and made an effort to get unworthy sinners to repent! It is not about you, but about Him! If He did such a miracle in us, then He can do the same for others!

Posted in Christian Doctrine, World Events | Tagged anise parker, Annise Parker, Christian Church, gay agenda, gay marriage, gay nazis, isis, Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus | Leave a comment

When is the Son of Man revealed?

Posted on November 9, 2014 by dknezacek

Whenever we read something that we don’t understand, people have a tendency to skip over it and move beyond. This is not something that is peculiar to me, but a universal trait among the human race.

You can see this in the gospels where the people were confronting Jesus over his statement that the Son of Man would be lifted up in death (John 12:34). They knew that the Old Testament promised the Messiah an everlasting kingdom, so how is it possible that he would die?

The Old Testament clearly says that the Messiah would die, and yet it still promised Him an eternal kingdom. You can see this in Daniel 9:26, Isaiah 53, and Psalm 22, among others. The Jews of that day, and even until today, failed to harmonize all the Scriptures, and thus could not understand that the Messiah would die, not for Himself, but for them, and then be resurrected to receive His eternal kingdom!

I am going through the gospel of Luke during my daily devotions, and I came across another example of this, one that I had read many times and must have skipped over it, but this week it jumped out at me.

Luke 17 records Jesus speaking about the comparison between the flood and the end times, and Lot, and the destruction of Sodom, and the end times. Then He says;

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

What caught my attention was the fact that this event exactly parallels Jesus talk about the End Times in Matthew 24;

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Here’s the thing; will there be two great events where those on the housetop, and those in the field are told to flee to the hills, without taking any provisions or even clothing? No! These are two different accounts of the same time, yet they are known by separate events. The one event takes place in the Temple in Jerusalem, and the other takes place somewhere else, but the two are linked.

The Abomination of Desolation, where the Antichrist sets up an idol to himself in the temple, triggers the wrath of God like no event in history.

But why is it called “the day when the Son of man is revealed”?

The best answer is that this event coincides with the proclamation of the angel in Revelation 10;

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, 6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: 7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

The revelation of the Son of Man will occur when the abomination of desolation takes place in the Temple of Jerusalem, and the time of the mystery of God will be over.

What is the mystery of God? It is that He is always present, but not seen. Once it is over He will come and go as He sees fit.

This will also coincide with the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the Heavens.

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Matthew 24:30

We normally take it that this verse is one event, but I have come to the conclusion that it is multiple events spaced out over a period of time. The sign of the Son of Man, will appear in the heavens several years before He descends with the clouds of Heaven, and will be interpreted incorrectly by the lost people of the earth. They will mourn, not because the wrath of God is coming upon the earth, but because they think the earth is about to undergo an alien attack!

They will have their own “aliens” and so will be deluded into thinking that they can fight Jesus and win. Do “little green men” appear in the bible’s account of the End Times? I think so. John was not familiar with modern stories of aliens as “little green men”, and so to him they looked like frogs;

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. Revelation 16:13

Unclean spirits are all over the earth, so why would John note these three particularly? This is because these devils will be visible and will delude the leaders of the earth to think they can fight Jesus at his return. After all, if we have our own aliens, on our side, then the odds are even, aren’t they? No, of coure, because Jesus is not an alien, but God the creator, but He will use this delusion to condemn the world, because He called and they wouldn’t answer Him but delighted themselves in evil!

They will see the Sign of the Son of Man, as it orbits the earth, and they will think it is a giant space ship, full of hostile aliens who are about to invade the earth!

This is why we have been bombarded with movie and TV shows featuring interaction between aliens and humanity, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Independence Day, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek Voyager, Deep Space Nine, ET, and etc.

While these shows are packaged as adventure and science-fiction, they are in fact tools of Satan to deceive the human race, and prepare them for the End Times. As God says;

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. Isaiah 66:4

No doubt God has chosen the alien story as an End Times delusion, and Satan is a Tool in His hands. This plays into the pride of man, which the fable of evolution is also playing a part. Those who believe in evolution think that they are superior to the “superstitious” men of the past, and while they think they are superior, they are, in fact, embracing errors of their own. Greater errors, which will lead them to embrace the Antichrist, and wind up in the Lake of Fire for their troubles!

Posted in Christian Doctrine, Prophecy | Tagged alien delusion, Antichrist, Antichrist and Aliens, great tribulation, star trek, Star Wars, Tribulation Period | 4 Comments

What the bible says about drinking wine and alcohol part 2

Posted on October 26, 2014 by dknezacek

Last week I started a series of letters between myself and a former pastor on the subject of wine and alcohol. This pastor grew up in the home of an alcoholic father, and as a result he let his experiences colour his theology. This is a very dangerous position for any believer to be in.

What if we discover that Jesus really did drink, and serve, alcoholic wine? Would we then abandon Him, because He does not conform to our ideas?

We need to stand on the Word of God regardless of whether or not we agree with every jot and tittle. In the end we will see that God was right all along.

This section starts with his response to my first letter and then continues with my response. I have tried to differentiate between his writing and mine, with the use of different fonts;

“Dear Brother Knezacek:”

“Thank you for your letter of Dec, 6, received recently, I appreciate your concern that I be biblical in my statements from the pulpit and I assure you that is also my priority.”

“Like you, I also agree Molson’s ad campaign using “I Am” is indeed blasphemous and I have in the past, written the company as well as letters to the Editor about this.”

“You have done a good study on wine in the Bible, however, I don’t believe you have gone far enough. Please read the following information taken from The Way of life Encyclopedia and listen to the tape of a message I preached on the subject. This information will answer many of the concerns you have expressed in your letter. If you still feel your concerns have not been dealt with, let me know and we can discuss this subject further.”

“1 have listened to the tape from the message on the Sunday you said I “launched into a tirade against Molson’s breweries.” Webster’s Dictionary says a Tirade is “,.a long, vehement speech, esp. one of denunciation; harangue.” The total length of time spent on making that comment was 57 seconds, which hardly qualifies as a tirade, This wasn’t even a sub-point in the message, but merely a comment and was not intended to be an in- depth study on Wine in the Bible.”

“You mention that the Pharisees were not stupid and would not have accused Jesus of being a winebibber if he were not drinking alcoholic beverage. Does that mean they also would not have accused Him of having a Devil, or could not have bribed false witnesses against Jesus at His trial. Oh, yes, these men were very capable of telling vicious lies.”

“Not only has your study on Bible Wines not gone far enough, but your ‘facts’ on the problems of alcohol abuse in countries where it is in regular use has not gone far enough. The problems of alcoholism in Russia is well documented. Also the problems of obesity and heart disease may be less in those countries, hut problem of liver disease and other alcohol related problems are rampant. This is to say nothing of the mountain of social ills that come with such a society.”

“After listening to my message on wine and reading the material l have included, I think you will agree that I have a sound biblical basis for standing where I do on this subject. I have not tried to answer all your concerns in this letter, since I deal with most of them in the message that is on the tape.”

“I also know that I will report to God someday about what I have preached and what I had done as a pastor of this church. I know that I can stand before God with a clear conscious on this subject. Even the unsaved agree the biggest drug problem in the world today is the drug of alcohol. How could we as Christians promote it’s use, even responsibly? Does your position also hold true for moderate use of marijuana, or cocaine, or tobacco? Do you really believe you can drink a beer to the ‘glory of God?’ All that we do should be done to His glory.”

“I also have a hard time understanding the inconsistency of your position that a pastor can’t drink alcohol, but Jesus could. Certainly you don’t feel the position of the Pastor is of more importance in testimony and example than that of our Saviour.”

“I know of one Christian lady who was unfaithful to her husband, because her inhibitions were lowered and her thinking clouded because of alcohol. Had she abstained, this situation would never have happened, I could go on an on.”

“If you really want to be safe on this subject, you will abstain entirely. Any other position cannot be responsibly defended for the Christian who believes and practices holiness. The heart, here, is the issue, The heart will determine what kind of testimony we are to the world.”

“I am glad you wrote, for it gives me an opportunity express to you what I believe on this subject. I am not angry with you for not agreeing, but do hope you will prayerfully consider this information.”

“Sincerely, for souls,”

Pastor Roy, Heritage Church, Ontario, Canada

01/15/2000

Dear Pastor Roy,

Thank you for your quick reply to my letter. I was actually surprised at the speed of your response. You did read all of the verses I brought to your attention? The reason I ask is that you did not tackle Deuteronomy. 14:26 at all. I have listened to one of your tapes (the other two were blank!), and I must agree with much of what you said, however I must disagree with your ultimate conclusion. Many times you said yourself that the problem was drunkenness. This I agree with. You also said many things that I believe are half truths and even twisting of scripture. Please let me prove my point. Furthermore what you said in May of ’97 was essentially a word for word copy of the article on the Way of Life web site, which I have already read, and in fact was attempting to answer with my first letter.

I do hope you will find this to be constructive criticism and not destructive. It is not my purpose to tear you down, but to show that we can trust the Lord even when he says things we don’t like. I’m afraid my first letter may have been too antagonistic, and I apologize for that. I do hope that you don’t find this hostile or boring.

When someone asks you if you drink. You will automatically answer “No”, won’t you? You understand the word drink to mean alcohol. This is exactly the same context that Jesus said in Matthew 11:19 ‘The Son of man came eating and drinking”. So we have from his own lips that he drank wine. He was not disobeying the Old testament Laws if he drank a little alcohol. Please consider the following:

Lev. 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, WHEN ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:

Ezekiel 44:21 Neither shall any priest drink wine, WHEN they enter into the inner court.

Please note that this was a temporary ban on alcohol, only “WHEN ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation”. It was not a lifelong ban! The little word “when” is a part of the word of God! Please don’t ignore it. Don’t stop with “nor thy sons with thee”, surely God intended for us to read the whole verse? I notice that in the section from the Way of Life encyclopedia that you gave me, that this phrase is removed. This verse is a complete thought, they do wrong to take a part out of it! Let’s see what Websters says about the word “when” – when adv. at what time.—conj. AT THE TIME! Sometimes when people participate in “higher learning” they forget what little words mean. I hope you just forgot what what it meant, or just missed the point, because if you purposely ignored it I would call that deceitful! By the way when Jesus was at the wedding in Cana or associating with drinkers he was not in the tabernacle of the congregation nor in the inner court!

Of course he does not drink wine now that he is our high priest, not even unfermented wine: Mark 14:25 “Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Numbers 28:7 And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Please note that the Lord required STRONG WINE to be poured unto the Lord as part of the drink offering. How could it be called a drink offering if it wasn’t consumed as a drink? You say wine is unclean. Are you saying that the Lord required an unclean thing on his alter? Strong Wine is alcoholic wine! I can only echo the Lord in this case:

Acts 10:15 What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Since you didn’t respond to Deuteronomy. 14:26 I will repeat what I said, but first I must ask; Was the Lord commanding the Jews to partake of something unclean in their worship of Him? It is my belief, (given 1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.) that wine is a holy thing, or at least a clean thing that should be treated with respect and not abused. Certainly everything that exists belongs to the Lord, and nothing should be abused, including food or wine.:

Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

This verse brings to mind some questions which I think are quite relevant:

1) If the Lord told his people to drink “wine or strong drink” why should we think that the Lord Jesus didn’t drink these beverages when he partook of the Jewish religious ceremonies?

2) Why would their soul “lusteth after” strong drink if they never had any exposure to it? If strong drink is such an evil thing why does the Lord tell them to rejoice when they partake of it? (lust in this context simply means “to have a passionate desire”)

3) Did the Lord tell them it was OK to partake of wine and strong drink and then later change his mind? Could you trust such a fickle God to save your soul? Maybe a million years into eternity he might say “I’m tired of all these glorified believers, I think I’ll just toss them out into utter darkness”! If God gave permission for one group to use it and then turned around and called it a sin for another group we would never know where we stood. He might say one day that salvation is by faith, and the next say it’s by works!

4) Did the Lord expect the Jewish believers to buy their strong drink from unbelievers or from believers?

Strong drink is today the same as it always has been…alcohol! Please note also that the money referred to here is their tithe money!

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

You also quoted 2 Cor. 6:17 out of context. Lets look at the context:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

What God is calling unclean is idols and unbelievers, not alcohol! We are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and believe me, I know the pain that results from this!

Jesus said: Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Paul also said: Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Nothing means NOTHING! If God wanted to say “something” he could have. What is it to be defiled? Is not one who sins defiled? Jesus said that something going in the mouth will not defile a man! Do you believe Jesus or not? I’m asking you to trust him in this, even though it goes against the grain. No man was ever defiled by drink, it is what comes out of him after he has had too much that defiles him. Yes that also applies to caffeine, marijuana and even cocaine. One cc of pure caffeine will kill you, yet you drink it on a regular basis. (My mistake; pastor Roy does not drink coffee, cola or anything that has caffeine in it, though his Church does serve it after the service on Sunday mornings. He is consistent in this.)

It also causes health problems in some of us! Did you know that chocolate, besides caffeine, has a chemical in it that is a close relative of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana? No wonder chocolate is addictive! Are you defiled when you eat chocolate? Caffeine is a drug, and an addictive substance, this is a proven fact, why do you think the soft drink makers put it in their pop? Are you saying that you can decide which drug is OK to use and which is not? People who smoke don’t get any more effect than people who drink coffee, so why is one OK and one not? I know some Christians who don’t drink alcohol or coffee, tea or cola or smoke. While I don’t agree with them, I have much respect for their consistency. I don’t believe you are consistent! You said in your tape that you wouldn’t eat food that was cooked in wine, even though the alcohol would have dissipated. I suspect that if you look in your closets you will find some vanilla flavoring or lemon or almond or perhaps some other flavor. You may even find a bottle of Scope or Nyquil. All of these things also contain alcohol. If it is a sin to touch even a little alcohol then I think it is likely that you have some confessing to do.

By the way I think that what Paul meant in Romans 14:14 is that if you think that the Lord commanded you not to do something, even if you are wrong and he really allows it, you would be sinning to do it because you are rebelling against your own understanding of God.

As for me being inconsistent with my statements on the following…

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to MUCH wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

Titus 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to MUCH wine, teachers of good things;

I think you are accusing the Lord of being inconsistent, it’s what He says, not me!

I found I had to look up the word “given” – “naturally disposed toward.” usually followed by “to”. So, it doesn’t mean he can’t partake of wine or strong drink, only that he can’t be naturally disposed toward it. I don’t have a problem with pastors having a little wine at the Lords supper, even alcoholic wine. I think pastors could have a little wine on occasion, but not as a regular thing, isn’t that what this passage says? It also makes a distinction between a pastor and one of lower position. Since this is the Word of the Lord we must conclude that, while we are all priests, there is a difference in the requirements for some priests than others.

Let me give an example of what I think it means by “not given to wine”: A few years ago I read in the introduction of a book about cartooning techniques an account of a dinner given to honour the cartoonist Charles Schultz, the creator of Charlie Brown. The author, an unbelieving journalist, noticed that Mr. Schultz barely touched his wine. He had a few sips but didn’t even finish one glass. This behaviour was quite perplexing to the author, to the point that he even made mention of it in a book. I don’t know if it did but it’s the type of behaviour that could lead to witnessing opportunities. Mr. Schultz was not given to wine, in my opinion.

In your letter you passed on a part of the Way of Life encyclopedia, which I am already familiar with. (I’ve had correspondence with David Cloud, his ministry is partly why we are attending Heritage). In the section titled “IS IT ALRIGHT FOR A CHRISTIAN TO DRINK MODERATELY?” it says;

1) ” No, even slight drinking impairs one’s thinking and lowers alertness to spiritual danger (1 Pe. 5:8,9). When I looked at this verse it does not say what he just said it says. It says “be sober, be vigilant”. It does not say in the least that one should not have any alcohol! What is sober to one person may be two or three drinks to another. When a man drives to Toronto, works a 12 hour shift or more, and then drives home, he is already impaired (by fatigue) without drinking any alcohol! He is sober, yet slightly impaired.”

2) “No, Christians are not to be controlled by liquor (Eph5:18)” This is true but he forgot the phrase “wherein is excess”. Only those who drink to excess are controlled by liquor. It says that in Eph. 5:18!

“The Bible does not forbid priests to drink; only “WHEN ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation” In Isaiah 28:7 The priests did err through wine but given the above it was either because they drank it while on duty or more likely that they became drunk since it says “they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.” This is not describing one who drinks moderately, is it? These were people who were stoned!”
“No, Christians are not to touch the unclean thing.” “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself” Here you and the author add to scripture as well as take it out of context. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
“No, Christians are to abstain from every form of evil” Here he quoted from the NIV, the actual word is “appearance” not “form”. Is there an appearance of evil when you take a glass and put it to your lips? Don’t forget that drinking juice or wine or ginger ale looks exactly the same to an observer. You appear evil when you act drunk, even if you’ve had no wine, like the “Toronto Blessing”. He is also assuming that drinking is a form of evil. Given Deuteronomy 14:26 and all the verses quoted here this assumption is just plain wrong. He doesn’t have a leg to stand on!
“No, Christians who drink cause others to stumble: Romans 14:21” It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. So what does verse 22 mean? Does it mean “you have freedom but don’t exercise it”? Or does it mean that one who has faith and freedom must exercise the utmost caution so he doesn’t cause a weaker brother to stumble? I think the latter is most likely true. Why do you, and they, only use verse 21? Isn’t the rest part of the word of God? To say that Christians who drink cause others to stumble is only the opinion of the author, and is also an assumption that it must always be the case. The verse in question leaves it up to the judgment of the reader. It is not saying that drinking will always cause a brother to stumble, otherwise it would also be saying that about eating flesh. We know the apostles didn’t have a problem with eating flesh, but some did: Romans 14: 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: The whole of Romans 14 deserves much study, but since we haven’t the time I just wan’t to briefly point out that this doesn’t mean that one should never eat meat, but to be careful and wise when one does, the same goes for wine and strong drink. I submit to you that IF ONE IS ABLE TO DRINK ALCOHOL WITHOUT OFFENDING A BROTHER THEN ONE IS FREE TO DO SO. Romans 14 also talks about keeping days. Are you aware that some Christians are offended when you keep Dec. 25 as the Lords birthday? Is their faith going to be made weak if you keep Christmas? Is your faith going to be made weak if a brother has a little wine? I know that some brothers will be made weak, specifically former alcoholics. So clearly one shouldn’t drink when he doesn’t know the spiritual condition of his companions.
“No, wine is a mocker and a deceiver(Proverbs.20:1)” Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. Is one who has one glass of wine “raging”? Only one who is drunk is mocked by wine.

Regarding Phil. 4:5 Mr. Lackey implies that the KJV translators were wrong to use the word MODERATION in this instance. He says that since the same word was translated differently in other places that it really can’t mean MODERATION. So here we have an instance of “higher criticism” showing it’s ugly head even amongst fundamentalists, the hour indeed is late! Obviously MODERATION is another meaning of the word and the Lord led the translators to this particular translation. If the KJV isn’t perfect then we may as well use the new translations. The Catholics use the same tactic when they say that the word brother can also mean cousins, and Jesus is really an only child, and Mary died a virgin! I think I’ll trust God’s book rather than a man who hasn’t even lived 100 years yet!

It seems to me that you are very careful to pick and choose the verses you will use. If you use all the verses that contain wine and strong drink, you can only come to one conclusion; that wine and strong drink are acceptable when used in moderation and care.

Regarding the problems in Russia and the social ills that come with such a society. Where does it say that the church is to concern itself with the problems of this world? Those problems would be there whether or not alcohol was present in that society! As you said their problem is a heart problem not an alcohol problem. The alcohol ABUSE is a symptom, not the root cause. Not only this but if all the problems in society were solved no one would ever think they need a saviour. How many “moderate drinkers” ever come to you for help? I expect the answer is none, or very few, but they are in the majority of drinkers. Only those that come to the end of themselves realize that they need a Saviour.

As for the woman who committed adultery when her inhibitions were lowered due to alcohol use. It reminds me of Flip Wilson in the 70’s saying “da devil made me do it!”. I don’t believe the devil ever “made” anyone sin, and neither did alcohol make her sin. I think adultery was already in her heart before she had the first sip. What was she doing drinking without her husband present anyway? Why was she drinking in the presence of another man? Did she have no regard for the warnings about wine in the bible? Though moderate drinking may be acceptable, those warnings are still there. I think you have oversimplified the situation. I think she is looking for someone or something else to blame instead of bearing the responsibility herself. Yes too much alcohol will lower ones inhibitions, but it is that which is already present that will come out. If a man has anger or hate in his heart he may beat his wife or children when he is drunk. If they can’t take one drink without having another they shouldn’t have the first. But this doesn’t mean that no one should drink, only those who have a problem with it.

The author says that “Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!” Please look at the following verses:

Isaiah 8:14 And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

So, many were predicted to stumble over Jesus, yes they stumble over the cross but this does not rule out other things that they might stumble over. I don’t think the author is being totally honest.

A few years ago my son’s Sunday school teacher (at Emmanuel Baptist) told the class that drinking is a sin. He went home and told his mother that drinking was a sin (he was 5 years old at the time). My ex-wife and her husband were offended and told him that if I took him to church again that they would come and physically remove him from the premises. This caused such a big problem (and many sleepless nights) that we ended up going to a counsellor over it. The unbelieving (I think) counsellor convinced them that it was OK for Alex to go to church with me. The sad thing is that it was totally unnecessary. I also believe that it has permanently prejudiced two people against ever darkening the doorway of a Baptist church!

Many Great Christian leaders over the centuries had no problem if a brother had a little alcohol, including, but not limited to, John Huss and Martin Luther. The Primitive Baptists also use fermented wine in their Lord’s Supper services. I disagree with their Calvinism but not to this particular practice, they have sound reasons for doing it. I have recently read a book that identifies the teaching, that drinking wine is sinfull, as a part of the Great Apostasy. At first I was a little offended, but I looked in the scriptures and found that it seems he was right. I don’t believe that this teaching is much over 100-150 years old. Yes preachers of old did preach against drunkenness, but I have not seen any evidence that it extended to alcohol itself. I suppose it’s possible that a few did, but as seen above it was and is unscriptural.

I don’t have a problem if you say “I don’t recommend anyone drinking”. Neither does it bother me if you say that “drinking alcohol is risky”. If you want to preach against drunkenness I’ll back you 100%. But when you make a blanket statement that “we are commanded not to drink liquor” this is not true. When you say drinking is sin you are missrepresenting the bible, and inducing contradictions to scripture. Maybe it is if one “drinks with offence”, but this does not mean that it is always a sin. When you say that priests were commanded not to drink wine or strong drink you have only spoken a half truth. Don’t be afraid of the whole truth.

If you really believe Christians shouldn’t drink, there are some verses you could use without saying drinking is sin, for instance:

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

So for some people self denial probably does mean abstaining from drink. I don’t think it is required of the Lord for everyone, but perhaps he will honour those who give up alcohol, of their own free will, as a sacrifice to him. In the Old Testament they did not sacrifice unclean things to God, but clean. Perhaps it is reasonable to ask the Lord’s people to make a sacrifice of something that’s a legitimate right. I don’t think it’s right to demand it, however, since the Lord himself doesn’t do so.

There are a couple of verses that neither you nor the Way of Life Encyclopedia have brought up, and even I forgot about, but I believe they bear strongly on the topic at hand:

1 Corinthians 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

One who is drunk is clearly under the power of alcohol, but these verses don’t say specifically alcohol. Since it doesn’t specifically mention any substance by name I believe it is up to the individual believer which ones apply to him. (Just because one may do something it doesn’t mean one must do it) I think the principles here can be applied to a number of substances. If I have coffee in the evening I will not sleep that night, or maybe I’ll get a couple hours of sleep, so I would be under the power of caffeine. Therefore I rarely drink regular coffee and if I do it shouldn’t be after six in the evening, otherwise I suffer consequences for some time. One who is a drug addict is also under the power of drugs, and should avoid them. The problem is that some people can live an entire lifetime drinking a little wine, and never get drunk. These people are never controlled by alcohol and they know it. They may not commit adultery, rob or commit murder. Their only sin may be covetousness or impure thoughts. When you say that drinking is sin they know from their own experience that they are self controlled and not sinning, and they may end up rejecting the entire message. I believe this is a tragedy, although the Lord did predict it himself when he said “for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I have not brought into the discussion the health benefits of drinking that science has discovered. If alcohol were the most healthy drink in the world, but the bible said not to drink it, one would be a fool to do so. But I think I have proved that the bible does not command abstinence. And there are health benefits to moderate consumption of alcohol. If the doctor prescribed one pill a day and you saved it up and took them all on a Saturday night, would you expect to get any health benefit? Not only does the grape part of red wine help lower the LDL Cholesterol, (and this benefit can be gained by regular eating of grapes), but the alcohol itself stimulates the liver to produce the good cholesterol or HDL. The only other way to increase the HDL is through exercise. By the way aerobic exercise produces a type of alcohol in your body, it partially breaks down sugars without oxygen. I believe that this alcohol is what stimulates the liver to produce HDL cholesterol. (Ever hear of “runners high”?)(this is not the same type of alcohol that one gets from a bottle, but it is definitely a type of alcohol)

After listening to your tape on wine in the bible I don’t believe you have a sound biblical basis for where you stand. I think you have ignored some important verses in the bible, and others you have taken out of context. I don’t think a man of God needs to do that.

I thank you for what you said about bible study on Sunday, it’s too bad more people didn’t hear it. Some I have met think you are a proud or a hard man, but what I heard on Sunday was a man truly seeking the will of God for himself and his people. I have prayed much about this issue and believe that what I have said is biblical. The Lord did show me that I needed to make some changes to my letter. However I still believe that this viewpoint is the only one that harmonizes all of scripture, I don’t have to be afraid of any verse. While I ha

“Dear Brother Knezacek:”

“Thank you for your letter of Dec, 6, received recently, I appreciate your concern that I be biblical in my statements from the pulpit and I assure you that is also my priority.”

“Like you, I also agree Molson’s ad campaign using “I Am” is indeed blasphemous and I have in the past, written the company as well as letters to the Editor about this.”

“Sincerely, for souls,”

Pastor Roy,

Heritage Church,

Ontario, Canada