Four Great Deceptions in the World Today and the Lies that Support Them HOMOSEXUALITY, EVOLUTION, ABORTION & ATHEISM

Jerry D. Kaifetz, Ph.D.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.”

George Orwell

On February 25th, 1964 Sonny Liston stepped into the ring with Cassius Clay (later named Muhammad Ali) to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world.  Liston was the ex-con, Mike Tyson of that day and the overwhelming favorite in the fight.

However, after three rounds, Ali wasn’t just winning, he was dancing around and making Liston look like a laughing stock before the entire world.   At the end of the third round,  Liston allegedly told his corner to “burn the gloves.”  This  meant smear them with the Adrenaline Hydrochloride ointment they use to close cuts.

After the fourth round Clay goes back to the corner and tells them he’s been blinded.   He survived the round and won the fight in the seventh.  That ended Liston’s career and sent his life plunging into a tailspin ending in a fatal drug overdose in a Las Vegas hotel.

History will judge whether that championship fight was a fair fight or not.  Today, cultural battles rage across our country and the world, and it is clear to anyone looking at the gloves of the secularists and humanists that they went back to their corners just like Sonny Liston and told their corners: “Burn the Gloves.”

Solomon, known three millennia after his death for his legendary wisdom, understood well that the fight against decency and righteousness in this world would never be a fair fight.  The cause of those challenging the underlying morality of the Judaeo-Christian ethic can never be presented honestly and win the day.  Solomon expressed that principle in these passages from his writings:

The folly of fools is deceit. Proverbs 14: 8

Do they not err that devise evil? Proverbs 14: 22

Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil.

Proverbs 12:20

I would like to demonstrate in what I believe will be convincing fashion, four battlegrounds in America’s cultural war in which we will see clearly the underlying deception and dishonesty of those who would argue against the Judaeo-Christian principles involved.  The first of these that I would like to expose is the homosexual agenda in America and the world.

HOMOSEXUALITY:

The first principle in changing the course of a social river is to find another name for the act or lifestyle in question.  The most accurate and correct term was the one used for thousands of years: homosexuality.  Homosexual advocates realized that they needed to be known by some other less descriptive and more pleasing term.  The term of choice for them became “gay.” Sadly, there is nothing “gay” about the homosexual lifestyle.  No Christian should ever use the word “gay” when speaking of homosexuals.  Homosexuals is the most descriptive and accurate term to use regardless of what anyone may perceive as politically correct.

A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that a pathological promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.   The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated the following regarding syphilis in the United States: “While surveillance data are not available by risk behavior, a separate CDC analysis suggests that approximately 64 percent of all adult P&S syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men, up from an estimated 5 percent in 1999.”   Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.   So here is the logical question to ask: Does this lifestyle really sound “gay” to you?

When I have a conversation with a homosexual individual, I always have one principal point in mind, and one point only.  I am well aware that it is highly unlikely that my one encounter will have a serious impact on their lives.  What I will do my absolute best to accomplish, however, is to disabuse them of the false notion that one can be a homosexual and make any pretext to faithfulness in pleasing God.  I will always leave the homosexual with this core, foundational thought, and pray that the Spirit of God never lets them forget it:

The principal writer of the Old Testament, Moses,
called homosexuality an “abomination.”

The principal writer of the New Testament, the Apostle
Paul called it “vile affections.”

This is what God feels each and every time he looks
upon a homosexual.  God’s laws are not subject to your
efforts to reject those not conformable to your lifestyle.  All religion is
defined by its Scriptures , and the Judaeo-Christian
Scriptures plainly define Homosexuality as a fundamentally immoral act.

Most homosexuals will tell you that they were born that way.  Unfortunately for them, there is not one study or shred of scientific evidence to support that notion.   They have adopted their deviant identity to such an extent that they cannot visualize a life before it or beyond it.  Like any lie, if it is repeated enough, it becomes accepted and woven into the fabric of a culture.  That is precisely my overarching point here: the principal cultural battles of our time cannot be won on a level playing field with free and open ideas being accepted.  That is why homosexuals, for one, must absolutely wage a war to marginalize any detractors or neutralize or stifle any criticism before it is expressed.  They do it by the classic cult tactic of labeling, calling any moral reproach sent in their direction “hate speech.”  They loathe being judged, not realizing that what they perceive as personal judgment from Christians is nothing more that the application of God’s clearly expressed sanction from a far more authoritative source than they have ever realized: the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures.  Their assault on that source belies the mountains of archaeological &  scientific evidence that has vindicated these Scriptures tens of thousands of times and never once cast a shadow of doubt upon their historical accuracy.  To claim otherwise is to be factually misinformed, and nothing short of being purely and wholly an agenda-driven campaign based on anecdotal evidence alone that never has and never will withstand the light of objective scrutiny.

The truth of the matter concerning homosexuality has to be suppressed to portray this lifestyle as anything but deviant, aberrant, and repugnant on the visceral level to any heterosexual (normally oriented) individual.  The Apostle Paul said that nature itself teaches as much to us.  The definition of perversion, strictly speaking, is “using something for other than its intended purpose.”  Could there possibly be a better definition of a homosexual sex act?

Homosexuals, unable to fend off these empirical observations and immediately prone to call them an “attack,” only betray in convincing fashion their inability to refute their accuracy and logic.  When one cannot defeat an argument in an intellectually honest fashion, one engages in a campaign of dissembling with the clear intention to marginalize the criticism rather than honestly engaging critics.  Homosexuals will call these observations extreme, hateful, hurtful, and even racist (as if homosexuals constitute a distinct race.)  In the end, they will prove that George Orwell was right:
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes
a revolutionary act.”

THE GREAT DECEPTION OF EVOLUTION

Many people have been so brainwashed by the deception surrounding the Theory of Evolution that I will state the principal lies that support it at the onset, since even despite having an earned Ph.D., being the author of ten books, having traveled the world over, speaking fluent Parisian French, and coming from a family of European educators and intellectuals with i.q. ‘s in the 150+ range, they will label me an ignorant Fundamentalist.  So here are the lies:

●   The lie: All scientists believe evolution
●    The truth: Thousands of credentialed scientists from the top universities and science institutes the world over are unable to support evolution beyond the realm of what it is: IT IS A THEORY, NOT A SCIENCE.  Hundreds of books have been written casting an enormous shadow of doubt on the Theory of Evolution.  Evolutionists continue to pretend that these books do not exist.

●    The lie:  Evolution is Science.  Creation is a not.
●    The truth: Science is defined as that which is either OBSERVABLE, or REPRODUCIBLE  IN A LABORATORY.  Evolution is neither.

●    The lie: The fossil record proves Evolution
●    The truth: THE FOSSIL RECORD IS 100% DEVOID OF ANY TRANSITIONAL LIFE FORMS!  (The “Missing Link” is still missing.)

●   The lie: Many “Ape Men” that are the creatures who evolved from the great apes on the way to becoming human beings have been found.
●    The truth: NONE have been ever found anywhere!  What has been found are very small bone fragments from which entire “hopeful monsters” have been arbitrarily created.  (One was a tooth that turned out to be from a pig!)

●    The lie:  Charles Darwin was a great scientist.
●    The truth: Charles Darwin had NO scientific training.  He was a minister.

●    The lie: The greatest scientists of the past have all believed in Evolution.
●    The truth: The founding  of ALL the great branches of science have believed the Genesis account of Creation.   These include the founding fathers of many of the branches of the physical sciences.    Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543),    Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627),  Johannes Kepler (1571-1630),  Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650),  Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662),  Isaac Newton (1642-1727),  Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867),  Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543),  William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907),  Max Planck (1858-1947), and   Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
This is just a partial list of over 100 men.

●    The lie: Complex living organisms evolved gradually.
●    The truth: The amazingly complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum powered by a an amazing electric motor is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution.  The flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single element of this complex structure were to disappear,  the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the scientific implausibility in the theory of evolution’s assertion of gradual development. In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far successfully explained the origin of the bacterial flagellum in light of the concept of Irreducible Complexity put forth by Prof. Michael Behe of Lehigh University.

●   The lie: Mutations are the fortuitous and consistent engine of evolutionary progress.  The modern evolutionist believes that new traits come about primarily by chance, by random changes in genes called “mutations.”
●   The truth: Evolution by mutation would require a series of many related mutations.  The chances of getting just TWO  of these is one hundred trillion to one, and it would take WAY more than two to fuel a constructive evolution in any organism.  Mutations are always regressive and harmful, because they contain LESS data, not more.  Bottom line: warts don’t turn into eyes.

In a court of law, lawyers often ask the church to grant what is called “summary judgment.”  Summary judgment is a  procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly dispose of a case at the onset without a trial. It’s use is essentially saying to the court, “There is no dispute here as to the material facts of the case and the examination of evidence is unnecessary.”  This is EXACTLY the attitude of Evolutionists with respect to Creationists.  They are saying, “You are not a credible or qualified party to this argument, and in fact there should be no argument at all.  You should admit defeat because your argument is one that only pits religion against science.”  In fact, this preposterous and patently dishonest premise  belies the facts of the issue that I have presented above.   Evolution and Creation are both THEORIES and there is a prescribed path within the scientific method to adjudicate conflicting theories: examine them both to see which one best fits the data.  Sadly, this purely scientific approach scares the daylights out of the Neo-Darwnists.  They understand, among other things, that to the rational mind the presence of anything evidencing a complex design implies a creator.  They would like us to believe that this applies to a watch, but not to something a thousand times more complex such as the human eye.  They would also decry the Bible as authoritative in any way, and this despite and epic and gargantuan mountain of evidence as to it’s reliability and historical accuracy that has come to us tens of thousands of times over from the field of archaeology.  In short, they are scared to death of a fair academic or scientific fight, so their primary tactic is to pettifog the issue every time it comes up.  This is intellectual dishonesty and academic chicanery.  Few things illustrate this any better than their continued practice of dating fossils by the geological strata in which they are found, and dating the strata by the fossils they contain.   Does this kind of education seem worth the $30,000 a year price tag the Evolutionists charge?  Should a Christian send their children to the sit at the feet of the faithless Philistine professors?  Your call.

ABORTION

Sometimes I like to play a word association game with a group or class.  I tell them that I will say a word & they are to give me the word that best represents the opposite meaning.  Associations like hot/cold, up/down, in/out, left/right and others establish a simple and predictable pattern.  Then I say the word “life.”  Immediately everyone will say “death.”  I then say, “No, no, no!  Gosh, you were all doing so well up to now.  You people really looked much smarter than that.  I don’t now how you could miss such an easy one.  You see, the opposite of life is not death.  No, no, no!  The opposite of life, you see, is CHOICE!”

This silly little game makes a very powerful point.  Those supporting unfettered abortion upon demand had to find a term for this practice other than the obvious term: abortion.  Nobody wants to be “pro abortion,” even though no term could better describe this position.   So the term of choice has become “choice.”

Sometimes I like to play another game with the abortion crowd.  When they ask me if I am pro life or pro choice, I surprise them by saying something like this: “Oh, I am pro choice.  But I do have one small caveat with regard to this position.  You see, I also want the unborn baby to have the choice as to whether he will be naturally born and live or have his arms and legs cut off by a scalpel, his head crushed by a pair of forceps, and then be sucked out of his mother’s womb in pieces by a vacuum cleaner.  As long as the baby gets a choice too, then go ahead and put me down in the pro-choice column.”

The truth is that the pro-abortion position has to be presented in a carefully and highly manipulated fashion to even begin to be palatable to any culture.  The term “reproductive rights” is often presented as the tip of the feminists spear in this controversial issue.  Some women also like to claim “control over our bodies.”  The truth is that when any woman makes the decision to engage in sex without contraception, there should be a distinct awareness that a pregnancy could follow.  To then refuse to accept the responsibility for that pregnancy is to many the height of irresponsibility.  To claim that a tiny human baby with fingers, toes, and a beating heart is an “nonviable tissue mass” is the height of a callous and self-serving deception.

One of the great deceptions of the baby killers is to use the dishonest euphemism, “women’s health,” to frame the abortion issue.  In fact, if there is a ray of honesty capable of penetrating the mind of anyone contemplating the reality of abortion, one conclusion must inevitably rise to the surface:  to use the term “women’s health” to establish a cultural framework  here is to make the tacit and probably direct implication that pregnancy is a disease!  In fact, pregnancy  is NOT a disease! The natural “treatment” for pregnancy is childbirth.  A pregnant woman is not diseased.  She carries within her a human life, and no human being is entitled to sacrifice another human being on the altar of their own personal convenience.  Abortionists cannot win support on the basis of these plainly evident facts that are at the heart of pregnancy and abortion, so they must construct a false edifice of lies and deception to make acceptable what would otherwise be an entirely unpalatable proposition:  terminating human life for  personal convenience.

One morning I read in a local paper that man driving a car down an alley in my town ran over a large cardboard box on purpose.  He assumed it was just an empty box.  Tragically, a small child was playing in that box and was killed.  The assumption of such a careless driver is for many the identical assumption of the abortion advocates: there is no human life in that container.  The unvarnished truth that cannot be denied by the rational mind, however, is that A PERSON CANNOT KNOW THAT WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY!  To be absolved of any moral responsibility in either case, any reasonable jury would need to know that every reasonable precaution would have to have been undertaken by the decision maker to determine conclusively that no human life was at risk.  Sadly, the laws against animal cruelty in America rise to a higher moral standard that the laws protecting the life of the unborn.  Until a pregnant woman can step forward and say, “Here is irrefutable proof that the contents of my womb is not a human life,” then that person is morally indistinguishable from the driver running over the “empty” box.  In fact, the level of guilt for such a woman and those enabling her decision to abort is considerably greater in my view, given the vast number of people telling her clearly that she is carrying a human life and presenting incredibly graphic images available to prove that point.  I think that a jury would be disposed far differently toward the motorist running over the box if the street had been lined with people shouting, “STOP!  There is a child in that box!”`

Here is a link to a video featuring a doctor who does not appear to be a Christian, but who has a refreshingly honest medical perspective on the subject of life in the womb.  This kind of intellectual and scientific honesty is rare in the world of today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fKyljukBE70

ATHEISM

The first think that strikes me about atheism is its bold presumption.  That to me is positively irrational and untenable.  Please allow me to explain.

If I bring you before a heavy and large curtain suspended from a tall ceiling in a vast room and ask you to tell me what you think is behind that curtain, you are certainly free to offer any number or type of guesses or suppositions based on whatever evidence you see.  You can also answer on the basis of conjecture.  One is not, however, entitled to say with even the most minuscule degree of certainty what is NOT behind that curtain without lifting it and having a look.  This is just as intellectually dishonest and ridiculous a proposition as for someone to say, “I have never been to Monte Carlo, and therefore I deny its existence.”

In order for a person to claim the belief that God does not exist, they would have to have in their possession the totality of knowledge of the entire Universe.  It would be like saying, “There are no orange frogs anywhere in the world.”  Nobody can make that statement who has not been everywhere in the world and looked everywhere that a frog could possibly be.  What one is entitled to say is, “I have never seen an orange frog and therefore I do not believe that they exist anywhere in the world.”  That is certainly what some people would consider to be an unwarranted and presumptuous conclusion, but identifying such a postulation as strictly a personal belief or opinion is vastly more intellectually honest and intelligent than to elevate one’s personal opinion to the level of empirical and universal knowledge.  That is in fact nothing short of making oneself god.

The second major intellectual fallacy of atheism is that it presumes that the most highly specialized and complex designs before us occurred as a result of series of random and chance events, much like putting forth the possibility that a room full of monkeys seated before keyboards, given enough time, could eventually type the Declaration of Independence.  The amount of faith required to believe a proposition such as this (that has a zero statistical probability of occurrence) is astronomical compared to the faith required to believe genesis 1:1 (In the beginning, God…)

If we could elicit for a brief moment the tiniest expression of candor and honesty from a professing atheist (which will never happen), we would see that atheism exists in the life of its proponents for one principal reason: they need a viable mechanism to keep God at arm’s length.  Jesus put it this way: “Men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.”

Here is  one of my videos on atheism — number 3 in a series:

(or go to Youtube.com & type in Jerry Kaifetz atheism)

“Bread of deceit is sweet to a man;
but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.”
Proverbs 20:17