Eight Unbreakable Rules for Christian Activists

It would be wise for Christians working in the realm of politics to keep this post by Gary North on their mind.

I am hard core. I have been hard core for a long time.

I am writing this for those of you who are equally hard core.

Here are ten facts of American national politics that you must understand to get meaningful change.

1. You can’t beat something with nothing.
2. 80% of politicians respond only to two things: (1) fear; (2) pain.
3. Bureaucrats (tenured) respond only to one thing: budget cuts.
4. Political reform never comes as long as the tax money flows in.
5. The #1 goal is to reduce the government’s funds, not re-direct them.
6. Congress’s club system sucks in 80% of new members by term #2.
7. Politicians listen to their peers, not to their constituents.
8. Money from the government buys off most voters.
9. Most citizens care little about politics and know less.
10. This gives influence to organized swing-vote blocs.

The political system was summed up a generation ago by the man I regard as the elder statesman of the hard-core wing of the American conservative movement, M. Stanton Evans: “Evans’s Law of Political Perfidy.”

When our friends get into power, they aren’t our friends any more.

To this, I add North’s Law of Partisan Politics:

When a movement is in either political party’s hip pocket, it will be sat on.

If you do not believe this, then you are a sheep for the shearing — and then, after several shearings, the roasting. You are on some politician’s menu.


These are eight basic rules of engagement. There may be others, but these are fundamental. If you do not believe these, you are headed for disappointment.

1. Vote for a hard-core challenger on the other side against a squishy incumbent. This rule separates the hard core members from the soft core members. It has a corollary: A first-term incumbent next election is easier to beat than a squishy incumbent this election. It is always hard to defeat an incumbent. Do what you can to defeat any incumbent, no matter which party he belongs to, if he is squishy on the issue you regard as fundamental. Why is this so important? Incumbents must become deathly afraid of your movement. Take out a few dozen of them in the next election and the one that follows, and many others will cooperate. As Sen. Everett Dirksen put it so long ago, “When we feel the heat, we see the light.” In short, you do not settle for the lesser of two evils. You eliminate them both, one election at a time: first the softie, then the newbie.

2. Hold your newly elected politician’s feet to the fire the first time he breaks ranks on a key vote. He is like a puppy. When he leaves a mess on the carpet, get out the switch. “Bad dog! Bad dog!” Let him remember that switch. Let him fear that switch. The second time he does it, warm up the car. You and he will be taking a trip to the pound. You are his voter only for as long as he is your representative. Politicians respond to only two things: fear and pain.

3. Get him to sign a resignation letter. Before you work for him, make sure he has signed a resignation letter. This letter says the following:

To the voters of [district, state]:

I am making this public. If I ever vote for [whatever], I will turn in my letter of resignation to the [government body] within 24 hours.

If I fail to do this, I expect voters to vote against me at the next election, since I clearly cannot be trusted.

I expect my opponent in the primary to defeat me next time, and if he doesn’t, my opponent in the general election will. And should.

Very truly yours,

Name Candidate for [whatever]

This is a political suicide letter. You will see who is serious about your #1 issue and who is not by means of a signed resignation letter. Post it online. If he refuses to sign it, start working to undermine him after he defeats the squishy incumbent. Above all, do not trust him.

WordPress is free (www.WordPress.org). A domain name costs $10 a year to register. A multi-site hosting service like Hostgator is $10 a month or less. Have a separate site for every candidate and elected official.

This would make a great civics project for home schoolers: track a candidate for the school year. Then turn the task over to a new student. Have the committee run the sites, but students can do the grunt work. It is good practice.

5. Find out who his largest campaign donors are. This will tell you who will have the most clout when he takes office. Investigate the PACs. Investigate the donors who send in the maximum donation allowed. Are they members of one group? Post this information on the site that you set up to monitor his votes.

6. Instill fear. This is your #1 task, once he takes office.

7. Inflict pain. This is the basis of #6.

8. Trust, but verify. If your group refuses to verify, it should not trust.


Politics is not based on love, because civil government is based on coercion. Do not impose “tough love” on a politician. He is not to love you. He is to obey you. You are not to love him. You are to monitor him. Impose negative sanctions and positive sanctions wisely.

[The fundamental sex’n’money’n’power motivations of politicians are snipped here. Just a reminder, that these people are not your friends: so don’t treat them as such.

Always keep the baseball bat close at hand, when dealing with politicians.]

Creative Production, not Creative Destruction

While I cheerfully agree with the main point of Gary North’s article — that the market is essentially creative and productive to all except to the entrepreneurs who guessed wrong — there is one bit that I want to comment on.

North writes:

The phrase “creative destruction” was popularized by the Austrian, but not Austrian School economist, Joseph Schumpeter….

Wikipedia’s entry for “Creative Destruction” says:

Creative destruction (German: schöpferische Zerstörung), sometimes known as Schumpeter’s gale, is a concept in economics which since the 1950s has become most readily identified with the Austrian American economist Joseph Schumpeter who derived it from the work of Karl Marx and popularized it as a theory of economic innovation and the business cycle.

Any concept picked up from Karl Marx is likely to be filthy — not only wrong, but evil — including that of class warfare. Libertarian class analysis, focusing on how the Right Sort use State Power to steal from you and me, and give to themselves and their friends, is much more to the point.

According to Schumpeter, the “gale of creative destruction” describes the “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one”. In Marxian economic theory the concept refers more broadly to the linked processes of the accumulation and annihilation of wealth under capitalism.

Marx had it wrong. So did Bakunin. So did Schumpeter.

True. The claim of “regeneration through chaos” is quite Satanic at the core, an attempt to build Creation without a lawful Creator, something from nothing.

Gary North’s cover gets the ideal across nicely:


To continue to my personal Trigger Point:

Schumpeter borrowed the concept from a pair of revolutionists, Bakunin and Marx. They preached rival social philosophies that were both based on literal murder, not figurative murder. Schumpeter was impressed by their concept. Felix Somary records in his autobiography, The Raven of Zurich (1986), a discussion he had with the economist Joseph Schumpeter and the sociologist Max Weber in 1918. Weber was the most prestigious academic social scientist in the world when he died in 1920. Schumpeter expressed happiness regarding the Russian Revolution. The USSR would be a test case for socialism. Weber warned that this would cause untold misery. Schumpeter replied, “That may well be, but it would be a good laboratory.” Weber responded, “A laboratory heaped with human corpses!” Schumpeter retorted, “Every anatomy classroom is the same thing.” Weber stormed out of the room (p. 121). I don’t blame him. (I am indebted to Mark Skousen for this reference.)

These loathsome materialist make me gag.

Decentralization: a Few Nitty-Gritty Details

From What Does Decentralization Really Mean?

[My comments in italic square brackets]

Three Types of Decentralization

When people talk about software decentralization, there are actually three separate axes of centralization/decentralization that they may be talking about. While in some cases it is difficult to see how you can have one without the other, in general, they are quite independent of each other. The axes are as follows:

  • Architectural (de)centralization — how many physical computers is a system made up of? How many of those computers can it tolerate breaking down at any single time?
  • Political (de)centralization — how many individuals or organizations ultimately control the computers that the system is made up of?
  • Logical (de)centralization— does the interface and data structures that the system presents and maintains look more like a single monolithic object, or an amorphous swarm? One simple heuristic is: if you cut the system in half, including both providers and users, will both halves continue to fully operate as independent units?

We can try to put these three dimensions into a chart:


Note that a lot of these placements are very rough and highly debatable. But let’s try going through any of them:

  • Traditional corporations are politically centralized (one CEO), architecturally centralized (one head office) and logically centralized (can’t really split them in half)
  • Civil law relies on a centralized law-making body, whereas common law is built up of precedent made by many individual judges. Civil law still has some architectural decentralization as there are many courts that nevertheless have large discretion, but common law has more of it. Both are logically centralized (“the law is the law”).

[Note that a network of Biblical courts would operate on similar principles, just with a far smaller scope. First, no positive law — a Christian government has no executive function, and can only ban things, not compel you to do something — and second, no creation of new law: the law today is the same as the law yesterday, and the law today is the same as the law tomorrow.

There remains only one Lawgiver and one King: so there is ethical centralization in this way. The various political systems and nations should be as small and numerous as possible. Finally, the ‘government’ isn’t only the magistrate: the family, the church, and the individual are also legitimate sovereign forces, with only one overall Sovereign, God.  It is forbidden for the state to cross into family lines, or for the church to take control of what are fundamentally individual matters.- AP]

  • Languages are logically decentralized; the English spoken between Alice and Bob and the English spoken between Charlie and David do not need to agree at all. There is no centralized infrastructure required for a language to exist, and the rules of English grammar are not created or controlled by any one single person (whereas Esperanto was originally invented by Ludwig Zamenhof, though now it functions more like a living language that evolves incrementally with no authority)
  • BitTorrent is logically decentralized similarly to how English is. Content delivery networks are similar, but are controlled by one single company.
  • Blockchains are politically decentralized (no one controls them) and architecturally decentralized (no infrastructural central point of failure) but they are logically centralized (there is one commonly agreed state and the system behaves like a single computer)

Many times when people talk about the virtues of a blockchain, they describe the convenience benefits of having “one central database”; that centralization is logical centralization, and it’s a kind of centralization that is arguably in many cases good…


Architectural centralization often leads to political centralization, though not necessarily — in a formal democracy, politicians meet and hold votes in some physical governance chamber, but the maintainers of this chamber do not end up deriving any substantial amount of power over decision-making as a result. In computerized systems, architectural but not political decentralization might happen if there is an online community which uses a centralized forum for convenience, but where there is a widely agreed social contract that if the owners of the forum act maliciously then everyone will move to a different forum (communities that are formed around rebellion against what they see as censorship in another forum likely have this property in practice).

Logical centralization makes architectural decentralization harder, but not impossible — see how decentralized consensus networks have already been proven to work, but are more difficult than maintaining BitTorrent. And logical centralization makes political decentralization harder — in logically centralized systems, it’s harder to resolve contention by simply agreeing to “live and let live”.

[PS: The American idea of “Let’s make a deal!” and “Live and let live” — strongly propagated by Gary North — are going to become very powerful globally on the macro scale, as time goes on: regardless of what various socialists, totalitarians, or democrats wish. It looks like Christian libertarian-leaning theonomic small-r republicans have got the winning idea!

Too bad for the centralizing Secularist, Marxist, and Islamic alternatives. Not many tears streaming from my eyes, though, I must admit.]

The next question is, why is decentralization useful in the first place? There are generally several arguments raised:

  • Fault tolerance — decentralized systems are less likely to fail accidentally because they rely on many separate components that are not likely to fail.
  • Attack resistance — decentralized systems are more expensive to attack and destroy or manipulate because they lack sensitive central points that can be attacked at much lower cost than the economic size of the surrounding system.
  • Collusion resistance — it is much harder for participants in decentralized systems to collude to act in ways that benefit them at the expense of other participants, whereas the leaderships of corporations and governments collude in ways that benefit themselves but harm less well-coordinated citizens, customers, employees and the general public all the time.

All three arguments are important and valid, but all three arguments lead to some interesting and different conclusions once you start thinking about protocol decisions with the three individual perspectives in mind. Let us try to expand out each of these arguments one by one.

[And this is where I will stop, and recommend that you read the complete article yourself!]

Marx the Man

From Marx the Man

When Karl Marx died in March 1883, only about a dozen people attended his funeral at a cemetery in London, England, including family members. Yet, for more than a century after his death – and even until today – there have been few thinkers whose ideas have been as influential on various aspects of modern world history. Indeed, as some have said, no other faith or belief-system has had such a worldwide impact as Marxism, since the birth of Christianity and the rise of Islam.

As we watch the corpse of Marxism blow away into the wind, it becomes obvious that Satan isn’t nearly as capable as he was when he created Islam.

And even Islam isn’t looking too good nowadays…

In the meantime, Christianity continues to expand and deepen. Sure, Europe is over, but that’s just until Secular Europe finishes dying off — an act directly traceable to her rebellion against God. Between the Arab Muslims and the Christian Africans, my money’s on Africa to inherit Europe by ~2300.

(Sure, Europe could always repent and live – and thus, please God. And the likelihood of this occurring is….)

Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the Rhineland town of Trier. His parents were Jewish, with a long line of respected rabbis on both sides of the family. But to follow a legal career in the Kingdom of Prussia at the time, Karl Marx’s father converted to Protestantism. Karl’s own religious training was limited; at an early age he rejected all belief in a Supreme Being.

So Marx took the public step that many Christian clerics of the time – especially German clerics – had already taken privately. See North’s The Hoax of Higher Criticism for details.

Marx’s only real jobs during his lifetime were as occasional reporters for or editors of newspapers and journals most of which usually closed in a short period of time, either because of small readership and limited financial support or political censorship by the governments under which he was living.

No wonder the Mainstream Media love him so. They recognize a kindred spirit…

In all his researches into the iniquities of British capitalism, he came across many instances of low-paid workers but he never succeeded in unearthing one who was paid literally no wages at all. Yet such a worker did exist, in his own household … This was Helen Demuth [the life-long family maid]. She got her keep but was paid nothing … She was a ferociously hard worker, not only cleaning and scrubbing, but managing the family budget … Marx never paid her a penny …

Typical Marxist.

In temperament, Marx could be cruel and authoritarian. He treated people with whom he disagreed in a crude and mean way, often ridiculing them in public gatherings. Marx had no hesitation about being a hypocrite; when he wanted something from someone he would flatter them in letters or conversation, but then attack them in nasty language behind their backs to others. He often used racial slurs and insulting words to describe the mannerisms or appearance of his opponents in the socialist movement.

For instance, in an 1862 letter to Frederick Engels, Marx described leading nineteenth-century German socialist, Ferdinand Lassalle, in the following way:

The Jewish Nigger Lassalle … fortunately departs at the end of this week … It is now absolutely clear to me that, as both the shape of his head and his hair texture shows – he descends from the Negros who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or grandmother on the paternal side hybridized with a nigger). Now this combination of Germanness and Jewishness with a primarily Negro substance creates a strange product. The pushiness of the fellow is also nigger-like.

The original Social Justice Warrior has spoken!

In Marx’s mind, the Jew in bourgeois society encapsulated the essence of everything he considered despicable in the capitalist system, and only with the end of the capitalist system would there be an end to most of those unattractive qualities. Here is Marx’s conception of the Jewish mind in nineteenth century Europe, from his essay “On the Jewish Question” (1844):

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Haggling. What is his worldly god? Money! … Money is the jealous god of Israel before whom no other god may exist.

Money degrades all the gods of mankind and converts them into commodities … What is contained abstractly in the Jewish religion – contempt for theory, for art, for history, for man as an end in himself … The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Jewishness.

(Marx’s caricaturing description of the asserted “Jewish mindset” rings amazingly similar to those that were later written by the Nazi “race-scientists” of the 1930s, who also condemned Jews for the same self-interested pursuit of money and the resulting degenerative influence that they believed Jews had upon the German people.)

There always was a family resemblance between Marxism and Fascism.

The Marxist can imitate Marx.

The Muslims can imitate Mohammad.
(And yes, the reader is definitely invited to do his own investigation here!)

We are to imitate Jesus Christ.

When To Lie

Just a quick copy/paste from The Path of Truth.

…some may be surprised at the lies and deception practiced in the Scriptures by several persons of faith, some in the service of God, even commissioned at His throne in Heaven.

We had debate with a fellow who stalwartly condemned falsifying information of any kind under any circumstances. “A lie is a lie is a lie,” he insisted, “and any lie is sin.”

“But, Akaid,” I replied, “if a sin brings death, then a lie told to save a life would destroy the liar, wouldn’t it? If any lie is sin, and the wages of sin is death, then why would God bless or keep someone who tried to do good by lying, or at least, wasn’t trying to do harm, perhaps only trying to defeat the enemy and save himself by deception?”

Akaid would hear none of it. To him a lie was sin, period. I replied with several examples of lying in Scripture:

And here, Victor Hafichuk (the writer) list (among others):


Genesis 12:10-20 MKJV

[I usually snip out the actual text in these quotes]

Genesis 20:1-18 ESV


Genesis 26:6-14 ESV

Jacob and Rebekah

Genesis 27:1-29 MKJV


Genesis 30:31-43 MKJV

The brothers of Joseph

Genesis 37:23-36 MKJV

Note that their lie was wicked, but as Hafichuk notes:

God was working their lying and treachery for their own good. Who would have known? Did that exonerate them from the evil they did their brother? No; they suffered with guilty consciences over the matter. They were judged, not for condemnation, but salvation.

Judah and Tamar

Genesis 38:1-30 MKJV

How about this piece of deceit, which God didn’t condemn, but used to produce the lineage of King David, leading to the Messiah?

The Midwives of Egypt

And here is the event of the Hebrew midwives, where God blessed them for lying to save the male Hebrew children at birth. Would you accuse God of rewarding sin? Was it evil of the midwives to save lives?

Exodus 1:15-21 MKJV

Moses, under God’s Command

The blog writer states:

God instructed Moses as follows: “…and you shall come, you and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and you shall say unto him, ‘The LORD God of the Hebrews has met with us: and now let us go, we beseech you, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God’” (Exodus 3:18 KJV).

What is this? Wasn’t God intending to take His people out of Egypt altogether, to the land of milk and honey? He had said earlier:

“And I am coming down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, to bring them up out of that land, to a good land, a large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites and the Jebusites” (Exodus 3:8 MKJV).

Why the deception? But Moses obeyed and Pharaoh refused. Thereafter Moses never revealed God’s true purpose for Israel, nor was he commanded to. But all of God’s words were fulfilled: “And the LORD said to Moses, Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh. For with a strong hand he shall let them go, and with a strong hand he shall drive them out of his land” (Exodus 6:1 MKJV).

Coupling this example with the midwives, I suggest that the willfully wicked have no right to the truth, when they plan to use it to promote evil and violate the laws of God.

Rahab the Harlot

Joshua 2:1-24 MKJV

Rahab lied in faith, and not only so, she was praised of God and rewarded for it. God doesn’t reward sin, does He?

No, God never rewards sin.

Thus, it is proven that Rahab did no sin in lying to protect the spies, whatsoever.

Samuel and God

1 Samuel 16:1-3 MKJV

(1) And the LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go. I will send you to Jesse of Bethlehem. For I have seen a king for Me among his sons.”
(2) And Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears, he will kill me.” And the LORD said, “Take a heifer of the herd in your hand with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’
(3) And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do. And you shall anoint for Me whomever I name to you.”

What? Does God instruct His servants, the prophets, to practice deception?

Deceiving the wicked, determined in his way to violate the commandments of God, is no sin.

David, the Man after God’s Heart

1 Samuel 21:1-6 MKJV

Here, David lies directly to the high priest of Israel: but as there was no evil in it, there was no sin.

1 Samuel 21:10-15 MKJV

1 Samuel 27:1-12 MKJV


(8) And David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites. For they were the inhabitants of the land from the past days, as you come into Shur, even into the land of Egypt.
(9) And David struck the land, and did not keep alive man nor woman, and took away the sheep and the oxen and the asses and the camels and the clothing, and returned and came to Achish.
(10) And Achish said, “Where have you made a raid today?” And David said, “Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites.”
(11) And David did not keep alive man or woman to bring news to Gath, saying, “Lest they should tell on us, saying, ‘So David did,’” and so has been his custom all the days he lived in the fields of the Philistines.
(12) And Achish believed David, saying, “He has made himself to be hated among his people Israel, and has become my servant forever.”

While the Laws of God are definitely in force today, and deception is still needed on occasion today as in David’s time, genocide isn’t. To find out why — and to learn from a fine demonstration of rightly diving the word of truth — read Joel McDurmon’s The Bounds of Love.

David’s General Joab and the Women of Tekoa

These people lied to their king. What shall be done with them? What did David do?

2 Samuel 14:1-21 MKJV

David’s Direction to Hushai the Archite

How much clearer does it get that all lies are not sin, when David counsels others to lie, as in the following episode?:

2 Samuel 15:31-34 ESV
(31) And it was told David, “Ahithophel is among the conspirators with Absalom.” And David said, “O LORD, please turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness.”
(32) While David was coming to the summit, where God was worshiped, behold, Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat torn and dirt on his head.
(33) David said to him, “If you go on with me, you will be a burden to me.
(34) But if you return to the city and say to Absalom, ‘I will be your servant, O king; as I have been your father’s servant in time past, so now I will be your servant,’ then you will defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel.”

And here’s what happened by David’s deliberate deceit, which God blessed:

“And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.’ For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil on Absalom” (2 Samuel 17:14 MKJV).

It didn’t stop there. God also prospered a woman who lied in order to hide David’s messengers from Absalom:

2 Samuel 17:15-21 ESV
(15) Then Hushai said to Zadok and Abiathar the priests, “Thus and so did Ahithophel counsel Absalom and the elders of Israel, and thus and so have I counseled.
(16) Now therefore send quickly and tell David, ‘Do not stay tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but by all means pass over, lest the king and all the people who are with him be swallowed up.’”
(17) Now Jonathan and Ahimaaz were waiting at En-rogel. A female servant was to go and tell them, and they were to go and tell King David, for they were not to be seen entering the city.
(18) But a young man saw them and told Absalom. So both of them went away quickly and came to the house of a man at Bahurim, who had a well in his courtyard. And they went down into it.
(19) And the woman took and spread a covering over the well’s mouth and scattered grain on it, and nothing was known of it.
(20) When Absalom’s servants came to the woman at the house, they said, “Where are Ahimaaz and Jonathan?” And the woman said to them, “They have gone over the brook of water.” And when they had sought and could not find them, they returned to Jerusalem.
(21) After they had gone, the men came up out of the well, and went and told King David. They said to David, “Arise, and go quickly over the water, for thus and so has Ahithophel counseled against you.”

What is this about “bringing evil on Absalom”? Carnal minds argue that God doesn’t bring evil on anyone.

Some people don’t know God very well, do they…..

His Word, however, dismisses the arguments of self-appointed do-gooders who parade their righteousnesses by presuming to defend or exonerate God. All they do is demonstrate that their trust isn’t in God, but in the letter according to their own interpretation.

And this is the core of the issue.

Nathan the Prophet and Bathsheba

1 Kings 1:1-34 ESV

Solomon, in His Wisdom, Lies

1 Kings 3:16-27 MKJV

A Prophet Creates a Ruse

Not only does this prophet come to the king of Israel deceitfully, but the serious cause for this artifice is solemnly backed by the Lord.

1 Kings 20:35-42 MKJV
(35) And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor, “By the Word of the LORD, please strike me!” And the man refused to strike him.
(36) And he said to him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as you have departed from me, a lion shall kill you.” And as soon as he had departed from him, a lion found him and killed him.

Why do people never take God seriously?

People need to take God seriously.

(37) And he found another man and said, “Please strike me.” And the man struck him, so that he wounded him in striking him.
(38) And the prophet went and waited for the king by the wayside, and disguised himself with ashes on his face.
(39) And as the king passed by, it happened he cried to the king. And he said, “Your servant went out into the middle of the battle, and, behold, a man turned aside and brought a man to me and said, ‘Keep this man. If he is missing by any means, then your life shall be for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver.’
(40) And it happened as your servant was busy here and there, he was gone!” And the king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it.”
(41) And he hurried and took the ashes away from his face. And the king of Israel saw that he was one of the prophets.
(42) And he said to him, “So says the LORD, ‘Because you have let go out of your hand a man whom I devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his people.’”

Why do kings never take God seriously?

Kings need to take God seriously.


2 Kings 6:14-19 MKJV

2 Kings 6:20-23 MKJV

Jehu, King of Israel

Did Jehu sin in using deception in order to do God’s will, destroying Baal worship in Israel, a worship for which capital punishment was prescribed?

2 Kings 10:18-28 MKJV
(18) And Jehu gathered all the people together, and said to them, “Ahab served Baal a little, but Jehu shall serve him much.
(19) And now call to me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants and all his priests. Let no one be lacking. For I have a great sacrifice to Baal. Whoever shall be lacking, he shall not live.” But Jehu was acting with cunning, to the end that he might destroy the worshipers of Baal.
(20) And Jehu said, “Call a solemn feast for Baal.” And they called it.
(21) And Jehu sent through all Israel. And all the worshipers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left who did not come. And they came into the house of Baal. And the house of Baal was full from one end to another.
(22) And he said to him who was over the robe-room, “Bring out robes for all the worshipers of Baal.” And he brought them out for them.
(23) And Jehu went, and Jehonadab the son of Rechab, into the house of Baal. And he said to the servants of Baal, “Search and look, that there may not be here with you any of the servants of the LORD, but only the servants of Baal.”
(24) And they went in to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. And Jehu had appointed eighty men outside, and said, “If any of the men whom I have brought into your hands escapes, his life shall be for the life of him.”
(25) And it happened when he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, Jehu said to the guard and to the commanders, “Go in. Kill them! Do not let any come out!” And they struck them with the edge of the sword. And the guard and the commanders threw them out. And they went to the city, to the house of Baal.
(26) And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal and burned them.
(27) And they broke down the image of Baal, and broke down the house of Baal and made it a sewer-house until this day.
(28) And Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel.

Appointed by God to do so.

God really does hate evil. He really, really does, as His character has not changed in all these years.

With Christ, there are more effective ways to bring about the same end than a singing sword… but the goal is still the same. The end of idolatry, the destruction of Satan’s kingdom, the supremacy of Christ and His Father over all.


In the book of Jeremiah, we see that he obeyed God at the peril of his life, yet we see here that he told a lie, and lived:

Jeremiah 38:24-28 MKJV
(24) Then Zedekiah said to Jeremiah, “Let no man know of these words, and you shall not die.
(25) But if the rulers hear that I have talked with you, and they come to you and say to you, ‘Declare to us now what you have said to the king; do not hide it from us, and we will not put you to death; also what the king said to you’;
(26) then you shall say to them, ‘I presented my cry before the king, that he would not cause me to return to Jonathan’s house, to die there.’”
(27) Then all the rulers came to Jeremiah and asked him. And he told them according to all these words that the king had commanded. So they quit speaking with him; for the matter was not known.
(28) So Jeremiah stayed in the court of the prison until the day that Jerusalem was captured. And he was there when Jerusalem was captured.

Jeremiah was a prophet who obeyed the will of God.

The Apostle Paul Confesses Guile

The apostle Paul said he caught men with guile for the Gospel’s sake. So is guile, a form of lying, necessarily evil? Don’t the self-righteous give glory to the letter without justification, not considering the spirit and motive?

The quote Hafichuk s referring to is II Corinthians 12:16. From the KJV

But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.

A little guile goes a long way!

Men are Indeed Held Accountable by God for Lying

Acts 5:1-10 MKJV

Here, Ananias & Sapphira are executed by God for lying to Him.

So don’t lie to God, and don’t lie to promote evil, or to evade justice. Simple!

Does God Lie, or Is He Responsible for Lying?

Will you also tell me that God sins by directing spirits to lie? We need to put away the thoughts and words of men, which come from the darkness of their self-righteousness. Read what the Word of God says here:

1 Kings 22:19-23 MKJV
(19) And he said, “Hear therefore the Word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left.
(20) And the LORD said, ‘Who shall entice Ahab that he may go up and fall at Ramoth in Gilead?’ And one said this way, and another said that way.
(21) And there came forth a spirit and stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’
(22) And the LORD said to him, ‘With what?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And He said, ‘You shall entice him and succeed also. Go forth and do so.’”
(23) And now, behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets, and the LORD has spoken evil concerning you.

There are yet other examples of lies, judged in the letter as sin, but judged in the spirit as righteousness.

A lie isn’t a lie in the act so much as in the motive. Several of the faithful lied, as we pointed out, but why did they lie? That’s the question that determines a lie from a lie and good from evil. Rahab, Jeremiah, Jehu, David, Nathan, Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, and Jacob all lied, but they didn’t lie. They weren’t withholding the truth to do evil, but to avoid it.

On the other hand, Satan often speaks the truth to do evil – such conduct is a specialty of his, as in Eden – “You’ll become as God, knowing good and evil,” which was true! He also quoted truly from Psalms when tempting Jesus. He takes the truth of the letter and applies it with devious motive. Men in his stead do that all the time.

So while one condemns lying by the letter for goodness’ sake, will he also commend one for telling the truth for evil’s sake? You can’t have it both ways.

So the points of this paper:

  • It’s not about our righteousness.
  • One can’t judge by appearances.
  • One mustn’t be bound by the letter.
  • One can’t discount the value of a lie, if done for good.
  • One must receive true understanding of what is a lie.
  • Finally, you’ll notice that the opening verses of this paper show a significant, not-to-be-ignored difference in translations concerning God lying:
    • “On hope of eternal life, which God, Who cannot lie, promised before the eternal times” (Titus 1:2 MKJV).
    • “On hope of eternal life which the God Who does not lie promised before the eternal times” (Titus 1:2 LITV).
    • “In the hope of eternal life, which was made certain before eternal time, by the Word of God Who is ever true” (Titus 1:2 BBE).

You see the difference between inability to lie, as expressed in the MKJV, the practice of not lying, as expressed in the LITV (which doesn’t mean the inability to do so), and the fact that God is ever true, as the BBE renders it (even while God may lie as men perceive it). According to man’s thinking, God does lie, as in the case of sending a lying spirit to deceive Ahab. However, it is not lying in motive. Let’s learn wisdom and embrace His perspective and ways.

A word of warning: Anyone who decides to take this paper and lie to do any evil will perish in his evil-doing. Hypocrites and evil workers can’t lie to God or man for evil’s sake and get away with it. God isn’t to be deceived. One reaps multiplied what he sows.

I will trust the Word of God over the blather of men, regardless of their wealth or power or academic credentials or media endorsements.

‘If You Love Jesus, Then Die Like Jesus’

There is only one proper response to the Islamic challenge… which is to expand the Church into currently-Islamic territory.

Satan is not to be afforded any hiding place: not in the desert, and not in the colleges.

And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. — I Corinthians 15:30-32

Come the Final Judgement, the dead shall rise to receive the wages they are due.

At that time, when it really matters, things will go badly for the murderers, who hate the followers of Christ, and thus show their hatred for His Father.

But those who died for Christ and His glory will be remembered by God.

And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. — Mark 8:34