The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked Final Version

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 1
The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked

Eduard C. Hanganu
B.A., M.A., Linguistics
Lecturer in English, UE
Draft 40
Revised December 21, 2014
2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4
II. The Attack on the Freedom of Speech ..................................................................................... 6
Freedom of Speech A Divine Right ................................................................................ 6
Orwells Phantom The Newspeak ............................................................................... 6
Political Correctness The Nextspeak .......................................................................... 8
PC Application to World Literature ................................................................................ 13
Invective in Literature and Science ................................................................................. 17
Some Scientists Like Uncivil Humor .......................................................................... 22
III. Political Correctness and the Bible ....................................................................................... 24
Offensive Dogmas and Uncivil Words ........................................................................... 24
All Male Pronouns Must Be Removed ........................................................................... 24
Offensive Biblical Doctrines Removed ........................................................................... 26
Good for All The Rainbow Colors .................................................................................. 26
The Inoffensive and Impotent Bible ............................................................................... 27
IV. The Bizarre Jesus Who Never Was ...................................................................................... 29
The False Image of the Divine Man ............................................................................... 29
The Jesus Who Commands Respect ............................................................................... 31
The Jesus Who Confronts The Sinners ........................................................................... 31
The Jesus Who Confronts The Leaders .......................................................................... 32
The Jesus Who Indicts False Teachers ........................................................................... 34
The Ruthless and Intolerant God-Man ............................................................................ 35
Did Not Tolerate Sin ........................................................................................... 36
Confronted The Impenitent ................................................................................. 37
Excluded The Rebellious .................................................................................... 37
V. The Passionate and Ruthless God .......................................................................................... 38
The God Who Is Passionate ............................................................................................ 38
The God Who Is Harsh ................................................................................................... 38

The God Who Is Ruthless ............................................................................................... 39
The God Who Is Intolerant ............................................................................................. 42
The God Who Is Judgmental .......................................................................................... 43
The God Who Hates Sin ................................................................................................. 44
The God Who Hates Sinners ........................................................................................... 44
The God Who Confronts ................................................................................................. 45
The God Who Is Vengeful .............................................................................................. 46
VI. Compelled To Confront and Warn ....................................................................................... 48
Political Correctness and the Church .............................................................................. 48
False Doctrines And Their Diagnosis ............................................................................. 50
Characteristics of False Shepherds ................................................................................. 51
A Distorted Theological Perspective .............................................................................. 52
How John And Jesus Defended Truth ............................................................................ 52
Our Sacred Obligation as Believers ................................................................................ 53
Biblical Judgment ............................................................................................... 53
Expose False Teachers ........................................................................................ 54
Expose Error ....................................................................................................... 55
Name False Teachers .......................................................................................... 56
A Soft Nudge Is Not Good Enough ................................................................................ 58
The Courage To Criticize And Rebuke .......................................................................... 59
Christian Writers Who Were Uncivil ............................................................................. 60
Political Correctness Fights Literature ............................................................................ 60
Rhetorical Language That Fits Purpose .......................................................................... 60
VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 62
References ................................................................................................................................... 64
I. Introduction
After he had read the research document, Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn
Reexamined, and had noticed the critical language I had used about the blatant lies and brazen
deceptions that have been circulated for almost two centuries in the Seventh-day Adventist
[further, SDA] theological circles, and about the ignorant, inept, and dishonest theologians who
had disseminated those truths, David Jarnes, alleged senior book editor for the SDA Pacific
Press Publishing Association [further, PPPA], dismissed all the indisputable evidence that I had
presented in the document as unreliable for two reasons that from his expert editorial
perspective negated all the factual scientific evidence that I had presented. His first contention
was that the tone of [my] work makes it clear that it is not a dispassionate search for truth, and
the second reason was that [n]ame-calling bigoted SDA Pseudo-Historicists, Truth
Fabricators, Falsehood Wholesalers, etc. immediately reveals that something other than a
search for truth has driven the writing of the paper presented,1 because, he affirmed, no paper
is either well-written or scholarly when it directs snarl words at those who disagree with the
author.2
The issue, though, was not one of personal and private disagreement about
inconsequential issues with the SDA scholars who had disseminated serious theological errors
and fabrications among the SDA church members. It was one of flagrant and scandalous lies and
positive deceptions that the SDA theologians and scholars had peddled among the SDA church
members for decades as present truth. The Bible teaches that such flagrant lies and brazen
deceptions, and those who circulate them must be denounced and confronted in a language that
leaves no doubt about the author's intention to expose those falsehoods and warn the church
members against the false teachers of the law and shepherds who mislead their flocks.
This argument paper is a response to the criticism that Jarnes has raised against the
uncivil language and content of the research document, Antiochus IV and Daniels Little
Horn Reexamined, and therefore against the entire document in actual point, a rebuttal to his
two undocumented claims: (1) that a passionate tone in a research work undermines the
document and cancels its scientific worth because such language makes it clear that [the
document] is not a dispassionate [or impartial] search for truth, and also that (2) [n]ame-calling
[such as] bigoted SDA Pseudo-Historicists, Truth Fabricators, Falsehood Wholesalers, etc.
immediately reveals that something other than a search for truth has driven the writing of the
paper presented, because no paper is either well-written or scholarly when it directs snarl
words at those who disagree with the author.
The counterarguments I will present in this response are that (1) freedom of expression
and tone is a universal and inalienable human right, that (2) the dispassionate or neutral
language is restrictive, unnatural, and false, that (3) both belletristic and scientific universal
works are replete with unconventional, incorrect, harsh, rude, offensive, and even vulgar
language, and that (4) the dispassionate and neutral theological language that Jarnes
embraces is unbiblical because the Bibleboth the Old Testament [further, OT] and the New
Testament [further, NT]contain inspired language that is often passionate, harsh, rude, and
intolerant to the wicked. The humble and meek or rather weak, feeble, and emasculated
Christ who is the main actor in most childrens stories and theological accounts is a fictional
character with no biblical base the distorted and false image of an awesome man-God who
exposes sin, offends sinners, denounces wickedness, and also confronts and threatens with death
the unrepentant and rebellious sinners and deems the wicked to eternal destruction.
This document also argues that to expose intentional and even unintentional theological
errors and deceptions, confront those theologians and shepherds who disseminate such
atrocities in harsh and even offensive language, and warn the church members against those
theologians and their fraudulent teachings is not an uncivil, bad-mannered, insolent, and
gratuitous act, but a sacred Christian obligation that Christ exemplified in his righteous and
blameless human life and then delegated through his words and the NT biblical texts to the future
generations of Christians until the end of time as an integral and indispensable part of the
proclamation of the Gospel the good and marvelous news of salvation and eternal life to the
repentant sinner, but at the same time the bad and dreadful news of eternal destruction to the
obstinate and wicked sinner.
II. The Attack on the Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech A Divine Right
God created man free. The first thirteen American colonies recognized and affirmed this
biblical fact at first on July 4, 1776 in their Declaration of Independence that proclaimed the
first thirteen colonies free from the British despotic and oppressive domination and established
them as independent states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 1
That among those unalienable Rights the new American nations leaders considered the
freedom of speech becomes obvious in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United
States Constitution, that were ratified in 1791. These first amendments were intended to limit the
governments power and provided needed protection against probable and possible government
abuse. States the First Amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. 2
The United Nations adopted and expanded the human rights stipulated in the United
States Bill of Rights at a General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 through the
resolution 217 A (III):
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.3
Humans have the Divine right or freedom to hold opinions, to decide through what means
such opinions should be expressed, and to do so without interference. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights also takes for granted the human freedom to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas, in open, unmonitored, and unrestricted communication with other
human beings.
Orwells Phantom The Newspeak
Along the human history, though, various individuals or groups have arrogated the
license to abridge, restrict, or even interdict this God-given freedom of speech or expression and
to harass and punish those who have taken it for granted that these fundamental rights were
intrinsic to humans and inalienable. Control over, limitation, restriction, or interdiction of the
freedom of speech or expression are characteristic to the totalitarian and despotic societies, and
indicate a paranoid and morbid obsession with power and control from individuals or groups that
have placed themselves above all the other humans through seized control, although such abuse
is most often hidden behind the fallacious common good slogan or other similar logical and
moral perversions.
Orwell describes a horrendous totalitarian Utopia in his famous book, 1984.4 Although
written as a political fiction, the book, a realistic parable, describes possible, potential, and even
real repressive societies under which people lived at the time he wrote the book and live even
now. Among the innumerable controls, limitations, and restrictions enforced on the men and
women in Orwells narrative and pounded into those people with irrational and absurd slogans
such as war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength,5 the human language
manipulation is introduced as Newspeak,6 and detailed in chapters four and five and also in the
books appendix. A pertinent and relevant Newspeak agenda statement included in the
addendum follows below:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental
habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended
that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought that
is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as
thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle
expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other
meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the
invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as
remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such
statements as This dog is free from lice, or This field is free from weeds. It could not be used in its old
sense of politically free or intellectually free, since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed
even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely
heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be
dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of
thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. 7
The Newspeak language reform was intended to be extensive and irreversible, and the
final and permanent product was calculated to reinvent the past and create a surreal present and
grotesque future. States Orwell:
When Oldspeak had been once and for all superseded, the last link with the past would have been severed.
History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there,
imperfectly censored, and so long as one retained ones knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read
them. In the future such fragments, even if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and
untranslatable. It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless it either
referred to some technical process or some very simple everyday action, or was already orthodox (goodthinkful would be the Newspeak expression) in tendency. In practice this meant that no book written before
approximately 1960 could be translated as a whole. Prerevolutionary literature could only be subjected to
ideological translation that is, alteration in sense as well as language. Take for example the well-known
passage from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of
the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of
the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government
It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original.
The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word
crimethink. A full translation could only be an ideological translation, whereby Jeffersons words would be
changed into a panegyric on absolute government.8
These radical changes would affect publications such as periodicals and also belletristic
and scientific works that have encapsulated for millennia priceless human knowledge and
wisdom unique, exceptional, and irreplaceable productions of the human mind. Such works
would be altered as follows:
A good deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being transformed in this way. Considerations
of prestige made it desirable to preserve the memory of certain historical figures, while at the same time
bringing their achievements into line with the philosophy of Ingsoc. Various writers, such as Shakespeare,
Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens and some others were therefore in process of translation; when the task had
been completed, their original writings, with all else that survived of the literature of the past, would be
destroyed. These translations were a slow and difficult business, and it was not expected that they would be
finished before the first or second decade of the twenty-first century. There were also large quantities of
merely utilitarian literature indispensable technical manuals and the like that had to be treated in the
same way. It was chiefly in order to allow time for the preliminary work of translation that the final
adoption of Newspeak had been fixed for so late a date as 2050. 9
Political Correctness The Nextspeak

Orwells novel sounded almost too ridiculous to be acceptable even as fiction when the
book was published for the first time in 1950, but the past decades have provided ample evidence
that such unthinkable totalitarian and dictatorial language reforms are possible even in the
claimed democratic societies, have occured in the past, and are implemented now in the United
States the land of the free and the home of the brave. The force behind such incredible
phenomena is the Political Correctness [further, PC] Police. Encyclopaedia Britannica has the
following information on this reconstructive socio-political device:
Political Correctness (PC), term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of
offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or
sexual orientation. The concept has been discussed, disputed, criticized, and satirized by commentators
from across the political spectrum. The term has often been used derisively to ridicule the notion that
altering language usage can change the publics perceptions and beliefs as well as influence outcomes.
The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that
time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union (that is, the party line). During the late 1970s and early 1980s the term began to be used wittily by
liberal politicians to refer to the extremism of some left-wing issues, particularly regarding what was
perceived as an emphasis on rhetoric over content. In the early 1990s the term was used by conservatives to
question and oppose what they perceived as the rise of liberal left-wing curriculum and teaching methods
on university and college campuses in the United States. By the late 1990s the usage of the term had again
decreased, and it was most frequently employed by comedians and others to lampoon political language. At
times it was also used by the left to scoff at conservative political themes.
Linguistically, the practice of what is called political correctness seems to be rooted in a desire to
eliminate exclusion of various identity groups based on language usage. According to the Sapir-Whorf, or
Whorfian, hypothesis, our perception of reality is determined by our thought processes, which are
influenced by the language we use. In this way language shapes our reality and tells us how to think about
and respond to that reality. Language also reveals and promotes our biases. Therefore, according to the
hypothesis, using sexist language promotes sexism and using racial language promotes racism.
Those who are most strongly opposed to so-called political correctness view it as censorship and a
curtailment of freedom of speech that places limits on debates in the public arena. They contend that such
language boundaries inevitably lead to self-censorship and restrictions on behaviour. They further believe
that political correctness perceives offensive language where none exists. Others believe that political
correctness or politically correct has been used as an epithet to stop legitimate attempts to curb hate
speech and minimize exclusionary speech practices. Ultimately, the ongoing discussion surrounding
political correctness seems to centre on language, naming, and whose definitions are accepted.10
Katz, a professor and researcher at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, examines
PC from a critical perspective, in relation to the destructive effects this totalitarian social doctrine
with Marxist origins has had on the American culture in the past decades:
Political correctness is the narrowing of the range of acceptable opinions to those held by a small group that
enforces it. It is an attempt, often successful, to coerce the majority to accept the opinions of the enforcing
group by suppressing any contrary opinion and making independent thought unacceptable. The enforcing
group may be afraid of the the [sic!] consequences of open discussion, or of making the facts known. It
generally has a practical motivation: it wants something of value (money, jobs, special privileges) to which
it has a weak claim. So it attempts to enforce its claim by ruling any disagreement from it outside the
bounds of acceptable discourse. This is unnecessary when the claim is self-evidently strong, but may be the
only means of getting the claim accepted when it is weak.
Political correctness also comes with an admixture of moral indignation. It removes the issue from the
ordinary give-and-take of rational argument or the political process by injecting intense emotion. In my
personal episode of politically correct thought, thinking of people dying for lack of an organ aroused strong
feelings. Political correctness uses language with strong connotations, such as discrimination and
racism, or evokes ancient wrongs in order to associate any disagreement with support of past abuses.
This emotional blackmail is effective in a self-consciously privileged environment, and what environment
is more self-consciously privileged than an American university, populated with undergraduates who have
been spoiled for eighteen years by overindulgent and affluent parents and with tenured professors, many of
whom are still racked with guilt for having dodged the draft during the Vietnam war? 11
ONeill, a statistics lecturer in the School of Physical, Environmental, and Mathematical

Sciences at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy in
Canberra, provides a sagacious and sharp critique of the PC, debunks its false and deceptive
claims and denounces the malicious effects that result from its application. The scholar begins
his critical discussion with a reiteration of the fraudulent claims the PC evangelists propagate
in defense of their benevolent and beneficial language reconstruction agenda:
Defenders of politically correct language claim that it is a civilizing influence on society, that it discourages
the use of words that have negative or offensive connotations and thereby grants respect to people who are
the victims of unfair stereotypes. In this view, the purpose and effect of politically correct language are to
prevent bullying and offensive behavior and to replace terms loaded with offensive undertones with
allegedly impartial words. So, for example, people are discouraged from referring to someone with a
mental disability as mentally retarded and instead encouraged to refer to him as being differently abled
or as having special needs. Similarly, one can no longer refer to garbagemen or even the gender-neutral
garbage collectorsno, they are environmental service workers, thank you very much!
Though opposed to the term political correctness, journalist Polly Toynbee explains the drive for this kind
of language: The phrase political correctness was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say
Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who
never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at
the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence. Inelegance is better than bile
(2009).
Her fellow journalist Will Hutton offers a similar defense, saying that it matters profoundly what we say.
It is an advance that it is no longer possible to call blacks niggers and that sexist banter in the workplace is
understood to be oppressive and abusive. It is right that the groups in society that used to be written off as
mentally retarded are recognised as having special needs (2001). 12
ONeill dismisses the claims that the artificial and dictatorial PC limits and restraints
imposed on language use have the positive and beneficial effect to discourage the use of words
that have negative or offensive connotations and thereby grant[s] respect to people who are the
victims of unfair stereotypes, and that its aim is to prevent bullying and offensive behavior and
to replace terms loaded with offensive undertones with allegedly impartial words, and debunks
such preposterous and fallacious claims through the careful examination of the semantics of the
words under dispute:
To understand the drive for politically correct language, it is important to understand the problem that this
language is allegedly intended to solve. To understand this problem, we need to examine the etymology of
words (that is, the history of words and how their meaning changes over time). Why is mentally retarded a
bad term? When and how is it offensive? Is it an inherently offensive term, or does something in the way
that it is delivered make it so? Was it always this way, or was it once politically correct?
The words lexicology does not indicate a hostile meaning. To retard something means to hinder or
impede it, to make it slower or diminish its development or progress in some way. 2 Thus, to describe
someone as mentally retarded literally means that their mental processes are somehow impeded,
hindered, diminished, or slowed down. This meaning is certainly accurate, and it is a neutral description
because the term itself does not imply a value judgment about such diminished mental functioning.
Perhaps, though, this fact has a certain implicit negative connotation in its very recognition. After all, it is
true that a properly functioning brain is preferable to a brain that is functioning in an impaired or
diminished manner. Hence, to recognize that someone is mentally retarded is immediately to make the
logical jump to the value judgment that this condition is a bad thingthat the person would be better off if
he were not mentally retarded, and isnt it a shame that he is. This possibility, however, is not enough to
warrant the claim that the term is offensivethat is, unless having true facts brought to our attention is
itself offensive.
So where does the alleged rudeness of the term retarded originally come from? If not from the terms
literal meaning, it must come from its delivery: the tone and context in which it is delivered. If people use
the term mentally retarded as an insult to refer to others with scorn through a spiteful tone of voice or in an
insulting context, the term will certainly be offensive. It is offensive in these cases precisely because it is
intended to be and because its delivery reveals this intention. Thus, when a playground bully says to
someone he doesnt like: Ha, ha, youre stupidyoure retarded! the term retarded takes on an offensive
meaning because this meaning is what the bully intends. His tone of voice and general attitude toward his
target make clear that he is not soberly trying to diagnose the latters cognitive functioning with a neutral
medical descriptor no, he is taunting him.
The bullys insult of his victim has two effects. Its main (intended) effect is to assert that the persons
mental skills are impaired and to taunt the person about this alleged impairment. Its secondary effect is to
imply that people who are mentally retarded should be ashamed of this conditionto declare that it is a
shameful characteristic worthy of ridicule. (After all, if it is not, then how is it an insult?) If enough
schoolyard bullies use the term retarded in this way, then over time the term may take on an additional
meaning, widely recognized as being intended as an insult. Moreover, the term may also become imbued
with the insults implicit value judgment that mental retardation is shameful and worthy of ridicule.
Politically correct language is allegedly designed to solve this bullying problem and its etymological byproduct. The practitioners of political correctness adopt the strategy of periodically replacing the words
used as insults with new terms in an effort to avoid negative connotations imbuedor allegedly imbued
in existing terms.
Many terms pertaining to mental retardation have been replaced in this quest. The terms moron, idiot,
mentally retarded, and others began their existence as medical descriptors without implicit value judgments
or rudeness built into them.3 Over time, as people used them as insults (almost always directed at people
who were not idiots, morons, or mentally retarded), these terms became imbued with negative
connotations, including the implicit suggestion that being an idiot, a moron, or a mentally retarded person is
shameful.413
The researchers examination of the empirical semantic evidence related to the sense and
the meaning or usage of the offensive and therefore interdicted words and the fallacious logic
that supports the PC claims also reveals the reasons the PC strategy will fail in the long term:
The word-replacement strategy that the advocates of political correctness pursue does not resolve itself in a
single iteration or, indeed, in any number of iterations. Given the nature of the process of semantic change,
the reason for this endlessness should be obvious. Because the creation of a new, politically correct term
for, say, mental retardation does not change the underlying realities or the social dynamics that pertain to
the subject, the new term gradually enters common circulation, and speakers use it in the same way that
they previously used the preceding term. Those who wish to use it as a neutral descriptor do so, and those
who wish to use it as an insulting term use it in that way.
The bullies remain bullies, and they do not curb their actions merely because a new word is now commonly
used to refer to the characteristics that they wish to use as a basis for insulting people. A bully who
formerly used the word retarded as a term of scorn can just as easily use the euphemism differently abled
as a term of scorn by using a malicious tone of voice. Indeed, as feminist author Germaine Greer notes, It
is the fate of euphemisms to lose their function rapidly by association with the actuality of what they
designate, so that they must be regularly replaced with euphemisms for themselves (1971, 298).
The word-replacement strategy of political correctness is therefore a cyclical one, giving rise to what has
been dubbed the euphemism treadmill (Pinker 1994). In this process, an initially neutral term (an
orthophemism) gradually takes on negative connotations through its use as an insult and thereby becomes a
malicious term (a dysphemism). It is then replaced with a politically correct term (a euphemism), which
gradually comes into common use and is then seen as the appropriate neutral expression (even if its
lexicographical characteristics make it nonneutral). This process repeats itself again and again, as is
illustrated in figure 1.
The euphemism treadmill is a slow process, but one that is nonetheless cyclical. Even when a term that
resolves the problem of negative semantic change appears to have been found, this victory is short-lived,
and the new, neutral word eventually enters into circulation and is used by bullies as an insult. As long as
the social dynamics remain the same, the cycle repeats itself indefinitely, resulting in a growing list of
discarded dysphemismswords such as idiot, moron, spastic, and so forth.
Contradicting the claims made by advocates of politically correct language, linguist Armin Burkhardt
explains that as long as the prevailing taboo or discrimination prevails, another euphemism will be found
or created by the speakers to replace the expression which is no longer felt to be euphemistic, and so on.
The very moment a euphemism is commonly accepted, its former meaning fades and the search for a new
euphemistic expression begins. Such euphemisations may occur several times throughout language history
with regard to the same referent. . . . This explains why political correctness can never be successful over a
long period of time (Burkhardt 2010, 363). 14
ONeill looks at the penalties that the PC language manipulation will bring, and mentions
three dire consequences that will impact a socio-political and economic world altered under the
PC construct: (1) the immediate negative effect will be the development of a twisted and
dishonest language that hides the truth under a pretense of kindness and fairness to the
disadvantaged, (2) the long term consequence will be the ignorance and neglect of those in
need, and (3) the ultimate consequence will be the development of a social context where
falsehood and deception will rule and where honest and direct language will be censured and
punished as evil:
Constant changes in terms, though a nuisance, would not be a serious problem if the new descriptors
chosen as politically correct terms retained the old terms clarity and accuracy. But they do not do so. In
practice, the drive for politically correct language is a devolution toward increasingly vague and
euphemistic terms, a progression from honesty and clarity to dishonesty and obscurity.
Recall that the second alleged purpose of politically correct language is to discourage the reflexive use of
words and thereby to promote conscious thinking about how to describe others fairly on their merits. In
fact, however, the drive for politically correct language itself most aggressively promotes the reflexive use
of words without thought as to correct description.
Observe that, in practice, political correctness achieves precisely the opposite of studious description.
Politically correct language is narrow, faddish, and highly reflexive in character, consisting in large part of
euphemisms. It sometimes promotes or amounts to outright dishonesty. Moreover, the drive for this kind of
language involves aggressive attempts to delegitimize the use of politically incorrect terms that fail to keep
up with current fashions. Accurately describing a person with correct and meaningful descriptors, even in a
context where such description is necessary or useful, is treated as boorish or even sinister if sentences are
not couched in the latest euphemisms. In many cases, politically correct language is designed to avoid or
cover up clear and meaningful descriptions by promoting hostility toward candid and accurate descriptors
that strip away these euphemisms.15
The unavoidable and sad consequence that follows when an endless euphemistic chain
replaces direct and honest words in the social interaction is that those in special need for support
are ignored and shunned due to the stigma that comes with the recognition of their actual and
real condition:
The alleged sensitivity of the practitioners of political correctness is often betrayed by the vitriolic way they
treat people who use politically incorrect language in contexts where the speakers clearly intend no offense.
Moreover, even with regard to their alleged desire to be sensitive and helpful to the downtrodden, the
practitioners of political correctness show a very warped view of sensitivity.
Let us suppose that you have a certain way of treating the people you meet and that you are already a fairly
courteous and nice person. Ask yourself: What kind of extra help and courtesy should you afford to a man
who has no legs and moves around in a wheelchair? If you thought that it might be nice to open doors for
him or to pass him things that are out of reach when required, then good for you. Now ask yourself: What
kind of extra help and courtesy should you afford to a person who is differently abled? If you thought of
nothing, or at least nothing in particular, then you have good reason. So what if that person is differently
abled? Everyone is! Hence, by implication, the person in question requires no extra help or courtesy
beyond the normal help and courtesy extended to everyone.
Thus, if we take the politically correct euphemism at its word, we see that it is actually not useful at all in
helping those it is supposedly intended to help. By suppressing information, the term actually encourages
us to ignore any special needs a person has. Only by recognizing the term as a euphemism and by making a
separate (nonverbal) identification of the actual characteristics of the person under consideration can we act
appropriately and sensitively. Even if we never speak any politically incorrect words, in our minds we
identify what we are actually confronting, and we proceed accordingly.
Now try another one. Ask yourself: What kind of extra help and courtesy should you afford to a person
who has a serious mental disability, such that he has the intelligence of a young child? If you thought that it
would be a good idea to help him with what he is doing and perhaps to look out for his welfare, as you
would with an actual child, then good for you. Now ask yourself: What kind of extra help and courtesy
should you afford to a person who has special needs? If you immediately ask, What special needs? that
question is only natural. Again, the politically correct term actually impedes the identification of
information that is required to help the person. Again, only by recognizing the term as a euphemism and by
making a separate (nonverbal) identification that the person is actually mentally retarded can we offer any
help.
To illustrate the absurdity of the belief that euphemistic expression assists the downtrodden, author William
Safire quotes the following sarcastic remark from a woman living in a slum: I used to think I was poor.
Then they told me I wasnt poor, I was needy. They told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as
needy, I was deprived. Then they told me underprivileged was overused. I was disadvantaged. I still dont
have a dime. But I have a great vocabulary (qtd. in Burkhardt 2010, 363).
All of these examples are instances of an important general principle: sensitivity must always be sensitivity
to things that exist in reality. We cannot be sensitive about a characteristic or circumstance that we refuse
to acknowledge as fact. Thus, politically correct language does not assist us in helping others, but actually
impairs our ability to do so by banishing all noneuphemistic descriptors of the problem. The entire
operation of politically correct language operates on a nudge-and-a-wink level, with sensible actions being
possible only by reading through the euphemisms to the underlying reality that they are designed to
suppress.5 16
The truth falsification and fact distortion that the Political Correctness causes in the
human interaction through a perverted and degraded language (1) generates the confidence that
wrong has made right and that discrimination has been repressed or eradicated, and (2) gives
some people the chance to manufacture offense and produce false grievances against innocent
people:
Contrary to the claims of those who support the drive for politically correct language, such speech does not
reduce offensive behavior or encourage conscious thinking about individual merits. In fact, it does the
opposite: it relegates more and more terms to the exclusive domain of schoolyard bullies, while requiring
unthinking, reflexive adherence to the latest stupid language fashions.
One of the most unfortunate effects of the drive for political correctness is that it encourages people to
manufacture grievances and offense in innocuous situations, even where the speaker manifests no
belligerent intent. The enemy of political correctness is not the schoolyard bully, but the studious, literate
person who understands the proper meaning of words and wants to use them correctly. The allegation that
the very concept of political correctness is only an insidious right-wing myth cannot be taken seriously.
One simply cannot insist that everyone should use terms such as differently abled while asserting that the
notion of political correctness is a myth. The very nature of this preposterous euphemism demonstrates the
effort that is being brought to bear to remove normative judgments from social discourse. It represents a
clear attempt to imply (falsely) that disabilities are not really disabilities because Wethe politically
correct elitesay so. This term and many others are not mere inelegant circumlocutions they are
propaganda.
At the heart of politically correct language lies dishonesty, not civility. This reality is manifested in the
preference for euphemism over literalism, for vagueness over specificity, and for propaganda over honesty.
The politically correct society is not the civilized society, but rather the dishonest society.17
PC Application to World Literature

That the entire Political Correctness notion is a laughable pseudo-scientific concoction
that comes from ignorant, illiterate, and incompetent individuals becomes obvious when one
takes a look at the ludicrous manner in which it has been applied to some classical works in the
English literature. Messent, the author of the Cambridge Introduction to Mark Twain, comments
on the comical attempts to amend and improve Twains books in order to make them
conform to the Political Correctness foolish guidelines. He states in The Guardian:
So, Mark Twain stays in the news even 100 years after his death. First, with the initial volume of his
Autobiography, finally published in the form planned by the author. Second, with the controversy stirred up
by a "new" edition of Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn in which the offensive racial
epithets "injun" and "nigger" are replaced by "Indian" and "slave" respectively.
Undoubtedly the use of the word "nigger" surely the most inflammatory word in the English language
makes Huckleberry Finn a tricky novel to teach. The book has recently repeatedly been judged as
unsuitable for schoolchildren to study in the US educational system and one can fully understand the
feelings of anger and humiliation that many African American children and parents feel at having such a
word repeatedly spoken in the classroom (the word appears 219 times in Twain's book).
But that is not necessarily a reason for replacing it with a gentler (bowdlerised) term. Twain was
undoubtedly anti-racist. Friends with African American educator Booker T Washington, he co-chaired the
1906 Silver Jubilee fundraiser at Carnegie Hall for the Tuskegee Institute a school run by Washington in
Alabama to further the intellectual and moral and religious life of the [African American] people. He also
personally helped fund one of Yale Law Schools first African American students, explaining: We have
ground the manhood out of them [African Americans], and the shame is ours, not theirs, and we should pay
for it. And his repeated use of that derogatory term in Huckleberry Finn is absolutely deliberate, ringing
with irony. When Hucks father, poor and drunken white trash by any standard, learns that a free nigger ...
from Ohio; a mulatter, most as white as a white man ... a pfessor in a college is allowed to vote, he
reports: Well, that let me out ... I says Ill never vote agin ... [A]nd the country may rot for all me. It is
very clear here whose racial side Twain is on. Similarly when Aunt Sally asks if anyone was hurt in a
reported riverboat explosion, and Huck himself answers No'm. Killed a nigger, she replies, Well, it's
lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt. The whole force of the passage lies in casual acceptance of
the African Americans dehumanised status, even by Huck, whose socially-inherited language and way of
thinking stands firm despite all he has learnt in his journey down-river of the humanity, warmth and
affection of the escaped slave Jim the person who truly acts as a father to him.
Language counts here. As Twain himself said: The difference between the almost right word and the right
word is really a large matter its the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning. I respect the
motivation of Alan Gribben, the senior Twain scholar who is responsible for the new edition, and who
wishes to bring the book back into easy classroom use, believing that a significant number of school
teachers, college instructors, and general readers will welcome the option of an edition of Twain's ... novels
that spares the reader from a racial slur that never seems to lose its vitriol.
But its exactly that vitriol and its unacceptable nature that Twain intended to capture in the book as it
stands. Perhaps this is not a book for younger readers. Perhaps it is a book that needs careful handling by
teachers at high school and even university level as they put it in its larger discursive context, explain how
the irony works, and the enormous harm that racist language can do. But to tamper with the authors words
because of the sensibilities of present-day readers is unacceptable. The minute you do this, the minute this
stops being the book that Twain wrote.18
Messents article was followed the next day by a humorous article in The New York
Times in which the writer made fun of Gribben, the senior Twain scholar, and ridiculed his
foolish attempts to sanitize Twains books:
All modern American literature, Ernest Hemingway once wrote, comes from one book by Mark Twain
called Huckleberry Finn.
Being an iconic classic, however, hasnt protected Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from being banned,
bowdlerized and bleeped. It hasnt protected the novel from being cleaned up, updated and improved.
A new effort to sanitize Huckleberry Finn comes from Alan Gribben, a professor of English at Auburn
University, at Montgomery, Ala., who has produced a new edition of Twains novel that replaces the word
nigger with slave. Nigger, which appears in the book more than 200 times, was a common racial
epithet in the antebellum South, used by Twain as part of his characters vernacular speech and as a
reflection of mid-19th-century social attitudes along the Mississippi River.
Mr. Gribben has said he worried that the N-word had resulted in the novel falling off reading lists, and that
he thought his edition would be welcomed by schoolteachers and university instructors who wanted to
spare the reader from a racial slur that never seems to lose its vitriol. Never mind that today nigger is
used by many rappers, who have reclaimed the word from its ugly past. Never mind that attaching the
epithet slave to the character Jim who has run away in a bid for freedom effectively labels him as
property, as the very thing he is trying to escape. 19
Kakutani also mentions that such misguided attempts to clean up the pages in the
classic American and Universal literature occur again and again, and sometimes with the best
intentions:
Controversies over Huckleberry Finn occur with predictable regularity. In 2009, just before Barack Obamas
inauguration, a high school teacher named John Foley wrote a guest column in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer in which
he asserted that Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men, dont belong on the curriculum
anymore. The time has arrived to update the literature we use in high school classrooms, he wrote. Barack Obama is
president-elect of the United States, and novels that use the N-word repeatedly need to go. 20
The writer explains that those who attempt such inappropriate book redaction and venture
to bleach the classics and the modern works of literature intrude on the authors rights to their
works and commit immoral and lawless acts:
Havent we learned by now that removing books from the curriculum just deprives children of exposure to
classic works of literature? Worse, it relieves teachers of the fundamental responsibility of putting such
books in context of helping students understand that Huckleberry Finn actually stands as a powerful
indictment of slavery (with Nigger Jim its most noble character), of using its contested language as an
opportunity to explore the painful complexities of race relations in this country. To censor or redact books
on school reading lists is a form of denial: shutting the door on harsh historical realities whitewashing
them or pretending they do not exist.
Mr. Gribbens effort to update Huckleberry Finn (published in an edition with The Adventures of Tom
Sawyer by NewSouth Books), like Mr. Foleys assertion that its an old book and were ready for new,
ratifies the narcissistic contemporary belief that art should be inoffensive and accessible; that books, plays
and poetry from other times and places should somehow be made to conform to todays democratic ideals.
Its like the politically correct efforts in the 80s to exile great authors like Conrad and Melville from the
canon because their work does not feature enough women or projects colonialist attitudes.
Authors original texts should be sacrosanct intellectual property, whether a book is a classic or not.
Tampering with a writers words underscores both editors extraordinary hubris and a cavalier attitude
embraced by more and more people in this day of mash-ups, sampling and digital books the attitude that
all texts are fungible, that readers are entitled to alter as they please, that the very idea of authorship is oldfashioned.
Such witch hunts are not new. Chaucers and Dahls rights have been violated in similar
Political Correctness efforts to mutilate timeless literature, Shakespeare has been adapted and
modernized, and the Bibles text has been twisted and falsified. Numerous other belletristic
works have been ruined in this relentless and foolish correctness mania. Even Evangelicals and
Conservatives have climbed on the wagon and have helped in the destruction:
Efforts to sanitize classic literature have a long, undistinguished history. Everything from Chaucers
Canterbury Tales to Roald Dahls Charlie and the Chocolate Factory have been challenged or have
suffered at the hands of uptight editors. There have even been purified versions of the Bible (all that sex
and violence!). Sometimes the urge to expurgate (if not outright ban) comes from the right, evangelicals
and conservatives, worried about blasphemy, profane language and sexual innuendo. Fundamentalist
groups, for instance, have tried to have dictionaries banned because of definitions offered for words like
hot, tail, ball and nuts.
In other cases the drive to sanitize comes from the left, eager to impose its own multicultural, feminist
worldviews and worried about offending religious or ethnic groups. Michael Radfords 2004 film version
of The Merchant of Venice (starring Al Pacino) revised the play to elide potentially offensive material,
serving up a nicer, more sympathetic Shylock and blunting tough questions about anti-Semitism. More
absurdly, a British theater company in 2002 changed the title of its production of The Hunchback of Notre
Dame to The Bellringer of Notre Dame.
Whether it comes from conservatives or liberals, there is a patronizing Big Brother aspect to these literary
fumigations. We, the censors, need to protect you, the nave, delicate reader. We, the editors, need to police
writers (even those from other eras), who might have penned something that might be offensive to someone
sometime. According to Noel Perrins 1969 book, Dr. Bowdlers Legacy: A History of Expurgated Books
in England and America, Victorians explained their distaste for the colorful, earthy works of 18th-century
writers like Laurence Sterne and Henry Fielding by invoking the principle of moral progress and their
own ethical superiority: People in the 18th century, and earlier, didnt take offense at coarse passages,
because they were coarse themselves.
In 1807 Thomas Bowdler an English doctor, from whose name comes the verb bowdlerize and his
sister published the first edition of an expurgated Shakespeare, which he argued would be more appropriate
for women and children than the original, with its bawdy language and naughty double-entendres. In their
Family Shakespeare version of Romeo and Juliet, Mercutios playfully suggestive line the bawdy
hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon is changed to the far blander the hand of the dial is now
upon the point of noon. Similarly, Iagos declaration in Othello that your daughter and the Moor are
now making the beast with two backs is changed to your daughter and the Moor are now together.
This is the academic equivalent of Ed Sullivan in 1967 prudishly making the Rolling Stones change Lets
spend the night together to Lets spend some time together. Or Cole Porter having to change cocaine
in I Get a Kick Out of You to perfume in Spain.
Euphemisms are sometimes pushed on writers by their publishers. Rinehart & Company persuaded Norman
Mailer to use fug in his 1948 novel The Naked and the Dead instead of the F-word. Mailer later said
the incident caused him great embarrassment because Tallulah Bankheads press agent supposedly
planted a story in the papers that went, Oh, hello, youre Norman Mailer. Youre the young man that
doesnt know how to spell.
Some years later Ballantine Books published an expurgated version of Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradburys
celebrated sci-fi classic about book banning, in which words like hell and abortion were deleted; it was
reportedly 13 years before Mr. Bradbury became aware of the changes and demanded that the original
version be restored.
Although its hard to imagine a theater company today using one of Shakespeare adaptations say,
changing Out, damned spot! Out, I say! in Macbeth to out, crimson spot! the language police are
staging a comeback. Not just with an expurgated Huckleberry Finn but with political efforts to clamp
down on objectionable language. Last year The Boston Globe reported that California lawmakers first
voted for, then tabled a resolution declaring a No Cuss Week, that South Carolina had debated a sweeping
anti-profanity bill, and that conservative groups like the Parents Television Council have complained about
vulgarities creeping into family-hour shows on network television.
But while James V. OConnor, author of the book Cuss Control, argues that people can and should find
word substitutions, even his own Web site grants Rhett Butler a poetic license exemption in Gone With
the Wind. Frankly, my dear, I dont give a hoot? Now thats damnable. 21
Invective in Literature and Science

Those who want to extend Political Correctness to all the belletristic and scientific works
and consider themselves the elite above low language are, besides inept, also ignorant and
illiterate. Their provincial education, or something that might be named with such terms when
one feels generous, has failed to secure the background that would have informed them that there
is a long, interesting, and relevant tradition of invective in the universal literature all through the
centuries. Goodman mentions an odd lawsuit between two writers due to one writers uncivil
language that appeared unacceptable to the second writer:
I called Lillian Hellman's lawyer the other day to ask what had become of the $2.25 million libel suit that
she initiated against Mary McCarthy more than three years ago. He promised that it would finally come to
trial this year. If this suit, which has elicited reservations even among those who hold a higher opinion of
Miss Hellman's career than Miss McCarthy does, should actually reach the courtroom, no matter what the
jury decides it is bound to diminish Miss McCarthy's purse, Miss Hellman's reputation as a friend of free
expression and the vigor of literary dispute in America, none of which is in particularly robust shape.
The incident that roused Miss Hellman to litigation was an appearance by Miss McCarthy on the Dick
Cavett Show over public television in January 1980. In response to Mr. Cavett's request for examples of
overpraised writers, Miss McCarthy named Lillian Hellman, who I think is terribly overrated, a bad
writer and a dishonest writer. When Mr.Cavett asked what she meant by dishonest, Miss McCarthy
responded, Everything ... every word she writes is a lie including and and the. 22
The invectives McCarthy used against Hellman, though, are nothing compared with the
words that writers like Dr. Johnson, Disraeli, Twain, and Carlyle used against some renowned
fellow writers and publishers. Continues Goodman:
It may be taken as a sign of our times or of Miss Hellman's sensibilities that so mild an observation should
be the cause of the mental pain and anguish and the fear of being injured in her profession that
constitute her complaint against Miss McCarthy and the shows producers. After all, Miss McCarthy did
not say of Miss Hellman's work, as Dr. Johnson did of Lord Chesterfield's letters to his son, They teach
the morals of a whore and the manners of a dancing master. Although their differences have a political as
well as a literary cast, Miss McCarthy did not say of Miss Hellman, as Disraeli said of a political opponent,
He has committed every crime that does not require courage. How gentle the epithet dishonest seems
next to Mark Twain's charge that Kipling did measureless harm; more real and lasting harm, perhaps, than
any other individual that ever wrote.
If Miss Hellman deserves $500,000 in punitive damages from Miss McCarthy, what did Dr. Johnson
deserve from Horace Walpole for calling him a babbling old woman and adding that prejudice and
bigotry, and pride and presumption, and arrogance and pedantry are the hags that brew his ink.?
Swinburne never brought suit against Carlyle for saying of him, I have no wish to know anyone sitting in
a sewer and adding to it. Swinburne was probably relieved that Carlyle did not treat him as he treated
Emerson (a gap-toothed and hoary-headed ape ... who now in his dotage spits and chatters from a dirtier
perch of his own finding and fouling) or Whitman (under the dirty clumsy paws of a harper whose
plectrum is a muck-rake, any tune will become a chaos of disorder) or Charles Lamb (I sincerely believe
(him) to be in some considerable degree insane). What Pope or Swift might have done to Miss Hellman
has no place in a family newspaper.
If among the viewers of the Cavett show that fateful night there was a chap who believed that Miss
Hellman sometimes told the truth, would Miss McCarthy's wisecrack have altered his opinion and so done
$1.75 million worth of damage to Miss Hellman's professional standing? Not if he knew anything about the
hyperbolic customs of their trade. Miss McCarthys everything was comfortably within the conventions
of the literary insult.
Here is Oscar Wilde summing up George Meredith: As a writer, he has mastered everything except
language; as a novelist, he can do everything except tell a story; as an artist, he is everything except
articulate. Shaw, in a kindly mood, told Chesterton: I know everything you say is bunkum, though a fair
amount of it is inspired bunkum. The charge of lying is a common weapon in the literary political arsenal.
Miss McCarthy's jibe is but a firecracker beside the bomb that Sinclair Lewis dropped on a prominent critic
who had annoyed him: I denounce Mr. Bernard De Voto as a fool and a tedious and egotistical fool, as a
liar and a pompous and boresome liar.23
Hellman must be warned, believes Goodman, that to feel offended by common

hyperboles used among writers and even common language speakers will have a price tag that
might not be worth the time and expenses of those offended. He states:
Miss McCarthy's distaste for Miss Hellman has two sources. There is Miss Hellmans success as a writer of
middlebrow melodrama, a line of work that highbrow critics like Miss McCarthy naturally scorn. But more
to the point is Miss Hellman's political past, of which she not long ago reminded the world in Scoundrel
Time, her memoir of the 1940s and 50s. In the years shortly before and after World War II, when the
American left was riven by the issue of Soviet totalitarianism, Miss Hellman was counted among the
friends of Stalins Russia, while Miss McCarthy was prominent among those who attacked it.
The Stalinist versus anti-Stalinist dispute is not likely to die as long as those who bled over it live, and Miss
McCarthy is by no means alone in finding Scoundrel Time at variance with veracity. Still, Miss Hellman
is surely entitled to her day in court. The question is whether the right court for writers is not public
opinion. As Miss Hellman contemplates proceeding against Miss McCarthy, she might consider whether
her efforts to punish another writer with the instruments of the law may not invite uncomfortable
comparisons with methods used in the country she once defended.24
The use of invective as a rhetorical and oratorical tool is not recent, and does not
originate with the British or American writersclassic or modern. Among those who used the
invective as a successful persuasive device is Cicero, a Roman writer, orator, critic, and
philosopher without peer who defined the Ciceronian period, in the development of the Latin
language and literature. The Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of Literature states about him:
Ciceronian period \sis--r-n-n\The first great age of Latin literature, from approximately 70 to 43 BC;
together with the following AUGUSTAN AGE, it forms the Golden Age of Latin literature. The political
and literary scene was dominated by Cicero, a statesman, orator, poet, critic, and philosopher who perfected
the Latin language as a literary medium, expressing abstract and complicated thoughts with clarity and
creating the important quantitative prose rhythm. Ciceros influence on Latin prose was so great that
subsequent prose not only in Latin but in later vernacular languages up to the 19th century was
either a reaction against or a return to his style [emphasis added]. 25
Some of the most famous speeches Cicero produced were the four against Catiline, the
Roman Senator who attempted to overthrow the Roman Republic. Ross explains the political
situation of the time in the following words when she discusses the ethos Cicero used in his
speech to accuse the Senator:
To better understand the purpose of Ciceros speech, one must examine the context within which it was
given. By the end of October, 63 BCE, Catiline had allegedly already been stirring up civil unrest in Rome.
Of the greatest concern was the mustering of an army under Manlius at Faesulae. Cicero claims, The
number of the enemy increases from day to day, but we see [Catiline,] the general of the camp and the
leader of the enemy, daily attempting some internal harm to the Republic within the walls and even in the
Senate.1 The circumstances were such that Cicero was given an extremely severe decree2 from the
Senate, through which he could execute Catiline without trial, as had happened in the past against those
who had incited rebellion, such as Gaius Gracchus, Marcus Fulvius, and Lucius Saturninus. However,
Cicero could not simply execute Catiline and be done with the affair. The problem was that there was no
hard evidence against Catiline,3 no proof that Catiline was the one responsible for the civil unrest, or that
he was the one mustering forces against Rome. Since the Senate [was] not sufficiently hostile to Catiline
to punish him,4 Cicero therefore needed to wholly convince them of Catilines guilt before acting upon his
decree in order to avoid severe political backlash. 26
In order to convince the Roman Senate of Catilines guilt, Cicero uses in his speech
various rhetorical devices, among which are multiple rhetorical questions that silence the Roman
senator, and numerous invectives. States Ross again:
Cicero constructs this authoritative consular ethos in several ways, the most distinctive being his use of
rhetorical questions. He begins his speech by asking Catiline, How far [...] will you try our patience,
Catiline?12 Cicero continues to catalogue charges against Catiline, asking, Do you dare deny it? Why are
you silent?13 Because the format of the speech does not allow Catiline to answer these questions, the
rhetoric makes a display of Catilines silence.14 This is important for the purpose of building Ciceros
credibility in his accusations against Catiline, as Catilines silence is evidence that Cicero is now [...]
speaking the hidden truth.15 In other words, Cicero silences Catiline through his use of rhetorical
questions, then uses this silence to give his accusations credibility. Ciceros questions silence not only
Catiline, they also silence the protests and deliberations of others, 16 namely the senators present who may
oppose Cicero. This is done by diverting the deliberative potential of these questions into invective by
making Catiline the addressee.17 In this way Cicero avoids opening a debate on what would otherwise be
the highly contested subject of Catilines guilt.27
Ross explains how Cicero calibrates the amount of invective used in his speech in order
to avoid an excessive use, cause damage to his own influence, and diminish the logical and
factual arguments that provide evidence that the Roman Senator Catiline is the main agent in the
plot to overthrow the Republic:
Next, Cicero judiciously uses invective in order to turn the Senate against Catiline without compromising
his own credibility. Cicero is careful in his use of invective, because he wishes to avoid the dismissal of his
argument as untrue. In the genre of invective, the fact of an insult is what matters. The truth-value of the
content of the insult is of only secondary importance, if not completely irrelevant. 23 Thus, the overuse of
invective in Ciceros speech would have been detrimental to his accusations against Catiline, as their
factuality would have been dismissed by the Senate. Cicero avoids the use of many standard topics,
including among others physical appearance, family origin, hypocrisy, and cowardice,24 which would have
encouraged the audience to perceive the speech as a formal invective. 25
Cicero further hints that Catiline is cruel to Roman citizens and allies, stating, If my servants feared me
the way your fellow citizens fear you, I should think I ought to leave home.27 Finally, Cicero accuses
Catiline of plundering and of the destruction of property, claiming, Now you attack the entire Republic
openly and you involve the temples of the immortal gods, the houses of the city, the lives of us all, and
finally all Italy in ruin and destruction.28 The purpose of this invective is to turn the Senate against
Catiline, and thereby gain their support. Cicero convinces both the Senate and Catiline he has done this by
making use of the silence he has imposed on these two through his rhetorical questions. He demands,
What is the matter, Catiline? Are you listening at all, do you notice the silence of these men? They do not
object, they are silent. Why are you awaiting a spoken command from men whose will you perceive in their
silence?29 In this way, Cicero asserts that anyone who takes issue with the accusations against Catiline will
speak up; since the Senate remains silent, Cicero concludes that all Senators agree with his perception of
events.30 Thus, Cicero again averts deliberation, and gives his words authority, as he speaks for the Senate
as a whole. By thus asserting that the Senate agrees with his stance, Cicero demonstrates to Catiline that the
Senate is against him, and will support Ciceros actions in stamping out the conspiracy; it is therefore
advisable for Catiline to leave at once, since his conspiring has been made plain. In this way, through the
careful use of invective, he aims to convince the Senate and Catiline that the former is hostile towards the
latter, and to gain the unquestioning support of the Senate.
Cicero is also careful in his use of invective in order to avoid any negative consequences to his own ethos.
He foresees that he may be accused later that he had driven Catiline out of Rome with his invective, and
that this departure had not been Catilines plan at all. Cicero prevents this by claiming that his invective
will have had no effect on the plans of Catiline, that it is in Catilines nature to be seditious. Cicero tells
Catiline, Nor are you such a man that shame has ever recalled you from wickedness, fear from danger, or
reason from madness.31 In this way, Cicero asserts that Catilines [planned] departure [...] has not been
affected by [himself].32 Cicero therefore preserves his consular ethos from accusations of uncalled-for
cruelty towards Catiline; at the same time he builds this ethos by presenting [his] concerned selflessness
and moral superiority33 by denouncing the crimes and nature of Catiline. In this way, Cicero reinforces his
consular authority by demonstrating his burdens, his knowledge, and his providence. 34 Overall, Cicero
uses invective judiciously in order to gain the support of the Senate, as well as to construct his consular
authority, while maintaining the credibility of his accusations.28
Ciceros judicious use of multiple and intense rhetorical devices among which the oral
invective is prominent, incisive, and effective, and ends with success in his first argument speech
against Catiline. States Ross:
Therefore, for the purpose of gaining the unquestioning support of the Senate against Catiline, Cicero
constructs an authoritative ethos in the First Catilinarian through his use of rhetorical questions, invective,
and self-praise. His rhetorical questions silence Catiline and the Senate, while he alone holds any answers.
He uses invective judiciously in order to turn the Senate against Catiline without jeopardizing either his
credibility or his moral high ground. He balances self-praise with self-accusation, taking on both the blame
for the current crisis and the credit for its imminent resolution. His success in convincing the Senate of
Catilines guilt and in gaining their support can be seen in the events that followed Ciceros speech on the
morning of November 7, 63 BCE. Catiline left Rome in disgrace, and his army was later defeated. Ciceros
handling of the conspiracy became his crowning achievement as consul. Thus the First Catilinarian fulfilled
its purpose.29
The spoken and written invectives in arguments that defend political or religious causes
have not been limited to the Roman world. There are multiple examples of pungent rhetorical
diatribes in the modern and current belletristic literature. In her article, Jaqua provides samples
from the works of some classical writers that contain some of the most acid language readers
might encounter. She mentions, for example, Kents vicious and heartless attack on Oswald in
Shakespeares King Lear Act 2 Scene 2:
Invective (also known as vituperation) is language that denounces or casts blame on somebody or
something. Invective can be highly abusive, such as
A knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundredpound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service,
and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir to a mongrel
bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining if thou denist the least syllable of thy addition.
~ William Shakespeare, King Lear, II.230
The author then continues her discussion on invective with quotes from an article written
by Furey, associate professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University, that
refers to Martin Luthers vituperations against the Pope in his 95 Theses and to other famous
Christian theologians or scholars who did not hesitate to pepper their works with offensive words
in their attacks against those who did not agree with them about certain creeds or perspectives:
Invectives were a part of public discourse. For example, Martin Luthers famous ninety-five theses contain
several invectives against the Pope of Rome, some of which are quite humorous and exaggerated:
Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are
there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a
Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial. 31
Such were common speeches that people slung against each other in centuries gone by. Constance M.
Furey comments on how things have changed:
The scathing insults that fill texts by sixteenth-century Christian reformers can shock even a jaded modern
reader. In the prefatory letter to The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), for example, Martin
Luther begins by wishing for grace and peace in Christ before launching his attack on the brainless
and illiterate beast in papist form and its whole filthy pack of asses, and concludes by exhorting his
reader to rise up against the Catholic hierarchy: Continue courageously, noble sir; in this way the
disgrace of the Bohemian name will be abolished, and the sludge of the harlots lies and whoring shall
again be taken up in her breast.
Or consider the nasty invectives by the English Lord Chancellor and future Catholic martyr, Thomas More,
against not only Luther but also Matthew Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English. More calls these
men the devils disciples: Luther a pimp, an apostate, a rustic, and a friar; and Tyndale a babbler,
and a devils ape. Even Desiderius Erasmus, the erudite Catholic humanist, filled his writings with insults
both satirical and blunt and proclaimed that theologians are more stupid than any pig. Fierce words
commonly appear in the midst of religious controversies, and one may choose to skim past this hyperbolic
outrage in search of the real message. Insulting rhetoric, however, does provide a sensitive barometer of
religious concerns in the sixteenth century and yields unexpectedly complex answers to a simple question.
What does negative speech accomplish?
~ Constance M. Furey, Invective and Discernment in Martin Luther, D. Erasmus, and Thomas More,
Indiana University32
Jaqua muses about the present socio-cultural and political context in which the invective
appears to be treated as a criminal offense, and concludes her article with an attempt to explain
the drastic shift in the intellectual and academic climate that has caused such a radical and
thorough change in perspective. The unavoidable conclusion, in her perspective, is that the
United States is no more a free nation and that freedom of speech and expression are no more
tolerated here:
Only in free nations are invectives tolerated. The fact that the Athenians had the liberty to speak, even to
criticize their own political leaders was a sign of the freedom their society allowed them.
In later Roman times major authors such as Juvenal and Catullus also wrote extended invectives openly and
publicly to defame political figures. Any piece from antiquity or from medieval times beginning with
Contra, as in Ciceros Contra Catilinam (Against Catiline) or St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra
Gentiles (The higest Against the Gentiles) are invectives, speeches or writings against (contra)
something or someone.
Cicero wrote many invectives. Demosthenes the Greek orator during the time of Philip II of Macedon
wrote many invectives. His most famous is Against Philip of Macedon, whom Demosthenes saw as a threat
to Athenian independence. Caesoninus Pliny wrote invectives against Greek physicians; the church father
St. Augustine of Hippo wrote invectives Against the Manicheans, and so forth. 33
The scholar and researcher wonders whether we have become too sensitive or too
arrogant, too inclined to misunderstand and feel offended, and too conceited to tolerate what
seems like offensive language in our insatiable lust for respect when we feel that we have
suffered a personal attack, and feels that all comes down to an incomplete education:
Are we too sensitive today? Would we feel put off if it were said of one of us that we were too arrogant in
our old age? Do we have a RIGHT not to be offended by those around us? Is this one of the rights that the
Founding Fathers in their otherwise infinite wisdom forgot to include in the Bill of Rights? Is our lust for
respect so strong that we need to secure it by laws prohibiting other people to express their opinions in
public speech?
As a society we get offended over issues of gender, race, religion, and politics if someone casts disparaging
remarks on our pet issues or pet institutions. Sometimes our rights not to be offended trumps our need as
a people to exhibit good will, humor, wit and a light-hearted attitude towards others. Being too sensitive
can bar honest public discourse on important subjects. Nobody can teach us proper humility as well as our
enemies can.
In the past, it was part of a speakers skills to be able to sling commonplace-type abuses around. It was
understood as such and not taken seriously. In the past, there was a rhetorical context within which the very
norm and rhetorical skill of discourse included throwing commonplace praises and blames around.
Today we do not have that rhetorical context. Every word spoken is taken literally. We have lost the
rhetorical hermeneutic within which to interpret what someone says, praise, blame, or otherwise.
We can no longer sling abuses around because we as people cannot take it. We do not know HOW to take
it, rhetorically speaking, interpretively speaking. Perhaps the bottom line is that today we are simply not
educated enough. Or at least the way we are educated lacks this crucial component. 34
Some Scientists Like Uncivil Humor

The fear of the malicious and vicious Political Correctness Police seems to have
penetrated almost all the enclaves of our present social and academic environment, and not
without reason. Some known professors in the Americans colleges, scholars, and scientists, have
been fired for using the wrong language, careers have been ruined for their lack of compliance
to the artificial correctness norms, and some individuals have even been arrested for the
wrong words all this in a land that was once known for its freedoms. Paranoia makes
colleagues tell on one another and report assumed or suspected correctness violations to the
Political Correctness Police.
The situation seems a little more relaxed in Europe, although even there the Political
Correctness Police has made its frantic incursions. There are still reputable scientists who are not
afraid to use improper language in their research documents. A recent article published in the
UKs Times Higher Education magazine includes the news that a group of Swedish scientists
had been planting Bob Dylan song titles into [scientific] papers, and that one Swiss-French
professor had already gone far further with a reference to mothers in leopard-print G-strings.35
The language used in the scientific papers mentioned in the Times Higher Education
article would sound blasphemous for men like Jarnes, the editor at the PPPA. Some such men
might even claim that the language used in those prestigious research documents invalidates the
scientists research and makes those professional articles unfit to even read, but intelligent people
know better. While we need to use words with care, to eliminate certain words from our lexicons
because the Thought Police finds them offensive and attempts to ban them would be ridiculous
and absurd. As mentioned above, Article 19 from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
guarantees for all people the right to freedom of opinion and expression, a right that includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
For professor Duboule, who teaches and researches in developmental genomics at the
University of Geneva and the cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, the claimed
outrageous language the scientists have used in their papers is a reaction to the increased
control that the Thought and Language Police want to impose on them. States Jump:
Professor Duboule said that he had also inserted other jokes in his papers, partly as a reaction to his sense
that science was becoming over-policed by committees [emphasis added] deciding what is interesting
and not interesting. And at some point you think: Nique ta mre! Let us do what we enjoy doing having
fun!36
STOPPED HERE WITH THE REVIEW
III. Political Correctness and the Bible

Offensive Dogmas and Uncivil Words
The Political Correct Police saints have one serious peeve with the Bible. The textual
critics have denied for centuries its Divine inspiration and have argued that the Sacred Texts are
all worthless ancient concoctions, while the feminists have deplored and attacked the
patriarchalism that, in their perspective, demeans and debases women and makes them second
class citizens, and have denounced the inclusive personal pronoun he used in the Bible as the
main and definitive example of the claimed blatant discrimination against women, but all these
attacks are much too little for the political correctness standards. The LGBTI political alliance
is another group that detests the Bible and would like it outlawed or burned at the stake because
it fails to affirm their alternative orientations. To know that a book so uncivil, offensive, and
hateful could have unrestricted universal circulation with no controls whatsoever is too much for
the Political Correctness mobsters and the sexual others.
All Male Pronouns Must Be Removed
But what makes the biblical content so uncivil, offensive, and hateful? In the first place because
the Bible is not gender-neutral, and inclusive, and also because women seem to be assigned
minor roles in the biblical narratives, while men are cast as main characters. Grudem mentions
these biblical errors and the efforts to correct them in a pamphlet that he wrote for The Council
on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.1 The theologian remarks that the offensive non-neutral
and non-inclusive biblical words are:
1. The generic he, him, and his, that the translators of the NRSV deemed uncivil and
unacceptable and changed from singular to plural in the translation whenever these personal
pronouns occurred in the original Bible languages. For example, man, he, and him, in the
RSV John 14:23,
RSV 23
Jesus answered him, If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we
will come to him and make our home with him.
became in NRSV those, and them:

NRSV 23
Jesus answered him, Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we
will come to them and make our home with them.
Also, Davids direct statements or quotes in RSV Psalm 41:5 that include the personal pronouns
he and his,
RSV 5
My enemies say of me in malice: When will he die, and his name perish?
becomes in the NRSV I and my in indirect speech:

NRSV 5
My enemies wonder in malice when I will die, and my name perish. 2
2. The generic man that was intended to represent the entire human race dm in the
biblical text. Again, the NRSV translators have worked hard to remove this generic and neutral
word from the biblical text whenever possible:
RSV 27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them.
NRSV27
So God created humankind[a] in his image, in the image of God he created them;[b] male and female
he created them.
and
RSV2
Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
NRSV 2
Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Humankind [a] when they
were created.3
Another attempt to remove the generic man from the biblical text is through the
complete substitution of the original word and the distortion of the biblical text. In this case the
word man is replaced with mortal, and the intended meaning of the text is changed:
RSV 26
But Peter lifted him up, saying, Stand up; I too am a man.
NRSV 26
But Peter made him get up, saying, Stand up; I am only a mortal.
3. The uncivil and offensive definite Greek male term, anr (man or husband), has been
another peeve for the Political Correctness Stormtroopers, and had to be eliminated from the
Bible. States Grudem:
The Greek word anr is used when an author wants to specify a man or men in distinction from woman (or
women). The word is a specifically male term that can mean man or husband, depending on the
context. Surprisingly, the NRSV several times avoids translating even this word as man or men. For
example, though the Greek text explicitly says that Judas Barsabbas and Silas were leading men sent
from the Jerusalem Council, the NRSV changes this to leaders (Acts 15:22).4
The male term also disappears from Numbers 31:49 in the Old Testament, although the
chapter narrates a war event, and although there is almost no reference to women as soldiers in
the Hebrew armies:
Several battle passages talk about the men of war, such as Your servants have counted the men of war
who are under our command, and there is not a man missing from us (Num. 31:49 RSV). The word men
was objectionable here, however, so that NRSV has, Your servants have counted the warriors who are
under our command, and not one of us is missing (NRSV). Similarly, in Numbers 31:28, the men of war
who went out to battle (RSV), becomes the warriors who went out to battle (NRSV). Even the males
who were circumcised in Joshua 5:4 are not called men of war, but warriors. 5
The Political Correctness paronoia goes so far and so deep that the NRSV translation
seems to attempt to erase all the references to males in the biblical text. Fathers, sons, and
brothers are also incorrect, and need to be replaced:
A computer analysis can show us the extent of other word changes, at least for the NRSV. The word
father (including the plural and possessive forms), occurs 601 fewer times in the NRSV than in the RSV.
The word son occurs 181 fewer times (including the loss of son of man 106 times in the Old
Testament). The word brother occurs 71 fewer times. Coupled with the loss of he, him, his (3408 times
where it is dropped or changed to you or we or they), and the loss of man (over 300 times where it
is changed to human or mortal, mortals), this drive for gender-neutral language has resulted in
unnecessary introduction of inaccuracy in over 4500 places in the Bible. 6
Offensive Biblical Doctrines Removed

The changes Grudem describes seem to affect the Bible to a rather small degree, without
a significant modification of its content. Other Political Correctness militants have altered the
biblical text to a larger degree in order to bring fairness to our world. States Catholic News:
Berlin, Germany, Nov 9, 2006 / 12:00 am (CNA).- A group of 52 biblical specialists have released a new
version of the Bible in which inclusive language and political correctness have replaced some divisive
teachings of Christianity in order to present a more just language for groups such as feminists and
homosexuals.
According to the AFP news agency, the new version of the Sacred Scriptures was presented at a book fair
in Frankfurt. Entitled, The Bible in a More Just Language, the translation has Jesus no longer referring to
God
as
Father,
but
as
our
Mother
and
Father
who
are
in
heaven.
Likewise, Jesus is no longer referred to as the Son but rather as the child of God. The title Lord is
replaced with God or the Eternal One. The devil, however, is still referred to with masculine pronouns.
One of the great ideas of the Bible is justice. We have made a translation that does justice to women, Jews,
and those who are disregarded, said Pastor Hanne Koehler, who led the team of translators.
Last December, Matin Dreyer, pastor and founder of the sect Jesus Freaks, published the Volksbibel
(The Peoples Bible), in a supposed attempt to make the message of Christianity more accessible. Jesus
returns instead of resurrects, and multiplies hamburgers instead of the fish and loaves. In the parable of
the prodigal son, the younger son squanders his inheritance at dance clubs and ends up cleaning bathrooms
at McDonalds.7
Good for All The Rainbow Colors

Efforts to make the Bible palatable for all humans have moved the translation boundaries
even further, so that Western Journalism is able to report that the translators of the Queen James
Bible version (QJV) have provided those with alternate sexual orientations the option to read
the Scriptures without homophobe criticisms and incorrect remarks:
Apparently unsatisfied with merely attacking the religious right as hate-filled homophobes, some radical
gay activists have recently released the so-called Queen James Bible, stripped of any homosexual
criticism. Upon its release, the actual people or group behind the blasphemous whitewash of scripture were
unknown, as online retailers listed its publisher simply as Queen James. No matter the source, though,
the contents should concern anyone with traditional Christian morals.
According to a description, the book resolves any homophobic interpretations of the Bible while noting
that editors did not address other inequality and contradictions contained therein. Further denying the
Christian view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, the description includes this claim: No Bible is
perfect, including this one. The politically correct hack job includes key changes to at least eight verses,
making homophobic interpretations impossible according to the books online summary.
One amendment, for example, is found in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. While the King James
Version of Genesis 19:5 states the sinful residents said to Lot: Where are the men which came to thee this
night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them, the Queen James changes the word know
commonly understood as a reference to sex to rape and humiliate. The editors contend that the sinful
act was not homosexual sex itself but bullying strangers.
This is just one of the inconceivable changes in the latest effort by leftist lunatics to homogenize and
neutralize the life-changing moral guide God left humanity in the Holy Bible. The name itself is a reference
to a purported nickname of the well-known bisexual King James I, the description states. As a Christian,
I embrace new translations of the Bible, provided the translators do not also try to serve as editors. While
updated language can make the Good Book easier to understand and more captivating to a current
audience, new interpretations of the spiritual message contained within is unacceptable.
Moral relativism is rampant in todays America; and as more groups seek to justify their sinful behavior, I
suppose we should likewise look for a Bible specifically aimed at thieves and an adultery-friendly version
of the scriptures.8
The Inoffensive and Impotent Bible

One writer has found his niche, and has decided to rewrite the Bible in the Political
Correct Nextspeak, in order to prove what it would mean for the Bible translators to conform
to all the ludicrous civil guidelines. His correct Genesis Chapter 1 version is below:
The Book of Gynesis
Chapter One
1 In the beginning God evolved the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without patriarchy and void of
sexism. 2 And God said, I propose there be light. Any feedback on that? And there was none, since God
had not yet made anyone to give feedback. Soon it would not be that easy anymore.
3 And God said, Let there be light, and there was light, and the light began to complain that since God
was paying only minimum wage he should at least allow the light some vacation time. 4 So God divided
the light from the darkness. The light God called Day; the darkness God called Differently Day. And God
encouraged them to try and peacefully co-exist.
5 And God created the firmament of the heavens to separate the waters above the earth from the waters
below the earth, but then it was pointed out to God that this might be construed as segregation, so God
started over. 6 This time he decided to install the ozone layer, that none might get skin cancer or a bad
sunburn. And God saw the ozone layer and called it good. 7 And God said to himself, Now that ought to
work just fine, so long as nobody discovers fluorocarbons, but then, hey, what are the chances of that ever
happening, huh?
8 Next God divided the waters from the dry land. The waters God called Seas, and the dry land God called
Differently Seas. 9 And from the Seas did God cause all manner of animals and fish to swarm, and God
saw that it was good and celebrated diversity.
10 Last of all did God bring forth humans, two of every color under heaven, female and male did God
create them, both gay and straight, lesbian and bisexual. 11 And God said to them, Be fruitful and
multiply, or just screw around, as you please. Far be it from Me to privilege any one form of sexual
expression over any other. 12 Just leave the beasts of the field out of it, okay? Or I'll have the animal rights
people all over me quicker than you can say speciesism.
13 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every green plant for food, and all manner of quiche."
14 And God strictly charged them that they should eschew all strip-mining, animal experimentation, and
littering. Good planets are hard to find, and believe me, I ought to know!
15 So God planted a rain forest in Esalen, in the East, and there God placed the person God had formed, so
that the person might tend the garden and discover all manner of homeopathic medicines. 16 Before then,
there was no rain in the earth, but all creatures observed careful resource conservation.
17 And God, beholding all that God had made, said, It is not good parenting to leave the person all alone. I
will make a co-dependent fit for him. 18 And while the person slept, God took one of the person's ribs,
called the penis, and cast it away as a withered branch. 19 And God saw that it was good, and God called
her name Eve, and the Eve and the morning were the first day of the rest of your life.
20 Now the serpent, an obvious phallic symbol, was craftier than any other creature God had made. 21 One
day it reared its ugly head and whispered unto Eve, Hath God said ye shall in no wise partake of the fruit
of carnal knowledge? 22 And Eve said to the serpent, We may indulge freely, but God said, of the fruit of
monogamous heterosexuality ye shall not eat, lest on the day you eat of it you become homophobic.
23 But the serpent said, Get thee real! Thou shalt not become homophobic. You shall be like God,
abolishing the oppressive hierarchy that privilegeth good over evil! 24 And she fell for his line. And
afterward, as the serpent was getting dressed, he said unto her, Tough break, sweetheart! Henceforth, your
desire shall be for your husband, and he shall reign over you.
25 And Eve was exceedingly dismayed at these tidings, wondering in her heart what a husband might be.
26 And God spoke to her, saying, In pain shall you bring forth children, except that ye use the method of
the prophet Lamaziah whereby ye shall keep the commandments Thou shalt push! and the second, being
like unto it, Thou shalt breathe!9
IV. The Bizarre Jesus Who Never Was

The False Image of the Divine Man
The theologians have programmed us to visualize Jesus as a white, anorexic, and
effeminate dude that was half man and half wimp, a pathetic and worthless fellow who had
learned what it is to be bullied and abused, a weak and fearful bloke who liked to hide in the
shadows, too afraid to face people and talk with them. States Creswell:
There are no recorded descriptions of what of what [sic!] Jesus actually looked like. Not even one. Not one
picture, or painting or sketch of our Lord that you have seen comes from an interpretation of a physical
description of Him in the Bible. Too many times in my humble opinion our Lord is depicted as this weak
wimpy looking guy. Pictures that depict Him like that infuriate me.
I grew up with a picture of Jesus in my mind from the pictures of Him hanging on the wall at my
grandmothers, and from the pictures of him at the church, and I had a different picture in my mind of who
Jesus was and is as I was growing up. As we are human we tend to associate things we know to be true
with what we visually have seen with our own eyes. And we have all grown up looking at pictures of Jesus,
looking malnourished, effeminate and yes I will say it, yes wimpy. I do not claim to know all the men
throughout history that have painted the image of Christ. But I can tell you one thing, the image of Christ in
my eyes looks nothing like what I have ever seen them put on canvas.
The sad part is, a lot of the only Jesus that people know is what they see from these paintings and statues,
and I do not believe at all that is what he resembled or what he will look like when we see Him. If the
secular world thinks this wimpy character we see in a lot of paintings, is who is returning they better think
again. You take these wimpy images that have been painted through the centuries, add all the new world
mumbo-jumbo, and new way theology and you end up with people so confused they think that they are
saved by putting a WWJD (what would Jesus do) bumper sticker on their car. 1
The Bible, though, mentions that Jesus lived in a village where he needed to walk from
place to place exposed to the Palestinian hot sun, and therefore must have been tanned. He also
worked as a tradesman, a carpenter. Those familiar with manual labor know that to work with
wood is hard. One needs powerful muscles to cut and shape things from wood. And one also
needs to eat well enough in order to be able to do such kind of work. Starved and weak mean
have no power to work with wood as carpenters.
Such a weak and feeble image of the man-God who is described in Revelation 5:5 as the
Lion of the tribe of Judah appears to have a detrimental effect on the male churchgoers. The
perception of a Jesus to whom the Christian men cannot relate seems to discourage church
attendance and true fellowship among male Christians. States OBrien:
The stallions hang out in bars; the geldings hang out in church. This observation from David Murrow
strikes a little close to home for someone like me. I always thrived in my congregation but was never
certain I fit the mold of masculinity I saw modeled around me. So as much as I resent Murrow's sentiment,
it nevertheless rings true: In many churches, a certain type of man is conspicuously absent.
The disparity in mens and womens attendance in American churches has made men the target of
specialized ministry over the last two decades. Promise Keepers kicked off the mens movement in 1990 by
challenging stadiums full of men and boys to fulfill their duties to God and their families. Today a growing
body of literature is leveling its sights on the church, suggesting that men are uninvolved in church life
because the church doesnt encourage authentic masculine participation.
The first writer to popularize this concern was John Eldredge, who, in his three-million-selling Wild at
Heart (Thomas Nelson, 2001), lamented that the masculine spirit was at risk because most men believe
God put them on the earth to be good boys. The churchs tendency to promote discipleship as merely
becoming nice guys keeps men from embodying their God-given maleness.
Wild at Heart sowed seeds that have sprouted as a new masculinity movement aimed to get men into
church by changing the churchs atmosphere. David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church
(Thomas Nelson, 2004), founded the group Church for Men because, while the local congregation is
perfectly designed to reach women and older folkswith its emphasis on comfort, nurture, and
relationshipsit offers little to stir the masculine heart, so men find it dull and irrelevant. 2
OBrien explores now the root of the matter the distorted and false conception of Jesus that
spread among the churches and turns the Church men off. That unbiblical perception has caused an
expected counter-reaction and powerful effort to set things straight on who the man Jesus was and
how he looked. Continues the writer:
The message of Church for Men and GodMen is resonating with ministers of all stripes. Following
Murrow's advice, Don Wilson, pastor of Christ's Church of the Valley in Peoria, Arizona, has geared his
entire ministry toward reaching young men. And while his ministry is not to men in particular, Mark
Driscoll, pastor of Seattles Mars Hill Church, nevertheless desires greater testosterone in contemporary
Christianity. In Driscolls opinion, the church has produced a bunch of nice, soft, tender, chickified church
boys. Sixty percent of Christians are chicks, he explains, and the forty percent that are dudes are still
sort of chicks.
The aspect of church that men find least appealing is its conception of Jesus. Driscoll put this bluntly in his
sermon Death by Love at the 2006 Resurgence theology conference (available at TheResurgence.com).
According to Driscoll, real men avoid the church because it projects a Richard Simmons, hippie, queer
Christ that is no one to live for [and] is no one to die for. Driscoll explains, Jesus was not a long-haired
effeminate-looking dude; rather, he had callused hands and big biceps. This is the sort of Christ men
are drawn towhat Driscoll calls Ultimate Fighting Jesus.
Paul Coughlin, author of No More Christian Nice Guy (Bethany House, 2005), agrees: The problem with
the wimpy Jesus of the popular imagination is that a meek and mild Jesus eventually is a bore. He doesnt
inspire us.3
Coughlin is right. The popular image of a meek and mild Jesus, cannot be but a bore
because it is unrealistic and artificial. Who would care about such a Jesus? Who would give him
any time, pay attention to him, and respect him? Who would listen in awe to his words and trust
him as the Savior of the world? He would be an unknown and obscure individual a shadows
creature, a waste of time.
The Jesus Who Commands Respect

The pathetic image circulated in the church so often as the genuine Jesus, though, is false
and deceptive. It is nothing like the real God-man that the Bible presents to the believers in both
the Old and New Testaments. Jesus was the man who attracted the attention of the crowd, was
followed wherever he went, captivated his audiences, confronted the leaders and scholars of his
time, and rebuked and threatened the false shepherds and the crooked religious masters.
After he criticizes the new rules of post-evangelical engagement, that is, the dangerous
political correctness that has invaded the church at the present time and is demonstrated through
an indulgent and civil attitude towards theological error. MacArtur describes in decided terms
how much truth mattered to Jesus and how firm He stood for it in His divine mission even when
He had to make unpleasant and unwelcome statements that offended His listeners:
To review, then, here are the new rules of post-evangelical engagement: All our differences over biblical
and theological matters are supposed to remain blithely congenial and complacently detached from any sort
of passion in a purely academic-style exchange of ideas and opinions. Truth isnt our primary goal. (How
nave that would be!) We dont even need to be seeking consensus, much less biblical orthodoxy. After all,
diversity is one of the few virtues postmodern culture has achieved, and we must honor that. at the end
of the day, then, if we can congratulate ourselves on our own civility, we should be satisfied with that. (p.
xxiv) 4
The truth mattered more to Jesus than how people felt about it. He wasnt looking for ways just to make
people like Him; He was calling people who were willing to bow to Him unconditionally as their Lord
(p. 187). Again, listen to these words from the author: Unpleasant and unwelcome truths sometimes need to
be voiced. False religion always needs to be answered. Love may cover a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8),
but the gross hypocrisy of false teachers desperately needs to be uncovered lest our silence facilitate and
perpetuate a damning delusion. The truth is not always nice. (p. 171). 5
The Jesus Who Confronts The Sinners

The idea of a lax, civil, and extra-polite Jesus cannot be supported and maintained from
the Bible. The God-Man presented in the Gospels was not a weak fellow who minded his own
business, did his best to please the people around him, and was a polite dinner guest. The
opposite is true. Jesus was never polite or civil in the Political Correctness sense. He never
hesitated or failed to confront sinners, expose their sins, rebuke them, and command them to
repent. States Cole:
One of the main proponents of self-esteem says that one reason he follows Jesus is that Jesus is such a
positive person. He must have cut Luke 14 out of his Bible! Jesus was invited to dinner at the home of a
leader of the Pharisees. He accepted the invitation, but He was hardly a polite dinner guest. It was on the
Sabbath, and He no sooner had walked in the door than He saw, right in front of Him, a man suffering from
dropsy. Dropsy, also called edema, is a swelling of the joints or the whole body, often due to a faulty heart
or to diseased kidneys or liver. Jesus could have told the man, Come back after sundown and Ill heal
you, thus avoiding a confrontation with the Pharisees. But He didnt do that; He healed the man and then
verbally confronted His critics.
As if that were not enough for one day, the Lord proceeded to rebuke the dinner guests who sought out the
places of honor at the table. While everyones jaws gaped open at that, He proceeded to rebuke the host for
inviting the wrong guests to his dinner party. Then, when one of the guests tried to ease the tension by
exclaiming, Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God, Jesus told a parable to show
that many of the Jews would be shut out of the kingdom and many Gentiles would be included (14:15-24).
Jesus was very confrontational! If you hang out with Him for very long, youll find that He confronts your
sin.6
The Jesus Who Confronts The Leaders

Jesus also did not hesitate to confront the church leaders and the scholars of his time
whenever he was told to follow human traditions instead of the Scriptures. Such an attitude
seems to be in conflict with Bible texts that admonish believers to respect their leaders, but the
truth is that the Jewish leaders over-confidence was based on arrogance, and not on trust in God
and his guidance. Jesus, as God-Man, knew well their problem, and never failed to remind those
leaders and scholars that their dogmas did not have a divine origin, but were man-made
commandments. States MacArthur:
The confrontation [in Mark 11] really was inaugurated by something our Lord did. If you go back one day
to Tuesday and earlier in chapter 11 and look at verse 15, well have the setting for this confrontation. They
came to Jerusalem on that Tuesday morning from Bethany where Jesus and the Apostles had been staying
at the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus who had been friends and our Lord had even raised Lazarus from
the dead. They came to Jerusalem as He entered the temple on that Tuesday of Passion Week, began to
drive out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers
and the seats of those that were selling doves and He wouldnt permit anyone to carry merchandise through
the temple. And He began to teach and to say to them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house
of prayer for all the nations, but you have made it a robbers den. The chief priests and scribes heard this
and began seeking how to destroy Him for they were afraid of Him for the whole crowd was astonished at
His teaching.
That act on Tuesday precipitated a confrontation the next day on Wednesday. As we pick up the reading in
verse 27, its Wednesday morning, and we read this. They came again to Jerusalem. As He was walking in
the temple, the Chief Priest and scribes and the elders came to Him and began saying to Him, By what
authority are You doing these things? Or who gave You this authority to do these things? And Jesus said
to them, I will ask You one question and You answer Me and then I will tell You by what authority I do
these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer Me. They began reasoning
among themselves saying, If we say from heaven, He will say then why did you not believe him? But shall
we say from men? They were afraid of the people, for everyone considered John to have been a real
prophet. Answering Jesus they said, We do not know. And Jesus said to them, Nor will I tell you by what
authority I do these things.7
The Israelite religious leaders considered themselves men who had the God-given
ecclesiastical power to allow or to forbid the preaching of the Gospel, just as at the present time
one has to be ordained in the church in order to preach, administer church rites such as baptism
and communion, and officiate at a funeral. Jesus, though, did not follow their commands, but
defied them because he knew that these commands came from humans, not from God. States
again MacArthur:
Obviously the key word here is authority. Authority is the word that gives meaning to this confrontation.
The Greek word is exousia, it really means freedom to act, liberty to act. To have authority is essentially to
have the right to act, to exercise your will, to exercise force, to determine, to decide. Thats authority. And
no one who has ever walked on this planet has ever had such authority as Jesus Christ. He had ultimate
authority, absolute authority, divine authority and He exercised it. In Matthew 28:18 He put it this way,
All authority is given to Me in heaven and earth. That is why Paul says, He is far above all authority,
Ephesians chapter 1. He wielded an authority the likes of which no one has ever possessed in this world.
Weve already come into contact with His authority. In Mark chapter 1 and verse 22, They were amazed
at His teaching, for He was teaching as one having authority, not as the scribes.
The scribes never taught based upon their own authority. They always quoted others as their authority.
Seventy-five times in the gospels, Jesus said, Truly I say unto you... Rabbis didnt talk that way. He
didnt need to quote anybody, He was the ultimate authority.
In chapter 1, also in Mark and verse 27, the people commented that there was a new lesson that they were
seeing in Christ with authority because He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey Him. He had
authority over doctrine. He had authority over demons.
In the second chapter in the tenth verse, it says, The Son of Man has authority to forgive sin. We saw
many occasions where He exercised authority over disease and even over death. And He had the authority
to give up His life and to take it back again. In John 1:12 He has the authority to save, in John 5:27, the
authority to judge all; John 10:18, the authority to rise again from the dead.
Looking at this in a negative way, just to make the point even stronger, Jesus never asked permission from
anyone to do anything...no one. Never asked permission from anyone to do anything, He was not under any
earthly authority, He possessed all authority in Himself as the divine Son of God. The only authority in His
life was that perfect harmony with the Father and the Spirit so that He did what was the Fathers will in the
Spirits power.
He makes this clear to us in the gospel of John, in particular, in the fifth chapter of the gospel of John and
verse 19. Truly, truly I say to you....there it is again, speaking for Himself, saying the truth, quoting no
one...Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself unless it is something He sees the Father
doing, for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. He does what the Father
does in the same way the Father does it.8
The main reason for Jesuss blunt and uncivil actions of defiance against the religious
leaders of his time was their decadent spiritual state. Under their sumptuous religious apparel
were hiding ignorance and ineptitude, but also extreme arrogance and viciousness. Their
ecclesiastical privileges came from men, while Jesuss right to preach the Gospel with power
came from God Himself. Continues MacArthur:
He had only one authority in His life and that was the divine will which He knew perfectly as the divine
Son. Our Lord never consulted the Pharisees. He never consulted the scribes. He never consulted the rabbis
to get permission to do anything. He never consulted the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Israel, on anything
at all. He acted solely on His own authority. Everything He said came from Himself. Everything He did
came from Himself. Every action He took was motivated, initiated, inaugurated and completed by His own
will. He had the ultimate freedom to do and say whatever He wanted to do and say and it was always right,
and it was always true. Better, it was always perfect. He was the ultimate authority. He wielded ultimate
power. He not only had the authority to say what He said and the authority to do what He did, He had the
power to pull it off. He rejected the Jewish authorities. He never consulted them because they were
apostate. They had defected from the true religion. They didnt know God. They didnt represent God.
They were illegitimate. It was as if they didnt exist. Sure, they were the earthly purveyors of a corrupt
Judaism, they ran the temple and turned it into a robbers den. They had no real power and no real authority
at all. They were enemies of God, enemies of the truth, enemies of the gospel.
Jesus teaching without their approval and Jesus action without their permission struck a massive blow to
their formidable spiritual pride, devastating their imagined privilege and power. And it just continually
infuriated them. They had developed a vicious hatred for Him because He demonstrated such scorn toward
their religious positions. That is ultimately what led to them having Him murdered at the hands of the
Romans.9
The Jesus Who Indicts False Teachers

Now, as in Jesuss time, dishonest and abusive leaders and false scholars work to deceive
Gods people and to disseminate their erroneous dogmas under the pretense that their scriptural
interpretations bear the Divine imprint. MacArthur deplores this unfortunate condition, and calls
for spiritual discernment and courage to confront such false shepherds:
Many Christians today are greatly concerned about the rising influences of communism, humanism,
secularism, and social injustice. Yet those evils, great as they are, do not together pose the threat to
Christianity that false shepherds and pastors do. Throughout the history of redemption, the greatest threat to
Gods truth and Gods work has been false prophets and teachers, because they propose to speak in His
name. That is why the Lords most scathing denunciations were reserved for the false teachers of Israel,
who claimed to speak and act for God but were liars.
Yet for some reason, evangelical Christianity is often hesitant to confront false teachers with the
seriousness and severity that Jesus and the apostles did, and that the godly prophets before them had done.
Today, more than at any time in modern history and perhaps more than at any time in the history of the
church, pagan religions and cults are seriously encroaching on societies that for centuries have been
nominally Christian. Even within the church, many ideas, teachings, and philosophies that are little more
than thinly veiled paganism have become popular and influential. As in ancient Israel, the further Gods
people move away from the foundation of His Word, the more false religion flourishes in the world and
even in their own midst. At no time have Christians had greater need to be discerning. They need to
recognize and respect true godly shepherds who feed them Gods Word and build them up in the faith, and
they also must recognize and denounce those who twist and undermine Gods Word, who corrupt the
church and who lead lost people still further away from Gods truth and from salvation. 10
The Christians example must be Jesus, who never hesitated to denounce and condemn
error and deception whenever it occurred. He had the divine call to warn the common people
against falsehood and to help them see the clear truth as revealed in the Scriptures:
In Matthew 23:1333 Jesus relentlessly condemned the false spiritual leaders of Israel, in particular the
scribes and Pharisees, who then held the dominant power and influence in Judaism. Jesus warned about
them in His first sermon, the Sermon on the Mount (see, e.g., 5:20; 7:15), and His last sermon (Matt. 23)
consists almost entirely of warnings about them and to them. In this final public message, the Lord wanted
to draw the people away from those false leaders and turn them to the true teaching and the godly examples
of His apostles, who would become His uniquely commissioned and endowed representatives on earth
during the early years of the church. He also gave the apostles themselves a final example of the
confrontational stance they would soon find it necessary to take in their proclamation and defense of the
gospel.
The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus addressed in the Temple stood alone in their sin and
were condemned alone in their guilt for misappropriating and perverting Gods law and for leading Israel
into heresy, just as the false prophets among their forefathers had done (vv. 3032). But they also stood as
models of all false spiritual leaders who would come after them. Therefore what Jesus said about them and
to them is of much more than historical significance. It is essential instruction for dealing with the false
leaders who abound in our own day.
In the first twelve verses of chapter 23, Jesus had declared that the scribes and Pharisees, typical of all false
spiritual leaders, were without authority, without integrity, without sympathy, without spirituality, without
humility, and therefore without Gods approval or blessing. Now speaking to them directly, He asserts they
are under Gods harshest condemnation. In verses 1333 Jesus pronounces seven curses, or woes, on those
wicked leaders.11
Was Jesus rude, inconsiderate, and mean with those leaders? The Political Correct Police
would have had him crucified then and now for such uncivil behavior. To denounce evil and
deception and to confront those who commit such acts is not optional but an essential
characteristic of a faithful and righteous life. States MacArthur again:
In our day of tolerance and eclecticism, the kind of confrontation Jesus had with the scribes and Pharisees
seems foreign and uncharitable. A person who speaks too harshly against a false religion or unbiblical
teaching or movement is considered unkind, ungracious, and judgmental. Jesus indictments in Matthew
23, as well as in other parts of the gospels, are so inconsistent with the idea of Christian love held by some
liberal theologians and Bible scholars, for example, that they conclude He could not have spoken them.
What Jesus really said, they maintain, was modified and intensified either by the gospel writers or the
sources from whom they received their information.
But the nature of Jesus condemnation of those corrupt religious leaders is perfectly consistent with the rest
of Scripture, both the Old Testament and the New. Not only that, but Jesus words in this passage fly from
His lips, as someone has said, like claps of thunder and spears of lightning. Out of His mouth on this
occasion came the most fearful and dreadful statements that Jesus uttered on earth. They do not give the
least impression of being the afterthought of an overzealous writer or copyist.
Matthew 23 is one of the most serious passages in Scripture. Jesus here makes the word hypocrite a
synonym for scribe and for Pharisee. He calls them sons of hell, blind guides, fools, robbers, self-indulgent,
whitewashed tombs, full of hypocrisy and lawlessness, serpents, vipers, and persecutors and murderers of
Gods people. He uttered every syllable with absolute self-control but with devastating intensity.
Yet Jesus was never cold or indifferent, even toward His enemies, and on this occasion His judgment is
mingled with sorrow and deep pathos. It is not the Sons will any more than the Fathers that a single
person perish, because it is the gracious divine desire that everyone would come to repentance and
salvation (2 Pet. 3:9). At the end of His denunciation, Jesus extended by implication another last invitation
for belief, suggesting that He would still gladly gather any unbelievers under His wings as a mother hen
gathers her chicks, if only they would be willing (Matt. 23:37). 12
The Ruthless and Intolerant God-Man

The notion that Gods love is unconditional is a common theme inside most Christian
circles, although there is no textual evidence that the Bible promotes such the perspective that
God, indeed, does not care how humans behave, and that He will reward both good and bad with
the same largesse. There is a perpetual inclination on our part to ignore Gods serious
expectations for us and to dwell on his goodness and love as the unique features of His Divine
character that deserve attention. Gatlin summarizes well such twisted and distorted perspective
of a God that has ceased to be the God of the Bible and has become our personal god, at our
convenience and disposal:
The typical denominational view of both Father and Son is that "God is love," and only love. What is so
easily forgotten is His severity (Romans 11:22) and wrath (II Thessalonians 1:3-10). Jesus is depicted as
quiet, soft-spoken, harmless, almost a wimp (nothing could be further from the truth). The consequence of
this one-sided view of Jesus is that while many believe in Him, they no longer fear Him. Yet, Jesus taught
that we are to fear Him, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear
Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). This tolerant, inclusive, noncondemning Jesus will accept just about any scheme that man will devise or any form of worship so long as
it is offered in sincerity. But Jesus said, "Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And
then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew
7:22-23). Clearly, the ideas that many have about deity are contradicted by the scriptures.
Sadly, this political correctness has crept into the thinking of many Christians, including some who occupy
pulpits and are entrusted with the leadership of congregations. For many the motivation is clear, a cleaned
up Jesus who preaches a cleaned up gospel is less offensive and will attract more people. But mans
desire for God to be different than what He actually is does not make it so. 13
Those who hold this unrealistic and even fictional perspective of a soft and harmless God
choose to ignore at their own peril the numerous texts and narratives in the Bible that indicate
that there are features in Gods character that would frighten to death those who insist to describe
God in the colors of Santa or Father Christmas. Gatlin draws his readers attention to three divine
characteristics that have been reflected in Jesuss life but have been ignored or forgotten in the
political correctness efforts to recreate God in our image:
Did Not Tolerate Sin
Jesus Was Intolerant Of Sin And Those Who Promoted It. Much of His time on earth was spent exposing
and condemning the sins of the Jewish leadership. He warned His disciples, "Take heed and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees" (Matthew 16:6). Initially the disciples didnt understand His
words. But after Jesus explained, "they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of
bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (Matthew 16:12). His language in Matthew 23
is among the strongest in all the Bible. He referred to the Scribes and Pharisees as "hypocrites," "serpents,"
"brood of vipers." He described them as "full of extortion and self-indulgence," "full of hypocrisy and
lawlessness." He said that they, "devour widows houses, and for a pretense make long prayers." He was
intolerant of those who rejected Him after seeing His miracles, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you,
Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would
have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and
Sidon in the day of judgment than for you" (Matthew 11:21-22). Jesus was intolerant of those who set aside
Gods law to follow human tradition (Matt. 15:3-9). He did not tolerate "false christs" and "false prophets"
(Matthew 24:24). He told the Sadducees that they were "mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the
power of God" (Matthew 22:29).
Jesus disciples followed His example of intolerance. The early church did not tolerate the sin of Ananias
and Sapphira, they were struck dead (Acts 5:1-11). When the judaizing teachers came to Antioch, "Paul
and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them" (Acts 15:2). When these same false teachers
tried to compel circumcision Paul "did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel
might continue with you" (Galatians 2:5). Paul wrote, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). The New Testament occasionally exposed false
teachers by name and the error they tried to teach (II Timothy 2:16-18).
The language of the early preachers was similar to that of Jesus in Matthew 23. Stephen called the Jews he
was addressing "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears" and "betrayers and murderers" (Acts
7:51-52). The apostle Paul said of Elymas, "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you
enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10). He
referred to the false teachers who would come into the church at Ephesus as "savage wolves" (Acts 20:29).
James called some of his readers "adulterers and adulteresses," "sinners" and "double-minded" (James 4:110). Truth should never be given equal weight with error, and the faithful Christian will never tolerate that
which opposed to truth.14
Confronted The Impenitent

Jesus Was Confrontational Toward Those Who Knew The Truth But Rejected It. Jesus intentionally
provoked the religious leaders of His day. Often the controversy was related to the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6;
Luke 13:10-17). In Luke 14:1-6 we read, "Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers
of the Pharisees to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely. And behold, there was a
certain man before Him who had dropsy. And Jesus, answering, spoke to the lawyers and Pharisees,
saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let
him go. Then He answered them, saying, Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit,
will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day? And they could not answer Him regarding these
things."
Jesus also confronted people with the fact that He was deity. After healing a man on the Sabbath we read,
"For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on
the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said
that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5:16-18). On another occasion we read,
"Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM. Then they took up stones to
throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so
passed by" (John 8:58-29).
Preachers in the early church were just as confrontational. After being arrested and released the apostles
went right back into the temple preaching the truth (Acts 5:29) contrary to what they had been commanded.
To describe Stephens sermon (Acts 7) as non-confrontational is to not have a clear grip on reality. When
Peter separated himself from Gentile Christians Paul wrote, "Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I
withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would
eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of
the circumcision" (Galatians 2:11-12).15
Excluded The Rebellious

Jesus Excluded Many By His Teaching. It is not that Jesus wants to exclude anyone from salvation. As
already stated His offer of forgiveness is extended to all men. But He will exclude those who reject His
teachings. Yes, even those who claim to be His disciples. "Therefore many of His disciples, when they
heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can understand it? When Jesus knew in Himself that His
disciples complained about this, He said to them, Does this offend you? What then if you should see the
Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words
that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said,
Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.
From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more." (John 6:60-66). Jesus
recognized that His words were offensive. His follow up comments offended them further. He knew that
many of His disciples would no longer follow Him, so why did He say what He did? To exclude those
would not accept His difficult teachings.16
V. The Passionate and Ruthless God

Gods biblical characteristics as the Divine Creator and All-Powerful Sovereign violate
almost all the Political Correctness rules. Besides a few kind and benevolent qualities, His
character shows numerous negative features such as (1) intense passion, (2) harshness, (3)
ruthlessness, (4) intolerance for evil, (5) a judgmental spirit, (6) deep hate for sin, (7) hate for the
unremorseful sinner, (7) a confrontational attitude, and (8) a vengeful attitude towards defiant
sinners. The Bible texts listed below provide support for the above points:
The God Who Is Passionate
Isaiah 49:15 KJV
15
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?
yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
Jeremiah 31:3 KJV
3
The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore
with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Jeremiah 31:20 KJV
20
Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a pleasant child? For since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember
him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
Zephaniah 3:17 KJV
17
The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will
rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
The God Who Is Harsh

Leviticus 20:10 KJV
10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21KJV
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.
1 Samuel 15:3KJV
3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Isaiah 5:20KJV
20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
The God Who Is Ruthless

Deuteronomy 28:15-68 KJV
15
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all
his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon
thee, and overtake thee:
16
Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17
Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18
Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of
thy sheep.
19
Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
20
The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for
to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings,
whereby thou hast forsaken me.
21
The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land,
whither thou goest to possess it.
22
The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an
extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until
thou perish.
23
And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
24
The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee,
until thou be destroyed.
25
The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them,
and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
26
And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall
fray them away.
27
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the
itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
28
The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
29
And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways:
and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.
30
Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not
dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
31
Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken
away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies,
and thou shalt have none to rescue them.
32
Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with
longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.
33
The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be
only oppressed and crushed alway:
34
So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
35
The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the
sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
36
The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou
nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
37
And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD
shall lead thee.
38
Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.
39
Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for
the worms shall eat them.
40
Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for
thine olive shall cast his fruit.
41
Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
42
All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.
43
The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44
He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
45
Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be
destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments
and his statutes which he commanded thee:
46
And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.
47
Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the
abundance of all things;
48
Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst,
and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have
destroyed thee.
49
The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth;
a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50
A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the
young:
51
And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall
not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have
destroyed thee.
52
And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou
trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which
the LORD thy God hath given thee.
53
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD
thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
54
So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and
toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
55
So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath
nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy
gates.
56
The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon
the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and
toward her son, and toward her daughter,
57
And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she
shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine
enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
58
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear
this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
59
Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of
long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
60
Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall
cleave unto thee.
61
Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD
bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
62
And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou
wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.
63
And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the
LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the
land whither thou goest to possess it.
64
And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and
there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.
65
And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD
shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind:
66
And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none
assurance of thy life:
67
In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were
morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou
shalt see.
68
And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou
shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and
no man shall buy you.
The God Who Is Intolerant

Exodus 22:18 KJV
18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
2 Samuel 6:6-8 KJV

6
And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took
hold of it; for the oxen shook it.
7
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there
he died by the ark of God.
8
And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of
the place Perezuzzah to this day.
Matthew 10:14-15 KJV
14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city,
shake off the dust of your feet.
15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of
judgment, than for that city.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 KJV
9
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,
10
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
The God Who Is Judgmental

Isaiah 1:15-17KJV
15
And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers,
I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
16
Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17
Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
Isaiah 58:1-5 KJV

58
Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the
house of Jacob their sins.
2
Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not
the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to
God.
3
Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou
takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.
4
Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this
day, to make your voice to be heard on high.
5
Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a
bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the
LORD?
Matthew 15:14KJV
14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the
ditch.
Matthew 25:24-28KJV
24
Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man,
reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25
And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26
His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I
sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27
Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have
received mine own with usury.
28
Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
The God Who Hates Sin

Psalm 5:4 KJV
4
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
Isaiah 1:6 KJV

6
From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and
putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
Isaiah 59:2 KJV
2
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you,
that he will not hear.
Zechariah 8:17 KJV
17
And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these
are things that I hate, saith the LORD.
Revelation 2:6 KJV
6
But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
The God Who Hates Sinners

Leviticus 20:23 KJV
23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all
these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV
16
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Psalm 5:5 KJV

5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Psalm 11:5 KJV

5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
Hosea 9:15 KJV
15
All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive
them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.
The God Who Confronts

2 Samuel 12:5-10 KJV
5
And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the
man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
6
And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over
Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of
Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such
things.
9
Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed
Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword
of the children of Ammon.
10
Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast
taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
Matthew 21:13 KJV
13
And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den
of thieves.
Luke 11:37-48 KJV
37
And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.
38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
39
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but
your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
40
Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
41
But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
42
But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment
and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
43
Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the
markets.
44
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that
walk over them are not aware of them.
45
Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
46
And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye
yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
47
Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
48
Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build
their sepulchres.
Revelation 2:8-16 KJV
8
And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was
dead, and is alive;
9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them
which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison,
that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee
a crown of life.
11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be
hurt of the second death.
12
And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with
two edges;
13
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name,
and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain
among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who
taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to
commit fornication.
15
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
16
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
The God Who Is Vengeful

Isaiah 13:11 KJV
11
And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy
of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
Isaiah 66:15 KJV
15
For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with
fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isaiah 66:16 KJV

16
For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Lamentations 2:3KJV
3
He hath cut off in his fierce anger all the horn of Israel: he hath drawn back his right hand from before the
enemy, and he burned against Jacob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about.
Lamentations 3:43KJV
43
Thou hast covered with anger, and persecuted us: thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied.
Lamentations 4:11KJV
11
The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in
Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof.
Ezekiel 5:13KJV
13
Thus shall mine anger be accomplished, and I will cause my fury to rest upon them, and I will be
comforted: and they shall know that I the LORD have spoken it in my zeal, when I have accomplished my
fury in them.
Ezekiel 5:15KJV
15
So it shall be a reproach and a taunt, an instruction and an astonishment unto the nations that are round
about thee, when I shall execute judgments in thee in anger and in fury and in furious rebukes. I the LORD
have spoken it.
Ezekiel 6:12KJV
12
He that is far off shall die of the pestilence; and he that is near shall fall by the sword; and he that
remaineth and is besieged shall die by the famine: thus will I accomplish my fury upon them.
Ezekiel 7:3KJV
3
Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to
thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations.
VI. Compelled To Confront and Warn

Political Correctness and the Church
The Political Correctness principles and values on civil human interaction have
damaged the Christian mind to such a dangerous level that to denounce heretical teachings and
deception, to unmask those who peddle error among the church members, and to confront the
deceivers has become an embarrassment and a disgrace, while this sacred and crucial biblical
requirement has been labelled to bash, to act in a harsh, gratuitous and biased manner against
an individual or group. States Miller:
The adverse impact of political correctness on American culture cannot be overstated. Its sinister
influence has been monumental and subversive in the extent to which it has reshaped American values,
literally driving the population farther away from its Christian moorings, and redirecting civilization
toward hedonism, socialism, atheism, humanism, and a host of other anti-Christian philosophies. As
Chicago University Professor Allan Bloom rightly documented in his bestseller, The Closing of the
American Mind, the average college student in the last 50 years has been brainwashed to accept the notions
that truth is relative, absolutism is therefore wrong, and that the only real virtue is openness and tolerance
(1987, pp. 25-26). Intolerance, therefore, is the ultimate and only sin.
Under the guise of sensitivity and diversity, political and social liberalism have contributed mightily to
stripping from the American way of life its original values and moral principles that built America into the
great nation she has been. As judge Robert Bork noted in his Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern
Liberalism and American Decline, universities are subjecting students to diversity training as they are
bullied, intimidated, and even coerced into avoiding language that is deemed insensitive to feminists,
homosexuals, and others (now even Muslims)those who fully intend to silence all opposition to their
anti-Christian behavior (1996, pp. 214ff.,240,298ff.).
These ideologies have been so sinister and pervasive in society for the last several decades that otherwise
clear thinking Christian peopleespecially young peoplehave been unconsciously or unknowingly
affected. Since the universities of America have successively convinced three generations of Americans
that objective truth no longer exists, many Americans seem to have difficulty engaging in rational
evaluation of false ideologies. They have been made to believe that if they engage in logical evaluation of a
viewpoint and conclude that the viewpoint is incorrect, they must keep their opinion to themselves lest
they be guilty of the inexcusable evil of judging and bashing others.
One area wherein political correctness has made encroachments into the thinking of Christians is seen in
their reluctance and hesitation to be specific in identifying religious and moral error and those who
promulgate it. A general feeling seems to exist that, while one may not agree with a particular behavior or
viewpoint, nevertheless, it is inappropriate to publicly speak against the behavior or identify those who
espouse the viewpoint or behavior. To do so is deemed unkind and uncompassionate.
It is ever the case that error and falsehood are self-contradictory, and typically guilty of the same malady it
imagines in others. Observe that those who express their disdain for bashing do not hesitate to bash the
ones they accuse of bashing, and to do so publicly. They openly express to others (people who have no real
connection to the matter) their rejection of and dislike for specific persons and groups who have had the
unmitigated gall to express disapproval of a false religion or an immoral action (e.g., New York City
Council Speaker Christine Quinns letter to the president of New York University, claiming that the
President of Chik-fil-A continues to make statements and support causes that are clear messages of extreme
intolerance and homophobia and a belief that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender [LGBT] Americans are
less than others, adding, I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views
see Editorial, 2012). The bashing measuring stick is inherently hypocritical, self-contradictory, and
frankly, absurd.1
Millers suggested solution for the state of moral chaos that defines the present social and
religious context is to return to the fundamental moral principles that have constituted the
backbone for all the societies through the historical time and have insured the survival and
progress of the human race:
The only solution to moral chaos, religious confusion, and sexual anarchy is to return to the reasonable
perspective that absolute truth exists, as does an objective standard of morality to which all humans are
amenable. As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson observed in a letter from Paris addressed to James
Madison and dated August 28, 1789: I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or
collectively (1789). That code of morality derives from the Creator of the Universewhom the Founders
identified as the Laws of Nature and of Natures God (Declaration, 1776).
Religious truth and morality must not be determined by our feelings, subjective inclinations, or personal
preferences. In the grand scheme of things, human opinions simply do not matter. Rather, all humans are
obligated to go to the only objective standard of right and wrong that transcends human opinion: the Bible.
We must allow the only supernatural book in the world to shape our thinking. Only by turning to Gods
Word can we achieve proper perspective and arrive at the only legitimate viewpoint. We must place each
and every idea under the light of Gods Word before jumping to conclusions and finalizing personal
opinions. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path (Psalm 119:105). 2
The writer further argues that to bash as understood in the Political Correctness circles
is a deceptive term because while the political correctness police claims to promote a pluralistic
and civil social context, its totalitarian and exclusive drive is obvious when all those who
disagree with its dogmas are anathematized and denounced as enemies of the public good. The
truth is that the battle is between a secularist and antinomian perspective and the clear biblical
revelation about truth and error:
Does the Bible teach that it is unkind, sinful, or inappropriate to name individuals or express a negative
evaluation of specific persons, religions, or behaviors publicly? Is doing so to be guilty of bashing them?
In order to answer these questions, consider the following observations.
First, we must define terms to make certain that we pinpoint the issue. Various dictionaries define
bashing as to engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism; a harsh, gratuitous, prejudicial attack
on a person, group or subject. Literally, bashing is a term meaning to hit or assault, but when it is used as a
suffix, or in conjunction with a noun indicating the subject being attacked, it is normally used to imply that
the act is motivated by bigotry.
When we turn to the Bible, we find that God desires that Christians [l]et all bitterness, wrath, anger,
clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another,
tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:31-32; cf. Colossians
3:12). Christians are to let their speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt (Colossians 4:6),
speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), in a spirit of gentleness (Galatians 6:1), in humility
correcting those who are in opposition (2 Timothy 2:25), having compassion for one another (1 Peter
3:8). Christians are to love everyoneeven their enemies (Matthew 5:44). They are to treat others the way
they themselves desire to be treated (Matthew 7:12). If such is the case, does it not logically follow that we
should refrain from speaking against purveyors of religious or moral error, since doing so would be unkind,
malicious, and certainly not something we would want done to us? The biblical answer to that question is
an unequivocal no.
To interpret the above verses in such a manner would result in a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to
a host of other verses. We must handle aright the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15, ASV), making certain
that our understanding of one passage or concept does not conflict with other passages and principles. It is
true that those who hold the truth on a particular doctrine can be guilty of mistreating and being unkind to
those who embrace error; but it does not follow that the mere act of identifying error publicly is inherently
unkind, insensitive, or intolerant. Why?
The Bible clearly teaches that evaluating the legitimacy of a viewpoint or practice, and then identifying
those who promote that erroneous belief or practice, are not only appropriate actions, but they are
expected and required of the faithful. False religion flourishes first and foremost by means of the failure
of the proponents of truth to step forth and confront the error. Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often
credited with the idea that: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. One
of the great tragedies of our day, with the decline of American civilization and the Christian religion in
America, is that error has become so predominant that the advocates of truth have been bullied into
sheepish silence. America is literally being inundated with immorality and destructive religious and
political philosophies due, in large part, to the mistaken notion that fatal error should not be openly
confronted, exposed, and condemned.
Consider this parallel: when a child engages in behavior that is disobedient, or even dangerous to his own
physical safety, a parent is called upon to discipline the child. A variety of forms of discipline might be
used in the process, including instruction, verbal reprimands, removal of privileges, physical restraint, and
even corporal punishment (in harmony with Proverbs 13:24; 22:15; et al.; cf. Miller, 2003). What child in
such a predicament does not think the parents are being unkind, harsh, insensitive, accusatory, and
intolerant? The child would likely view the parents actions as violent. If the parent raises his or her voice
in the process, the parent could easily be perceived as mean or out of control. Yet, the childs perception
reflects immaturity, as well as a lack of spiritual development and the cultivation of the peaceable fruit of
righteousness in ones heart and life (cf. Hebrews 12:11). Observe, then, that those who raise the specter
of bashing, immediately dismissing anyone who speaks against a religion or behavior, are actually
spiritually immature individuals who have not yet grasped the mind of Christ. 3
False Doctrines And Their Diagnosis

MacArthur notes that among the fatal diseases that have plagued the human race from the
dark historical times to the present, heretical teachings have been some of the most dangerous
and the worst, and that as professional diagnosis is required for those physical diseases so much
more the shepherds of Gods flock must be qualified to diagnose spiritual and doctrinal diseases
and to exterminate them from among the believers:
Throughout history, deadly epidemics have ravaged mankind. In the fourteenth century, the infamous
Black Death (an outbreak of bubonic plague) killed millions in Europe. Cholera, diphtheria, malaria, and
other sicknesses have ravaged towns and cities. Our generation has witnessed the rapid spread of the fatal
disease Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). More deadly than any of those diseases, however,
is the plague of false teaching that has afflicted the church throughout its history. While illness may kill the
body, false teaching damns the soul.
Like AIDS and the plague, false teaching has a definite, observable pathologythe elements of
abnormality that characterize a disease. Scientists study the pathology of a disease to better equip
themselves to recognize it and to combat it.
Every leader in the church should be a spiritual pathologist, able to discern deviations from spiritual health.
Only then will he be equipped to diagnose the deadly disease of false teaching, and to do what is necessary
to check its spread among his people. Paul warned of the subtle danger of satanic lies, describing their
purveyors as false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for
even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise
themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:13
15).4
Even the ghostwriters who published under Ellen G. Whites name wrote and warned the
Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] remnant that false leaders, shepherds, and teachers
(scholars) would infiltrate the church and wreak havoc among the members under the true
Gospel and present truth pretense, and provides adequate clues for their identification:
Unsanctified ministers are arraying themselves against God. They are praising Christ and the God of this
world in the same breath. While professedly they receive Christ, they embrace Barabbas, and by their
actions say, Not this Man, but Barabbas. Let all who read these lines, take heed. Satan has made his boast
of what he can do. He thinks to dissolve the unity which Christ prayed might exist in His church. He says,
I will go forth and be a lying spirit to deceive those that I can, to criticize, and condemn, and falsify. Let
the son of deceit and false witness be entertained by a church that has had great light, great evidence, and
that church will discard the message the Lord has sent, and receive the most unreasonable assertions and
false suppositions and false theories. Satan laughs at their folly, for he knows what truth is.
Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their
hands, kindled from the hellish torch of Satan [emphasis added]. If doubts and unbelief
are cherished, the faithful ministers will be removed from the people who think
they know so much [emphasis added]. If thou hadst known, said Christ, even thou, at least in
this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes.5
The above statements make it clear that the false teachers who spread errors and
falsehood among the SDA church members are not outsiders who attempt to mislead the church
members, but known and reputed SDA administrators, pastors and theologians who have a high
status in the church, but disseminate error and teach fallacious doctrines as truth.
Characteristics of False Shepherds
While most human diseases reveal themselves through specific and identifiable
characteristics or symptoms, so also the false shepherds reveal themselves to the trained mind
through certain signals of spiritual disease that make possible the proper diagnosis and the
differentiation between truth and error. MacArthur mentions seven main characteristics that
expose the false teachers:
[1] The first symptom of false teachers is what they affirm. A false teacher advocates a different doctrine.
False teaching may take many forms. It may deny Gods existence, or teach error about His nature and
attributes. It may deny the Trinity. Error about Christs Person and work is also common in false systems.
Those who deny His virgin birth, sinless perfection, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, or future
return show signs of a dangerous infection. False teachers also teach error about the nature, Person, and
work of the Holy Spirit. Yet another strain of the disease of false teaching denies the authenticity,
inspiration, authority, or inerrancy of Scripture.
[2] At the same time, another mark of false teachers is what they deny. Their teaching not only affirms
error, but also does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 6:3). False
teachers are not in agreement with spiritually wholesome and beneficial words. That believers need to pay
attention to sound, healthy teaching is repeatedly emphasized in the Pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Timothy 1:10; 2
Timothy 1:13; Titus 1:9; 2:1).
False teachers are not committed to Scripture. They may speak of Jesus and the Father, but the heart of
their ministry will not be the Word of God. They will either add to it, take away from it, interpret it in some
heretical fashion, add other revelations to it, or deny it altogether.
[3] A third symptom of false teachers is their rejection of the doctrine conforming to godliness (1
Timothy 6:3). The ultimate test of any teaching is whether it produces godliness. Teaching not based on
Scripture will result in an unholy life. Instead of godliness, the loves of false teachers will be characterized
by sin (cf. 2 Peter 2:10-22; Jude 4, 8-16).
[4] The attitude of false teachers can be summed up in one word: pride. It takes an immense ego to place
oneself as judge of the Bible. Such egotism blatantly usurps the place of God. Conceited (1 Timothy 6:4)
is from tupho, and it implies arrogance, an inevitable mark of false teachers. To set up ones own teaching
as superior to the Word of God is the epitome of arrogance. False teachers have an overinflated sense of
their own importance, not hesitating to rebel against God and His Word. That merely confirms, however,
that they are infected with a deadly spiritual disease.
[5] False teachers are also exposed through their mentality. Although a false teacher may be filled with
pride over his supposed knowledge, Paul says that in reality he . . . understands nothing (1 Timothy 6:4).
All of his imagined intelligence, pretended scholarship, and supposed deeper insights amounts to mere
foolishness to God (Romans 1:22; 1 Corinthians 2:916). Lacking insight into spiritual truth, his wisdom
is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic (James 3:15). Those who
know and believe the Word of God have far more insight into spiritual reality than the most educated
heretic.
[6] Instead of focusing on the truth, false teachers have a morbid interest in controversial questions and
disputes about words (1Timothy 6:4). They indulge in pseudointellectual theorizing rather than in
productive study of and submission to Gods Word.
[7] False teaching also fails in its inability to produce unity (1Timothy 6:4-5). The word battles of false
teachers result in chaos and confusion. Envy is the inward discontent with the advantages or popularity
enjoyed by others. It results in strife, which often manifests itself in the abusive language of slander
and insult. The net result of false teaching is constant friction. False teachers constantly rub each other
the wrong way. That helps spread their spiritual disease, much as sheep might rub together and infect each
other. False teaching can never produce unity. Only the truth unifies. 6
A Distorted Theological Perspective

Numerous church members have been brainwashed and shamed to believe that to expose
false doctrines and to confront those who peddle them is uncivil and unchristian. The factual
truth, though, is that such perspective is unbiblical and false. The radical approach John the
Baptist and Jesus took in their reactions against untruth and deception and against those who
disseminated them is unarguable evidence that to expose error and to confront the false teachers
in the church is not an uninvited and excessive behavior or an unchristian attitude, but a sacred
obligation entrusted to us as Cristians. States Bynum:
Many today believe that it is wrong to expose error and to name names. Liberals have always seemed to
believe this, but in recent times it has been widely espoused by evangelicals and charismatics. Now we are
seeing the same fatal error being declared by those who profess to be Bible believing fundamentalists.
Those who are faithful in exposing error according to the Bible are now being widely denounced, and are
accused of being unloving and unkind.7
How John And Jesus Defended Truth

The civil and dispassionate reaction to deception and falsehood would be, according
to the Political Correctness approach, to accept theological pluralism the notion that we all
have the truth in various forms and that the proper attitude is to accept as equal all the various
biblical and unbiblical perspectives that are often marketed among the church members. John
and Jesus, though, reacted to the drifters from Gods word with an intense disapproval and
exposed the false theologians and teachers together with their deceptions in a manner that would
shock and appall the open-minded church members at this time. States Whitsell:
Christians today seem to have forgotten how important truth was to Jesus and to the first believers. Many
current thinkers actually feel like it is divisive for us to take a stand for truth at all, and they certainly dont
like it when they are publicly rebuked for holding a position that might be called un-Biblical. But lets try
to remember that both John the Baptist and Jesus were quick to point out the false teaching of those around
them, and they did so with a pointed and biting manner. Take for example, Johns biting condemnation of
the Pharisees he addressed on the shore of the Jordan River:
Matthew 3:7-9
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, You brood of
vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with
repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, We have Abraham for our father; for I say
to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
That sounds pretty bold to me. John certainly had no problem calling people out for their beliefs. Was he
being Godly? Was He following the Biblical Model? Well one thing is certain: he was behaving in a
manner that was consistent with the Lord. Look at how Jesus addressed the same group:
Matthew 12:34
You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which
fills the heart.
Both John and Jesus had no problem addressing false teaching and addressing false teachers. Perhaps there
is something that we can learn about the importance of identifying what is true and addressing what is
false.8
Our Sacred Obligation as Believers

There is ample support in the Bible for the facts that (1) it is right to practice biblical
judgment, (2) it is right to expose false teachers, (3) the Bible admonishes us to expose
error, and that (4) it is right to name names. Bynum summarizes below essential biblical facts
that support the above points:
Biblical Judgment
One of the most misused verses in the Bible is, Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matt. 7: 1). Every Scripture verse
should be read in its context, if we are to properly understand the true meaning. In vs. 2-5 of this same chapter it is
evident that v. 1 is referring to hypocritical judgment. A brother who has a beam in his own eye should not be judging
the brother who may have a mote in his eye. The lesson is plain, you cannot judge another for his sin if you are guilty
of the same sin.
Those who cling to Judge not, that ye be not judged, to condemn those who expose error should read the entire
chapter. Jesus said, Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing... (v. 15). How can we know
false prophets unless we judge them by the Word of God? If we know the false prophets, how can we fail to exam [sic!]
the sheep of these ravening wolves? All through the Bible we find proof that they should be identified and
exposed.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit (vs. 16, 17). Did the Lord mean that we could not
judge the tree (person), by the fruit of their life and doctrine? Certainly not, for you cannot know without judging. All
judgment should be on the basis of Bible teaching, not according to whims or prejudices.
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment (John 7:24). Here our Lord commands that
we are to judge righteous judgment, which is judgment based upon the Word of God. If judgment is made upon any
other basis, other than the Word of God, it is a violation of Matt. 7:1. Webster's Dictionary says that a judge is one
who declares the law. The faithful Christian must discern or judge on the basis of God's inspired law, the Bible.
A fornicator is described in I Cor. 5:1-13. Paul judged (v.3) the man even though he was absent, and he told the
Church at Corinth that they were to judge (v. 12) those that were within. The Greek word for judge is the same
here as in Matt. 7:1. Paul did not violate judge not, that ye be not judged, in judging the man, nor in instructing the
Church to judge also. All of this judgment was according to the Word of God.
A person who is able to discern between good and evil, has at least one of the major marks of spiritual maturity. But
strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to
discern both good and evil (Heb. 5:14). W.E. Vine says of the meaning of discern, a distinguishing, a clear
discrimination, discerning, judging; is translated 'discerning' in I Cor. 12:10 of discerning spirits, judging by evidence
whether they are evil or of God. Strong also agrees that it means to judge.
Those who are unwilling or incapable of discerning or judging between good and evil are in this manner
revealing either their disobedience or their immaturity [emphasis in the original].9
Expose False Teachers

False teachers are free to spread their poisonous doctrines today because there is a conspiracy of silence
among many Bible believers. Wolves in sheeps clothing are thus enabled to ravage the flock, thereby
destroying many.
John the Baptist called the Pharisees and Sadducees (the religious leaders of his day) a generation of
Vipers (snakes) (Matt. 3:7). Today, he would be accused of being unloving, unkind, and unchristian.
Jesus said to the religious Pharisees, O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?
for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh (Matt. 12:34). To many evangelicals and some
fundamentalists, this would be unacceptable language today, but it is biblical language and it came from the
mouth of the Son of God.
Standing face to face with these false teachers, Jesus Christ the Son of God, called them hypocrites,
blind guides, blind, whited sepulchres, serpents, and ye generation of vipers (Matt. 23:2334). Yet, we are told today that we are to fellowship with men whose doctrines are just as unscriptural as
those of the Pharisees. Some who say they are Bible believing Christians insist on working with Roman
Catholics and other assorted heretics. Yet, according to many, we are not supposed to rebuke them for their
compromise.
Near the beginning of His ministry, Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold
oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small
cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers
money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence, make not my
Father's house an house of merchandise (John 2:13-16). Our Saviour is presented today as one who was
meek, lowly, kind, and loving, even to false teachers, but this is entirely false. When dealing with false
teachers and prophets, His words were sharp and His actions plain.
Near the end of His public ministry, Christ found it necessary to cleanse the temple once again. The
exposure of false doctrines and practices is a never ending job. At that time He said, Is it not written, My
house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves (Mark I 1:
17). Is it any different today? The thieves come into the house of God, and rob Gods people of the Bible
and peddle their perverted Bibles instead. At the same time this den of thieves rob the people of the
doctrine of separation and the doctrine of sanctification. Then you can hardly tell God's people from the
people of the world. In all honesty, should not these thieves (false teachers) be exposed?
In our day these false teachers have come into the churches with their books, music, literature, movies,
psychology, and seminars, and have turned the Father's house into a den of thieves. It is time that men of
God stand up and expose their errors for all to see. 10
Expose Error
We are to TRY them. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they be of God;
because many false prophets are gone out into the world (I John 4:1). All doctrine and teachers are to be
tried according to the Word of God. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa. 8:20). Every message, messenger, and method is to be
judged according to the Word of God. The church at Ephesus was commended because they had tried
them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars (Rev. 2:2). The church at
Pergamos was rebuked because they tolerated those that held the doctrine of Balaam, and the doctrine of
the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate (Rev. 2:14,15). It is never right to tolerate false teachers, but they are
to be tried by the Word of God, and exposed. Of course those who want to disobey the Word of God will
seek by every means to avoid this teaching.
We are to MARK them and AVOID them. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause
divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom. 16:17).
Those whose conduct and teaching contradicts the Word of God are to be marked and to be avoided. This
requires discernment and judgment in the light of the Bible. The ecumenicalists, new evangelicals, and
compromising fundamentalists will resist any effort to obey this Scripture. They cannot be marked and
avoided, unless they are judged according to the Word of God.
We are to REBUKE them. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith (Titus 1:
13). This was written to Titus, because there were those going from house to house and subverting whole
houses with false doctrine (v. 10-16). Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, and
others are subverting whole houses with their false doctrine today. Are we to sit silently by, while they do
this, without rebuking and admonishing people to avoid their teaching? No, the faithful servant of the Lord
is to be Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both
to exhort and to convince the gainsayers (Titus 1:9).
We are to have NO FELLOWSHIP with them. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness, but rather reprove them (Eph. 5:11). Reprove means to censure, condemn, find fault, rebuke,
and to refute. How can we obey this Scripture unless we try them by the Word of God?
We are to WITHDRAW from them. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition
which ye received of us (II Thess. 3:6). We are to withdraw from those whose doctrine and conduct does
not conform to the Word of God. The context clearly shows that obedience to sound doctrine is what Paul
has in mind, for he says, if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no company
with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet, count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (II
Thess. 3:14-15). Paul admonished Timothy to withdraw thyself from those who consent not to
wholesome words ... and to the doctrine which is according to godliness (I Tim. 6:3-5).
We are to TURN AWAY from them. Concerning the last days, he says that some will have a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof. from such turn away for such people are never able to come to
the knowledge of the truth (11 Tim. 3:5,7). How can we turn away from them if we do not identify them,
and this requires that their message be compared to the Word of God. It is the business of the true preacher
to: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering
and doctrine (II Tim. 4:2). This is usually an unpopular and thankless task but it is the duty of the Godcalled man.
We are NOT to RECEIVE them into our house. If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed For he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds (11 John 10, I 1). There is no doubt about who John is speaking about, it is
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ.. (v.9). By radio, TV, music and
literature, false prophets are brought into the homes of many Christians today. Brethren, this ought
not to be!
We are to REJECT HERETICS. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject
(Titus 3: 10). We should reject those who deny redemption by the blood of Christ. There are many who
deny this or some other doctrine of the Word of God. If they will not respond to being admonished, then
they are to be rejected.
We are to look out for those who preach another gospel. Paul warned about those who preached
another Jesus ... another spirit ... or another gospel (II Cor. 11:4). How can we know them unless we
judge their Jesus, their spirit, and their gospel by the Word of God? Paul called such preachers false
apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ (11 Cor. II: 13). He
explains in v. 14-15 that these preachers are the ministers of Satan. The God-called man must be just as
faithful today in exposing the ministers of Satan.
Paul warned the Galatians about those who pervert the gospel of Christ. He also said, If any man preach
any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (See Gal. 1:6-9). Multitudes
today are preaching a perverted gospel. Those who teach salvation by baptism, or by works, are teaching a
perverted gospel. Those who preach a salvation that you can lose, are preaching a perverted gospel. The
charismatics, Catholics, many evangelicals, and many fundamentalists (?) are preaching a perverted gospel.
Yet, we are supposed to cooperate with them in evangelism and Christian work, according to many today.
If we fail to expose these false prophets, then we have betrayed Christ and His gospel.
We are to SEPARATE from them. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the
Lord, and touch no the unclean thing; and I will receive you (II Cor. 6:17). This makes it plain. God's
people are to come out of apostasy and religious error. How can any Bible believer remain in the National
Council or World Council of Churches? How can they remain among compromising evangelicals and
wishy-washy fundamentalists? 11
Name False Teachers

Many mistakenly believe that it is wrong to expose error and to name the guilty teachers; but they are
wrong according to the Bible.
Paul named Peter publicly. Peter was guilty of unscriptural practice. But when Peter was come to
Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed ... But when I saw that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest
after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the
Jews? (Gal. 2:11-14). The whole issue revolved around salvation by the law or by grace. When the
integrity and purity of the gospel is at stake, then we have no choice when it comes to the matter of
exposing error and naming names.
Paul named Demas for loving the world. For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present
world (II Tim. 4:10). Those who forsake the cause of Christ for worldly living and pleasures should be
named and exposed. (Christian Rock!)
Paul named Hymenaeus and Alexander. Paul told Timothy to war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a
good conscience; which some have put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is
Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme (I
Tim. 1:18-20). God's true servants should war a good warfare, and name those who have departed from the
faith that was once delivered to the saints. Paul is not here discussing the faith of salvation but the faith as a
system of doctrine. These men had made shipwreck of it and Paul exposed them and called their names.
Paul named Hymenaeus and Philetus. He told Timothy to study that he might be able to rightly divide
the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And
their word will eat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have
erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (11 Tim. 2:15-18).
False doctrine overthrows the faith of some, so those who are proclaiming it must be exposed.
Paul named Alexander the coppersmith. Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. the Lord reward
him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also, for he hath greatly withstood our words (II Tim.
4:14-15). It is clear that this is not a personality problem, but a doctrinal problem. Alexander had withstood
the words and doctrine of Paul. He was an enemy to the truth. Godly pastors face the same problem every
day. They stand and proclaim the truth, then their members go home and hear this truth disputed by radio
and TV preachers. Often times these false prophets are sending their publications into the homes of
members of true churches. Then the man of God is supposed to keep his mouth shut, according to many.
Only a coward will be silent when the truth of the Bible is under attack.
John named Diotrephes. I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence
among them, receiveth us not (III John 9). He related how this man had prated against him with
malicious words (v. 10). He further said, Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good.
He that doeth good is of God, but he that doeth evil hath not seen God (v. I 1). It is not wrong to name
those whose doctrine and practice is contrary to the Word of God.
In fact, the whole Bible abounds in examples of false prophets being named and exposed. All this
modern day talk about love, used as an excuse for not exposing error, is not really biblical love but is
really sloppy agape [emphasis added].
Moses called the name of Balaam. (See Num. 22-25). Peter exposed the way of Balaam ... who loved the
wages of unrighteousness (II Pet. 2:15). Balaam was a prophet that was in the work for money, just like
some of the TV false prophets today. They beg for money and live like kings, while multitudes of innocent
people send them their hard earned money. They are always building colleges, hospitals, TV network
satellites, and amusement parks that have a water slide for Jesus. And then we are supposed to keep our
mouth shut about these religious charlatans. How can we be silent and be true to God?
Jude exposed the error of Balaam (Jude I 1). John exposed the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac
to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit
fornication (Rev. 2:14). This gets right to the heart of the matter, concerning the doctrine of separation.
Balaam never did curse Israel even though he wanted the wages that he was offered to do so. The men of
Israel committed whoredom with the daughters of Moab ... and bowed down to their gods (Num. 25:1,
2). Why did they do this? Because Balaam taught Balak how to break down the barrier of separation
between the Moabites and the Israelites. We know this to be so because it is plainly stated in Rev. 2:14 and
Num. 31:16. This sin resulted in 24,000 men of Israel dying under the judgment of God. (Another good
example of Christian Rock)
False teachers are breaking down the barrier of separation between God's people and false religion. There is
too little preaching and teaching on the doctrine of separation. Balaam breached the doctrine of personal
separation by causing the men of Israel to commit fornication with the Moabite women. He breached the
doctrine of ecclesiastical separation by causing the men of Israel to bow down to Baal. This brought a curse
upon Israel. Until we get back to teaching the truth about personal and ecclesiastical separation, we can
expect the continued widespread havoc that we have today.
It seems to be believed by many that some people are too high and mighty to be named or exposed. Men in
high places, pastors of large churches, and those with great radio or TV audiences, are supposedly above
criticism. Whatever they may do or say, no matter how contrary to the Bible it may be, is supposedly all
right. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nathan identified the man. There was a man in a very high place who was a secret adulterer. Surely this
man who held the highest office in the land could not be rebuked by a lowly unpopular prophet. Nathan
went right into the presence of David, revealed the sin in a parable form, and then told the enraged David,
Thou art the man (II Sam. 12:7).
Hanani named king Jehoshaphat. In many ways Jehoshaphat was a good king, but he mistakenly forgot
to practice religious separation. He caused his son to marry wicked king Ahabs daughter. (See II Chron.
18:1; 21:1-6). He made an alliance with Ahab and went to the battle of Ramoth-gilead with him (II Chron.
18). Hanani said to King Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the
Lord? (II Chron. 19:2). We have a question for those, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them
that hate the Lord?
Yes, it is right to expose error and to name those who are in error. It is right to earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). It was once delivered and it has never been
recalled for revision. We had better beware of false teachers ... who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies (II Pet. 2:1). Faithful messengers will warn the sheep of these heretics, and identify them by
name. It is not enough to broadly hint of their identity, for the young lambs will not understand and will be
destroyed by the wolves.12
A Soft Nudge Is Not Good Enough

The assumption that a kind word and a gentle nudge would reform a false teacher and
stop him from his pernicious work has never been supported with facts. The truth is that those
who have been deceived themselves are not able to recognize their apostate condition and need
to be made aware of their fallen state with the strongest, uncivil, and quite offensive
admonitions. Bauman, professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, is concerned that
no other approach would work in most situations. He states:
I can see no other way [emphasis added].

We must learn once more to confront nonsense in all its forms and to call things by their real names. We
must learn that euphemisms are lies and that patience and gentleness sometimes do no good. Worse still,
they often do injury. Count on it, when you treat a fool with nothing but kindness, he remains a fool. If you
pat him on the back and stroke his ego, he does what any fool does: he mistakenly concludes that
everything is alright with him, rather than realizing that you are simply being kind to ignorance the way
you are kind to all other forms of poverty.
We must revive the ancient and honorable art of invective, which is to

language what justice is to law -- a means of giving people what they
deserve [emphasis added]. What some of them deserve is a good kick in the pants. This article,
therefore, is dedicated to telling the fools to bend over and grab their ankles. The beatings will now
commence.13
The Courage To Criticize And Rebuke

Baumans conviction results from multiple examples in the New Testament where Jesus
and Paul often offended those who ignored the Divine Counsel and followed their erroneous and
apostate doctrines that lead to their own perdition and to the perdition of those with whom were
associated in a false Christian fellowship. He states:
If, like me, you are a Christian, you often encounter brothers and sisters in the faith who are, to put it
plainly, well-intentioned but mush-minded invertebrates. They seem unwilling and unable to grasp with
clarity or conviction that some things are wrong and some are wicked. Even if they could grasp that
fundamental truth about the world, they lack the courage to call evil and error by their real names. They do
not understand that, if you fail to call evil evil, then you are treating it no differently than you treat
goodness, which you do not call evil either. The only thing they seem able to oppose publicly is that small
collection of Christians who speak forthrightly, Christians who are less afraid of giving offense to the
offensive than they are of aiding and abetting wickedness and error with sloppy and unjustifiably lenient
language.
This will never do.
We Christians rightly recognize Christ as the very embodiment of love. But Christ was no bleeding heart,
and He was no invertebrate. The gentle Jesus meek and mild never existed. He is a nineteenth and
twentieth century fiction. The historical Jesus was another matter altogether. At various times, and when
the situation demanded, the real Jesus publicly denounced sinners as snakes, dogs, foxes, hypocrites, fouled
tombs and dirty dishes. He actually referred publicly to one of his chief disciples as Satan. So that his
hearers would not miss his point, He sometimes referred to the objects of his most intense ridicule both by
name and by position, and often face to face.
No doubt His doing so made the invertebrates around him begin to squirm because they realized how
offensive this tactic would be to outsiders. Nevertheless, Jesus persisted. He did so because He knew better
than his jellyfish camp followers that alluding to heinous acts, and to those who continue to practice them,
in only the most innocuous and clinical language does no one, least of all the offenders themselves, any
I cannot say it forcefully enough: Christ did not affirm sinners; He

affirmed the repentant [emphasis added]. Others He often addressed with the most withering
good.
invective. God incarnate did not avoid using words and tactics that his listeners found deeply offensive. He
well understood that sometimes it is wrong to be nice [emphasis added]. I deny that we can
improve upon the rhetorical strategy of Him who was Himself the Word, and who spoke the world into
existence.
The objection raised by the invertebrates that Jesus spoke aggressively only to self-righteous Pharisees
simply misses the point. Any sinner who rejects repentance, or any sinner who holds repentance at bay
because he somehow believes it is not for him, is self-righteous.
Paul talked the same way.
Although his invertebrate comrades probably considered it offensive and indelicate of him to do so, Paul
did not hesitate to suggest to several churches -- publicly, plainly, and in writing -- that his many detractors
ought simply to emasculate themselves (Gal. 5:12). If you believe that circumcision makes you right with
God, he argued, why not go the whole way and really get right with God? If Lorena Bobbitt was reading
the Bible on the night that made her famous, this was the verse she read.
Furthermore, in the same letter, (in fact, in the space of but three verses) Paul twice refers to his Galatian
readers, the very people he is trying to convince, as fools (Gal. 3:1, 3). Subsequent events indicate that his
shocking words, though clearly offensive, were not ineffective. The Galatians chose to follow Paul rather
than the Judaizers, whose tactic was, in Paul's words, to win the approval of men, the very tactic urged
upon us so indefatigably by the invertebrates -- though never in gender specific language.
In short, if the religion and practice of the New Testament offend them, the invertebrates need to argue with
Jesus and Paul, not me.14
Christian Writers Who Were Uncivil

Bauman also reminds his readers that famous western Christian writers used invective in
their works to denounce and expose false teachers and to warn innocent believers against such
wolfs in sheep clothing that had infiltrated the flocks and were leading them away from the Bible
and God:
Furthermore, like Christ and his chief apostle, the greatest Christian writers of the Western world also
refused to subscribe to the principle that language deeply offensive to ones readers or listeners ought
always to be shunned. Neither the greatest writers of Western tradition (such as Dante, Erasmus, Milton,
and Swift) nor the best of the present day permit their language to be censored or vetoed by the hyperactive
sensitivities of the spineless. Great writers select one word over all other words because that word, and that
word only, most fully conveys their meaning, and because that word, and that word only, can best be
expected to produce the authors intended effect. That meaning and that effect are occasionally, and
sometimes intentionally, offensive.15
Political Correctness Fights Literature

The Hillsdale College professor compares the political correct and civil language
restrictions that have been imposed on the current secular and Christian literature with the
freedom of expression that characterized the most treasured belletristic literature and greatest
theological works of all time, and questions the present ridiculous, incongruous, and dictatorial
language controls that prevent writers from reaching their full intellectual and artistic potential:
Verbal precision, not inoffensiveness, is the traditional hallmark of the Wests best writing and the Wests
best books, some of which were deeply and intentionally offensive to great numbers of those who first read
them. Dantes Inferno consigns a number of Catholic notables -- including popes -- to Hell. Erasmuss
Praise of Folly excoriates monks and theologians as a shameless and squalid mob. His Julius Excluded
locks Pope Julius out of Heaven because he was an adulterous, blood-thirsty, syphilis-ridden, mammon
hound. Some of Miltons political pamphlets and poetry are, among other things, timeless handbooks of
insult and invective. Great portions of the works of Jonathan Swift constitute a veritable scatologists Bible.
These works and many like them would never have been written or published had the modern
preoccupation with inoffensiveness been then the controlling consideration. Because that preoccupation
now prevails, these books and many like them are being harried out of the literary canon. In other words,
the guidelines according to which the invertebrates want us to write are guidelines that not only would have
radically recast many of our cultures great books had they been followed, but would have prevented some
of them from ever being written at all. Had modern guidelines been previously in effect, they would have
banished many of our civilizations most important and memorable texts far more effectively and
extensively than has the politically correct curriculum at Stanford, Harvard or Oberlin. 16
Rhetorical Language That Fits Purpose

As a theologian and scholar familiar with rigorous research and dependent on factual
evidence for his conclusions in the academic works he has produced, Bauman concludes that the
escape from this linguistic trap that attempts to mutilate language under a bogus concern for
politeness and manners is to confront the pretenders and return to the classical rules of language
interaction that abhorred deceptive euphemisms and blatant lies and did not fail to define truth
and error in the most appropriate and precise terms. For Bauman, to sell virtue for polite
discourse is to eliminate freedom of speech and truth from the social and religious discourse:
Those
despicable conditions sometimes require us to employ the language
of shock and of confrontation in our unflagging efforts to push
back the frontiers of evil and error [emphasis added]. But the spineless do not like it
Invertebrates cannot comprehend that despicable conditions inevitably arise in a fallen world.
when we do. They want to police the way we speak. They want, literally, to erase words from our language.
I have been told by one Christian professor, whom I like and whom I respect, that there was never a time
when shock language was right. Such language, I am asked to believe, ought to be eliminated. But though
others delete it, I shall not. The fewer words you have at your disposal, the fewer thoughts you are able to
think or to articulate with full precision, and the fewer points you are able to make with your desired effect.
When the range of words is small, the range of thought is small and the power of speech is diminished. In
that sense, word police are thought police. The invertebrates want to put you under arrest.
Resist [emphasis added].

Language, like liberty, is not normally lost all at once. It slips through our hands a little at a time,
almost imperceptibly. Don't let it happen.
Slang words and shock words have their legitimate use.

Sometimes the right word is a slang word or a shock word because
no other word conveys your meaning as fully or as accurately, and
because no other word elicits the response you desire. Sometimes
the right language is language that falls beyond the pale of polite
discourse but not of virtue [emphasis added].17
VII. Conclusion
This research work has provided factual and ample argumentation against two claims that
David Jarnes, book editor at PPPA, and others who share his perspective have made about the
research manuscript Antiochus IV and Daniels Little Horn Reexamined. Their untested claims
were that (1) the tone of [my research] work makes it clear that it is not a dispassionate search
for truth, and (2) that [n]ame-calling bigoted SDA Pseudo-Historicists, Truth Fabricators,
Falsehood Wholesalers, etc. immediately reveals that something other than a search for truth
has driven the writing of the paper presented.1 This is because no paper is either well-written or
scholarly when it directs snarl words at those who disagree with the author.2
The evidence presented in this document could be summarized in the five points
enunciated in the introduction and repeated below:
(1) That freedom of speech, of expression, and of tone (various rhetorical devices) in a spoken
and written language) is a Divine, universal, and inalienable human right that is recognized in the
Bill of Rights and in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and cannot be circumscribed
or banned. All humans have the right to express themselves in a manner that fits best their needs
to communicate certain impressions, ideas, and feelings.
(2) That the notion of a dispassionate languagethat is, a language devoid of feelings and
emotionsis an absolute nonsense, and indicates serious and gross ignorance of the human mind
and affections. Normal humans show emotions. Humans who fail to show natural emotional
reactions to other humans or to events are said to have a blunted affect, and are not normal. Lack
of normal and spontaneous emotional response to external stimuli indicates certain mental
affections among which might be bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, posttraumatic
stress disorder, or brain damage.3 Some theologians or scholars who want to appear
dispassionate and impartial repress their natural emotions and pretend to have reached
neutral conclusions in their research work, but the true fact remains that unless their mental states
are pathological their emotions are present, although hidden. Total intellectual and emotional
detachment from a certain research topic is a delusion and a deception.
(3) That civil language or politically correct language, not the norm or standard in the
universal literaturewhether ancient or modern, belletristic or scientific. Numerous classic and
modern works are replete with unconventional, unsanctioned incorrect, harsh, rude, brutal,
offensive, and even vulgar language. One must be either ignorant or delusional to overlook and
dismiss such well-established facts. Jarnes and his clique of obtuse and backwards individuals
need to come out of their retrograde shells and read the classics of the American and
international literature in order to familiarize themselves with the uncivil language used in
those pages that are replete with rhetorical invectives such as the ones mentioned above.
(4) That the dispassionate or neutral theological language that Jarnes embraces and promotes
is unbiblical and fallacious. Both the Old Testament [further, OT], and the New Testament
[further, NT] contain inspired language that is quite often passionate, harsh, rude, and
intolerant to the sinners. The humble and meek or rather weak, feeble, and emasculated
Christ who is the main character in the SDA childrens stories and religious tales is a fictitious
character with no biblical roots the distorted and false image of a biblical and righteous God
who exposes sin, denounces wickedness, and also confronts, offends, and threatens with death
the unrepentant and rebellious sinners and damns the wicked to eternal destruction.
(5) That to expose intentional and even unintentional gross theological errors and deceptions, and
to confront those theologians and shepherds who propagate falsehood, is a biblical mandate
that requires often harsh and offensive language, and even invective. That to warn church
members against the false theologians and their false teachings is not an insolent and gratuitous
act, but a sacred Christian obligation that Jesus exemplified in His righteous and blameless
human life as both man and God and passed on through his sacred words and the NT Scriptures
to the new generations of Christians until the end of time as an integral and indispensable part of
the proclamation of the Gospel the good and wonderful news of salvation and eternal life to the
repentant sinner, but at the same time the bad and horrible news of eternal destruction to the
obstinate and wicked sinner.
References
I. Introduction
1
David Jarnes. RE: Little Horn Greater Than He-Goat in Daniel 8? Message to Eduard
Hanganu. February 6, 2014. E-mail.
2
Ibid.
II. The Attack on the Freedom of Speech

1
Thomas Jefferson (Author) & Julian P. Boyd (Editor), The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 1,
1760-1776, First Edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 423-428.
2
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The Constitution of the United States (New York:
ACLU), 23.
3
UN General Assembly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A
(III), available at: "UN Online," http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [accessed 28 October
2014].
4
George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1981).
Ibid., 7.
Ibid., 35.
Ibid., 246-247.
Ibid., 255-256.
Ibid., 256.
10
Cynthia Roper. (2014). Political Correctness (PC), available at: Encyclopaedia Britannica
Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1309880/political-correctness-PC [accessed
29 October 2014].
11
Jonathan I. Katz, What is Political Correctness? (1999, May 13) Retrieved from
http://physics.wustl.edu/katz/pc.html.
12
Ben ONeill, A Critique of Politically Correct Language, The Independent Review, v. 16, n.
2, Fall 2011, 279280.
13
Ibid., 280-282.
14
Ibid., 282-283.
15
Ibid., 285-286.
16
Ibid., 288-289.
17
Ibid., 290-291.
18
Peter Messent. Censoring Mark Twains N-Words Is Unacceptable (2011, January 5).
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-marktwain-n-word-unacceptable
19
Michiko Kakutani, Light Out, Huck, They Still Want to Sivilize You (2011, January 6).
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/books/07huck.html?pagewanted=all
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Walter Goodman, Reading and Writing; Literary Invective (1983, June 19). Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/26/specials/mccarthy-invective.html.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Merriam-Webster, Inc. (January 1995). Ciceronian period. Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia

Of Literature (New York: Merriam-Webster, 1995), 244. ISBN 978-0-87779-042-6. Retrieved
27 August 2013 from http://books.google.com/books/about/Merriam_Webster_s_Encyclopedia_
of_Litera.html?id=eKNK1YwHcQ4C.
26
Amanda Ross. Ciceros Construction of Ethos in the First Catilinarian. Tiresias. Retrieved
November 5, 2014 from "https://artsonline.uwaterloo.ca/hydra/ojs/index.php/tiresias/article/view
/10/0"Ross Ciceros Construction of Ethos in the First Catilinarian.
27
Ibid., 36.
28
Ibid., 37-38.
29
Ibid., 39.
30
Lene Jaqua. Offense Sensitivity. Classical Writing. December 31, 2010. Retrieved on 5
November 2014 from http://www.classicalwriting.com/blog/2010/12/
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Paul Jump, Hidden leopard-skin G-string exposed. Times Higher Education (UK), October
16, 2014. Retrieved on 5 November 2014 from http://www.classicalwriting.com/blog/2010/12.
36
Ibid.
III. Political Correctness and the Bible

1
Wayne Grudem, Whats Wrong With Gender-Neutral Bible Translations (Libertyville,

Illinois: The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1997).
2
Ibid., 2-4.
Ibid., 7.
Ibid., 9.
Ibid., 11-12.
Ibid., 13.
Catholic New Agency, Controversial Political Correct Version of the Bible Published in
Germany. Retrieved on November 11, 2014 from: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/
controversial_politically_correct_version_of_the_bible_published_in_germany.
8
Christopher Agee, Gay-Friendly Bible Translation Now Available (2014, November 7).
Retrieved on November 7, 2014 from: http://www.westernjournalism.com/gay-friendly-bibletranslation-now-available/.

9
Robert M. Price & Carol Price, The Politically Correct Bible [Kindle Edition] (eBookIt.com,
2013). Kindle file.
IV. The Fictional Jesus Who Never Was
1
Darrell Creswell, Jesus Wasnt a Wimp (2010, May 19). Retrieved November 10, 2014 from
http://darrellcreswell.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/jesus-wasn%E2%80%99t-a-wimp.
2
Brandon OBrien, A Jesus for Real Men Christianity Today (2008, April 19). Retrieved on
November 11 from http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html.
3
Ibid.
John MacArthur, The Jesus You Cant Ignore (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2008),
xxiv. Quoted in the Philogian, August 2010, Volume 27, No. 3, page 4.
5
Ibid., 4-9.
Steven J. Cole, Jesus The Confronter (1999, June 27). Retrieved on November 12, 2014 from:
http://pdfmanual4.com/jesus-the-confronter-flagstaff-christian-fellowship.
7
John MacArthur, The Confrontation Over Authority (2011, January 30). Retrieved on
November 12, 2014 from http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/41-59.
8
Ibid.
Ibid.
10
John MacArthur, Was Jesus Polite to False Teachers? (2013, September 27). Retrieved on
November 12, 2014 from http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/41-59.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Dan Gatlin, Jesus: Intolerant, Confrontational, and Exclusionary. Retrieved on November 12,
2014 from: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/articles.htm.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
V. The Passionate and Ruthless God

All Bible quotes are from the public domain King James Bible (KJV). Retrieved on November
12 from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=DAniel%205:31&version=KJV.
VI. Compelled To Confront and Warn

1
Dave Miller, Political Correctness and Bashing, Retrieved on November 9, 2014 from
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4722.
2
Ibid.
Ibid.
John MacArthur, The Pathology of False Teachers Retrieved on November 14, 2014 from
http://www.gty.org/resources/Blog/B140214.
5
Ellen G. White. Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific
Press Publishing Association, 1962), 409-410.
John MacArthur, The Pathology of False Teachers Retrieved on November 14, 2014 from
http://www.gty.org/resources/Blog/B140214.
7
E. L. Bynum, Is it Right to Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call names? Retrieved November
14, 2014 from http://www.tbaptist.com.
8
Damon Whitsell, Respoding to Heresy: Five Biblical Principles for Confronting Heresy
(2009, February 20). Retrieved on November 14, 2014 from http://thewordonthewordoffaith
infoblog.com/2009/02/20/responding-to-heresy-five-biblical-principles-for-confronting-heresy/
9
E. L. Bynum, Is it Right to Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call names? Retrieved November
14, 2014 from http://www.tbaptist.com.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Michael Bauman, The Theology of Invective (2013, January 10). Retrieved on November 16,
2014 from http://theburkean.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-theology-of-invective.html
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
VIII. Conclusion
1
David Jarnes. RE: Little Horn Greater Than He-Goat in Daniel 8? Message to Eduard
Hanganu. February 6, 2014. E-mail.
2
3
Ibid.
David Sue and Diane M. Sue, Foundations of Counseling and Psychotherapy: Evidence-Based
Practices for a Diverse Society, Eighth edition (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007), 64-66.

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked Final Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked Final Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 1

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 2

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 3

The God Who Is Harsh ................................................................................................... 38

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 4

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 5

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 6

II. The Attack on the Freedom of Speech

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 7

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 8

Political Correctness The Nextspeak

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 9

ONeill, a statistics lecturer in the School of Physical, Environmental, and Mathematical

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 10

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 11

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 12

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 13

PC Application to World Literature

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 14

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 15

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 16

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 17

Invective in Literature and Science

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 18

Hellman must be warned, believes Goodman, that to feel offended by common

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 19

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 20

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 21

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 22

Some Scientists Like Uncivil Humor

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 23

STOPPED HERE WITH THE REVIEW

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 24

III. Political Correctness and the Bible

became in NRSV those, and them:

becomes in the NRSV I and my in indirect speech:

My enemies wonder in malice when I will die, and my name perish. 2

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 25

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 26

Offensive Biblical Doctrines Removed

Good for All The Rainbow Colors

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 27

The Inoffensive and Impotent Bible

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 28

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 29

IV. The Bizarre Jesus Who Never Was

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 30

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 31

The Jesus Who Commands Respect

The Jesus Who Confronts The Sinners

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 32

The Jesus Who Confronts The Leaders

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 33

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 34

The Jesus Who Indicts False Teachers

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 35

The Ruthless and Intolerant God-Man

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 36

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 37

Confronted The Impenitent

Excluded The Rebellious

The Passionate God Who Confronts The Wicked 38