THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT Chapter 14

THE BROCKHOEFT REPORT

Vol. 1 Issue XIV ........ Federal Prison, Ashland ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Dear friends,

I am prisoner #01886-017. I now live in D (cell) house, but there are some
of you old timers out there who have followed my story since when Shelley
published the first TBR, and you can remember when I used to live in C-house.

Any subscriber to Reader's Digest knows that several times a year RD sends
sweepstakes entry forms to its subscribers. You can win five million dollars in these
contests; so once, while I was still living in C-house, I mailed my entry in. Not long
after that, a computer sent me a letter stating that if my entry was drawn a
chauffeured limousine would pull up to 018860017 C house, Ashland, Kentucky,
and pick me up, and take me to a really nice banquet with all kinds of good food.

I had a mind to write back and tell them that if they could just talk the warden into
letting me go to the banquet in that limousine, shucks, I'd just let them keep the
five million bucks, and I'd be as happy as a pig in a mud puddle.

* * * *

BOY, OH, BOY, ARE YOU "LUCKY"!!

What? You don't believe in luck? Well, neither do I )) at least not insofar as the
word "luck" implies that things happen by mere chance. That's not what I believe.

I know that the Lord our God is in control, so things don't happen by chance. So I
apologize for using "lucky"; but, as a writer, I just liked the sound of it better in
the context of what I want to share in this issue of TBR. At the end of this column I
will repent and tell the truth: you are blessed by God.

Have you ever stopped to consider how "lucky" you really are? I mean the
incomprehensible good fortune you had just to be conceived in the first place!

Have you ever stopped to consider what happens when a man and woman conceive
a baby? I don't mean the mechanics of the thing. Of course you've thought about that.

We all have. I mean: have you ever thought of the astronomical statistics involved?

But to establish a statistical point of reference, let's diverge, momentarily, from
conceptual statistics to another kind of statistic. It is not my intention, by any means, to
promote the super lotto in which people are awarded multi-millions of dollars
for picking the right combination of numbers. We're just interested in the statistics. If
one of your neighbors buys one of those tickets there is only one chance in 7,000,000
that his numbers will be drawn. So if you picked up the morning paper and
read that he had hit the right combination and won all those millions of dollars,
the first impression you'd get is that he was pretty "lucky", right? At least statistically
speaking, right? Yet, if you stop and think about it, such an event would be like
an ordinary everyday occurrence compared to how fortunate you are (statistically
speaking).

The Lord our God, Who has microscopic vision, designed your mother's reproductive
cells (ova) so that after your father's sperm cell penetrated the ovum's wall,
the ovum set up a defensive barrier so that no other sperm cell could enter (( just
that first one )) just you. You know, you, as the specific individual whom you
are, could only have been created from that one particular ovum plus that one
particular sperm cell. In that particular act of intercourse in which you were conceived,
if the sperm cell in line immediately ahead of you (or behind you) had penetrated
the ovum first, an entirely different person, not you, would have resulted. This other
person might even have been a member of the opposite sex. He or she might have
had a different hair color or eye color, or a higher or lower I.Q., or more or less
athletic prowess. In any case, it would not have been you at all. You never would
have existed.

The first, and most fundamental, statistic we examine in determining the improbability
of your being conceived staggers the mind from the onset: the fluid carrying the
sperm which your father donated to your mother's system contained 500 million sperm
cells. So, even if the selection of that one cell )) you )) had been entirely
arbitrary (by chance) you would have had only one chance in 500,000,000 to come into
being! Boy, oh, boy, are you fortunate! But that's only the very beginning.

Your odds are going to get much slimmer.

If somebody doesn't give you a break (lots of them, in fact) you'll never make it!
We're going to give you a big, big break right now. We're going to say your
parents weren't trying to practice any kind of birth control. Even so, the odds were
slim that the sperm cell you came from would be deposited at a time when your
mother would be fertile. Otherwise you're a goner, pal. You'll never even exist. If,
as believed, a woman is usually fertile for only two days out of a month, then
simple math would seem to indicate that any single act of intercourse would stand
only one chance in fifteen of resulting in pregnancy. [TBR note: don't accuse me of
resorting to an oversimplification here. I'm on your side. I'm trying to help you, for
heaven's sake!]

Now two things both have to happen for you ever to exist. Upon your release from
your father's body, there must be a ripe ovum in the right place in your mother's
system, and you have to be the first to get there and penetrate that egg. Here the
"both and" principle of probability theory comes into play. Both A and B have to
happen in order for C to happen. To find the new odds against your existence we have
to multiply the odds of the one thing (A) happening times the odds that the
other thing (B) will also happen. Let's see...15x500,000,000=... boy, oh, boy are you
fortunate! All of a sudden the odds against your conception are one in 7.5
billion!

If your mother was fertile for two whole days she was actually giving you a big break,
compared to your father. A sperm cell has a life expectancy of thirty days
((but wait a minute )) that doesn't tell the whole story. During this short span the sperm
cell aged, reached a peak, and then began to decline in vigor. To get to the
egg and penetrate it first you had to be a strong swimmer relative to your 499,999,999
competitors. On top of that, you had to be in a good position within your
dad's seminal vesicle at the moment of release. Were you in front or back? Top or
bottom? God only knows.

I am little familiar with the principles of hydraulics, but our own common sense
tells us that, however it happened, having a head start on some of the other sperm
cells had to help, didn't it? If you had been too far back, a weaker swimmer might
have beaten you to it. Or a stronger swimmer would have had enough time to
come from behind and pass you.

Now, if a sperm cell's life span is thirty days, that translates to about 2.6 million
seconds. But you had 499,999,999 competitors! Therefore, relative to the teeming
hordes of competitors, all in their varying ages and stages of vigor, your state of
primacy over the others probably lasted only the slightest fraction of a second! But it
was going to take you several hours to swim to the ovum, so you had to be released
some time earlier than at your peak, al the while taking into consideration the
relative favorableness of your position within your father's seminal vesicle when the
race against time began. The timing and everything had to be perfect. If your mom
had made your dad wait until she had redone the nail polish on her toe nails you
never would have existed. Some other person would have been born.

Tight underwear lowers a man's sperm count. That's no joke. It's true. Sperm cells
can't endure much heat. The Lord made them that way for some reason, and He
therefore designed men's anatomy in such a way that the glands which produce sperm
are situated outside of the torso, in which it would have been too hot. But tight
underwear; e.g., briefs, carry these glands up too close to the body, where the extra
heat kills off some of the sperm cells.

How did you come into being? In high school your dad wore briefs. After high
school he joined the U.S. Army. His first day in boot camp, they made him send
home all the clothes he was wearing and issued him what they wanted him to wear
The new duds included cooler boxer shorts. He got used to wearing them. Not
long after getting out of the army, he was shopping at K-Mart and thought about
buying some briefs. But the job he had in those days didn't pay much, and an angel
of the Lord whispered in his ear [your army boxers are still good]. Your dad said:
"Naw, my army boxers are still good."

Besides, your dad had been a gung-ho soldier and had a little sentimental attachment
to those tan boxers with his service number printed next to the fly. Your mom
liked him in them, too.

Ten months later you came screaming and kicking into the delivery room, and your
dad was as proud as a black and tan hound barking at two 'possums up the same
tree.

It wasn't until ten years later that medical science discovered tight underwear lowers
a man's sperm count. The Lord had known it all along. Only the good Lord
knows all the circumstances and things that had to happen for your life to begin.
What all happened on that miraculous night when you were conceived? Whenever
there is a power blackout in big cities, doctor and nurses say: "Un-oh,", because
they know they'll be working overtime, nine months later, delivering babies by the
hundreds. Without electricity, everything closes up. Cinemas can't show movies.
Bowling alleys' pin setters can't set pins. Restaurants can't operate. Traffic lights
don't work. Everybody stays home. They can't watch TV. What do they do? You
know.

God only knows what all happened on that night. Your dad was driving home from
work. It was the coldest night of the year, -15EF. He stopped for gas. He hadn't
checked the air pressure in the tires for a couple of weeks, so he thought about doing
it right then. That would have taken two minutes. Too long. The one sperm cell
that took part in your conception would have been too old. A sperm cell which had
started the race .00003 inches behind you would have beaten you out. An angel
of the Lord whispered in your dad's inner ear [it's too cold out]. Your dad said:
"Naw, it's too cold out," and went on home. You almost didn't make it. It was a
close call, but you got another break. Boy, oh, boy, are you "lucky"!

After your mom unwittingly gave you another break by not redoing her toenails,
she and your dad fulfilled the marital act. Fifteen minutes after the act was
completed, your mom rolled over to one side to pick up a women's magazine off
the night stand. Whoosh! This action caused a principle of hydraulics to shift the
recently introduced fluid within her body to a new position. Oh, no! Now you're
too far back! Sorry about that, pal. Now you'll never exist.

On the other side of town your mom's parents are watching TV (the power came
back on) and laughing at Jackie Gleason on "I Love Lucy". An angel whispers in
your grandmother's ear [pick up the phone and call your sugar-doodle]. She tells
your grandpa: "I think I'll call sugar when the commercials come on." But the angel
whispers [No! Do not wait! Cal sugar now!] Grandma says: "No, I think I'll call sugar
now. For some reason I just feel like I should call her right now!"

The phone rings in your parents' bedroom. Now your mom has to roll the other
way to get the phone. When she does...whoosh!...the same principle of hydraulics
works in reverse, propelling you back into the forefront. A few hours later...bingo!
You're alive! You made it! YOU'RE ALIVE!! CONGRATULATIONS! Boy,
oh, boy, are you "lucky"! I've never seen anything like it! I've never seen anyone
like you in my whole cotton-picking LIFE!

What all had to happen in order for your life to begin? God only knows. However
many things had to happen in advance, their separate "probabilities" all had to be
multiplied times one another, not added, to find the unlikelihood of the end result ))
your life.
AxBxCxDxExF=G. What might the "mathematical odds" against you have been?
A hundred-trillion to one? A quadrillion to one? I'll tell you! They were a zillion to one.
Zillion: an indeterminately vast number.

But that's only math. No one could be that "lucky", mathematically. It wasn't luck.
It was a whole series of unfathomable miracles. So, we can forget about math,
because it had to be the Lord's hand that brought it about. Since He is Almighty,
the "odds" were an unavoidable one out of one. He chose you for a reason. Since
He always knew all things, He knew you and saw you long before that miraculous
night in which you were conceived. "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..." (Jer. 1:5, KJV)
Many years after your miraculous night, another baby was conceived in some
other mother's womb. That's right, it was only ten weeks ago. This child waited
thousands of years in the heart of God for his or her only chance to walk this
world's hills and valleys. When you consider the (seemingly) insurmountable obstacles
and the (mathematically) astronomical "odds" the good Lord helped this child
to overcome )) simply to be conceived )) the word "inconceivable" seems to take
on a whole new meaning.

Can you believe that tomorrow morning that mother is planning on carrying
her ten-week post conceptual baby to Planned "Parenthood" for an abortionist
to rip her baby's body into crude pieces? Can this really be happening? Can this
actually happen in the real world? What is this, the twilight zone or something?
Can this really be happening in America?...the land of the WHAT?!...the land of
the free and the home of the brave?! In a land where millions upon millions of
grown men go to church every Sunday and claim membership to the body of Christ?
God help us!

I'm sorry, dear friends, to have ended this miracle story on such a melancholy note.
Yet, would it be normal for true Christians not to grieve when our Lord grieves?
Would it be right for us not to feel the despair of the moment? Of this moment
pending the imminent, horrifying, and agonizing death of this child? Forgive us, O
Lord, for our lukewarmness and indifference! Help us to be better for Your holy
name's sake! In Jesus' name!

* * * *

A CLARIFICATION

In earlier columns TBR has dealt harshly with certain moderate prolifers. This was
only because of their attitudes and their words which degraded the babies, as if
these little ones were less worthy than born people. Not inconsistently, an earlier
issue of this column also emphasized that I have never looked down on any other
anti-abortion activists whose tactics are non forceful. If you save a baby's life from
a bloodthirsty war criminal that's all I care about. Given the enormity of the
injustice and the magnitude of the evil, there is no wrong way to save a baby from
this most heinous crime. So I have never held contempt toward any prolifers
except for their lukewarm attitudes toward the babies, and toward the babies'
suffering and the good Lord's consequent suffering.

So please forgive the redundancy, and let me reconcile these two positions
(the approval of those whose tactics are non forceful, yet the contempt for those who
speak cowardly words of compromise) one more time. This time I'll make the
distinction crystal clear, and never bother you with it again, and we can go on.
Let me offer a hypothetical example to make my point.

Here it is. If a man is actively opposing abortion, whether by picketing, sidewalk
counseling, or whatever, and if this same man has never exerted the use of force,
nor ever will, just let him tell me this...this will completely satisfy me...only let him
tell me this:

"John, I agree with you on the justification for the use of force, because the babies
are just as worthy of the same level of defense as any other people. And if there
were an organized viable force of men willing to fight for our country and defend our
land against the New World Order and against our domestic enemies I would
join that force of men right away. But I just don't have it in me to try to do it all
by myself. I just don't have what it takes to stand all alone, like Paul Hill, and commit
an act of war )) even a justifiable, defensive act of war )) against the policies of the
New World Order. If ever such an organization does form I will join it right
away, but right now there is no such organization. So, for now, I'll keep on saving
babies like this." (Sidewalk counseling or whatever.)

That's all I ask, the right attitude, a manly attitude, an attitude free of compromise.
That's all I ask! If only a man should make the above statement to me I promise
you I will show that man nothing but patience and gentleness...forever! I will never
call that man a coward. I will believe he is sincere and has all the courage I would
expect in a man. I will never call him stupid. I'd like to have that man for a close
friend, preferably live next door to him. I'd like to enjoy camaraderie with him every
day. And even if only 20% of the men in that man's church were as manly as he,
I'd be so happy and encouraged by that fact that I'd join that church immediately. I
wouldn't care what denomination it was, as long as they proclaimed christ the King.
At a time of such grave national crisis as this, denominational differences must
take a back seat to zealotry. Wherever other men show Christian zeal, that's where
I want to be found.

In real life there are still such Christian men as I have described above. But let me
emphasize that the above example has been offered only as a hypothesis to make
a distinction (in my attitude) between men engaged in non forceful tactics, who may
be very brave indeed; and those whose thoughts and words are cowardly. In
other words, I'm not trying to encourage anyone to actually come right out and say
such a thing to me. I wouldn't even want that )) especially if the speaker were
someone I had not known very well for a very long time. If a stranger were to say
such a thing (especially if he were to make an even bolder statement) I would feel
compelled to wonder if he might be an agent provocateur from the other side, the
devil's side, trying to entrap me. If you are a stranger to me and were to approach
me in that manner )) that would be the surest way of guaranteeing that I would
never enter into any high level intrigues with you, nor even discuss such things.

Once more: the hypothesis was offered only to make the philosophical point described.

* * *

A NOTE TO THE LADIES AMONG TBR'S READERS

Please do not feel excluded, as readers, by how obviously TBR includes exhortations
aimed particularly at men. For example, you would not have to make the
statement of the hypothetical man, described earlier, in order to satisfy me. If only
you will say: "It is right for men to have that kind of attitude," I'll be happy. If you
have read the early issues of TBR you are familiar with this column's assertion that
abortions, when committed openly and with "government" cooperation, constitute
war crimes. Thus, in a land where abortion rages openly, that and is already in a state
of war )) even if only one side (i.e., the devil's) is doing most (or all) of the waging.
Please understand that my male buddies and I are a bunch of old fuddy-duddies,
so we maintain the traditional gentlemanly position that women and children are
special, and it is for us men to defend women and children. If thinking normally
and correctly entails a position of fuddy-duddyhood, then so be it. We're
hardheaded and narrow-minded, and we're not going to change our minds.
That's a promise.

So we maintain that it is not for women to be thrust into a combat situation or to
otherwise be put in harm's way. Our attitude is biblical, too. That's why we believe
it. Wherever in the Bible the Lord sanctioned armed warfare, by His people against
wicked nations, He sent out only the men among His people to do the fighting.
Only rarely, extremely rarely, in very exceptional cases, does the Lord anoint a
woman to carry out an act of war. I can think of only one such case described in the
Bible (although other passages of scripture occasionally show women during wars
in supportive roles, not combat roles). That one case is found in the fourth chapter
of Judges where Heber's wife, Jael, drove a stake through the head of Sisera, the
enemy army's king. In these nineteen hundred years since the last book of the Bible
was written I know of only two cases in which women went into actual combat
apparently with the Lord's anointing. (But not being a highly knowledgeable historian,
there may be cases I'm unfamiliar with.)

Those tow cases are )) yes, you guessed them )) Joan of Arc and Shelley Shannon.
In the cases of both heroines, they lived in nations wherein the vast majority
of those nations' men (who claimed Christianity) were unwilling to trust God to
give them utter victory over the enemy occupation forces. So the men were eager to
compromise with the enemy instead of facing up to him. Yes, even during poor
Joan's era, there were men like Randall Terry, Keith Tucci, Flip Benham, and Patty
Mahoney. But there could not have been anyone like Terry Sullivan in those
days. Sullivan couldn't have lived in that era. Those people wouldn't have allowed it.
In any case, ladies, please don't think I've meant to ignore you, as readers. Although,
since abortion is a war crime which means that our nation has been in a state of
actual war since 1973, I place all of the blame for not having abolished this wickedness
at the feet of Christian men and especially at pastors' feet.

* * *

It could be that there are those folks who wonder why a forty-three year old
man named John would call himself Johnny. I'll tell you. I was named after John
Brockhoeft, my father. You very seldom saw Pa use the telephone. On those
unusual occasions, he'd dial the other party; and when they answered, he'd reply:
"Hello! This here's Johnny Brockhoeft!" We'd all laugh at that.

I'm only forty-three, but Pa kept referring to himself like that until he was sixty-eight.
Then he went home to be with the Lord. So I do it in memory of him; and if a
bunch of left-wingers want to scoff and laugh at me for it, I've got no problem with that.
That's it for this issue, folks. Thanks for reading it through. Till the next time I'm still...

Yours-In-Christ

Johnny

Personal mail:

John Brockhoeft
01886-017 D-House
PO Box 6001
Ashland KY 41105-6001 (John is now out, do not write him at this address)

Brockhoeft's Response to Sullivan's blasphemies

Several weeks ago Dave Leach, my editor at P&A, sent copies of Terry Sullivan's
latest poppycock and blasphemies to Shelley Shannon, Paul deParrie, and me to
review (and comment on) before the tripe was to be published in P&A. But I had
already read too much of Sullivan's mindless heresy.

I'm glad Dave published our good friend Paul's delightful response last month.

I'm glad Paul had the guts to be the first to say something I also intended to say.

Before pointing that thing out, I'd like to comment on two other things Paul said.

Paul started his commentary: "It has become obvious that Terry Sullivan can
out write both me and Dave Leach )) in volume at least." I doubt that's true, Paul.
It probably only seems that way because Sullivan doesn't waste any time
thinking while he's writing. If substance in writing required any deep thought
Sullivan wouldn't be able to complete a single sentence. I also appreciate your
reference to his "gigantic ego". I hoped I wasn't the only one to notice it.

But what I really appreciate is how Paul relieved me of the responsibility of being
the first one to point out to our friends: Sullivan is not a Christian. (P&A, October,
page 34)

I'm going to be harsher with Sullivan than Paul was. Our Lord and Savior,
Jesus Christ, said:

31 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him;
but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in
this age or in the age to come." (Matt 12 NKJV)

All down through the ages, Catholics and Protestants alike have held that both the
Old and New Testaments were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Exactly what
constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has long been a subject of debate.
Yet, if Terry Sullivan has not committed this offense how could anyone else be
charged with it? I have heard a fundamentalist doctrine that to take something
which is of the Holy Spirit and attribute that thing to the devil is blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit. That, obviously, would be the most clear-cut case, even if this unforgivable
sin has subtler variations.

Terry Sullivan has published assertions that the Bible's Old Testament contains
"Strange and wicked ordinances." He even claims that Jesus taught that Old
Testament Scripture "is in fact the word of man or even the word of the devil..."
Indeed, it is because of Sullivan's very blatancy that I dare to charge him with
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Not every reprobate is a blasphemer of the Holy Spirit, but every blasphemer of
the Holy Spirit is a reprobate.

Here's another thing Jesus says to people like Sullivan:

45 "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you ))
Moses, in whom you trust.
46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.
47 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My Words?"
(John 5, NKJV)

Moses wrote (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) only a small portion of the
Old Testament. Not surprisingly, it is Moses' writings which Sullivan is quickest to
call "strange and wicked" and to attribute to "man, or even the word of the devil."
Even the hypocrites whom Jesus was rebuking in the above reference were not
reviling Moses' Holy Spirit inspired words as demonically inspired or humanly inspired.
Yet, you can see that Jesus was saying anyone who does not believe Moses' writings
neither believes in our Savior's words.

Sullivan denies the divinity of Christ.

His contempt for Scripture is not limited to the Old Testament. He even questions
the validity of the four New Testament books most fundamental to Christianity:
the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. He claims to know that these
divinely inspired authors embellished their accounts with falsehoods. When it
was pointed out to Sullivan that John 2:15 shows Jesus using force by making a whip
of cords to drive the moneychangers and merchants out ot the temple, Sullivan
scoffed that the Gospel of John is the only of the four Gospels which includes this
detail )) as if that means there is only one chance in four it's true, or as if St. John
fabricated it.

Since Sullivan apparently calls into question the authority of virtually the entire
Bible, Dave and Paul both have asked him for the short list of those few verses of the
Bible he does believe. My question is: why does this cowardly hypocritical lunatic
even bother to continue pretending to himself that he believes in our Savior at all"
The most unregenerate Muslims and Jews "believe" in Jesus as much as Sullivan
does. They all claim Jesus was a "great prophet of God." The devil believes in Jesus
more devoutly than Terry Sullivan does. What good does Sullivan think his
scoffing tentative "belief" will do him on judgment day when he is called to
account for blaspheming the Holy Spirit, among other things?

The bottom line is: Sullivan doesn't believe in Jesus; i.e., the real Jesus. He doesn't
believe in the Jesus whom Moses wrote about. He doesn't believe in the Jesus of
the whole Bible. However much Sullivan may claim to "believe" in the 33 year
incarnate Jesus of the Gospels, Who came as the Lamb of God to impart mercy to
sinners, he certainly doesn't believe in the Jesus of the Old Testament or the
Jesus of the New Testament book of Revelation. Yet, this is one and the same Christ;
there is only one.

Since the Christ who is soon to come is a Warrior with a sword to smite the nations
(Rev. 19:11-15), the real Jesus must be repulsive to a cowardly unjust pacifist
such as Terry Sullivan. And, according to Rev. 21:8, cowardly men are repulsive to
our Lord and Savior:

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral,
sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire
and brimstone, which is the second death."

If you haven't read Sullivan's writings, don't "Go from the presence of a foolish
man, when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge." (Pro 14:7). Yet, if you
have already read his foolishness, look at how many of the other adjectives and
names in the Scripture quoted above can be used to describe him. For the sake of
brevity, I'll mention only one: idolater. Since Sullivan denies the divinity of the
real Jesus )) our Jesus )) the Jesus of the whole Bible, perhaps Sullivan does not
claim to worship Jesus at all? Yet, even if he does claim to worship Jesus, it
would be false Jesus of his own making. Sullivan has "created" an unreal "Jesus" in the
image he wants Him to be in. That doesn't work, pal. We have to worship God in
"spirit and in truth". We have to worship Him according to the way He really is,
not necessarily the way we want Him to be.

There are still heathen in the Far East who worship Buddha and Hindu idols.
Since these wretched souls' religions are totally unrelated and detached from the Lord
our God; therefore, at least, they are not blaspheming our God, since they have
no understanding of Him at all. Also, if someone reaches them with the Gospel of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and they hear the truth, they can repent and be saved!
So I assert that these heathens' ignorant idolatry is less repugnant than Sullivan's
blaspheming idolatry.

Jesus said that anyone who blasphemes the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven,
neither in this age nor the one to come. So, while I agree with Paul deParrie's
observation that Sullivan is not a Christian, I'll go one step further and say
I don't believe Sullivan is capable of ever becoming one. I believe it is possible for
individual Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., non-denominationals, etc., etc.,
to be saved. We Christians can disagree on some of the finer points of our faith and
still hope one another are saved. But it would seem Sullivan has gone too far.
He can't discern truth and likely never will be able to.

I maintain that, in order for these little babies to be mutilated to death, it requires
both the zealotry of abortionists and the lukewarmness of prolifers. Take away
either one of those things and the open slaughter of the preborn will stop. Along
those same lines, Joe Bartlett once wrote:

"For innocent people to be killed as a matter of governmental public policy
requires not only unjust aggression but unjust pacifism as well. Pacifism damns its
own self when it kills people through acquiescence. Then it is too stupid to
understand it has brought about its own damnation.

"Aggression stands there, with its hands and arms spattered with blood
and roars: 'These worthless people deserved to die!' And pacifism is standing nearby,
with its pretty shoes spattered with blood, and tells the world: 'See how nice I am?
See how virtuous I am?'" )) from "Dietrich and George and the Time
Machine", P&A, May/C/94

It's already hard enough for men to show courage during a time of war. We don't
need the dispiriting influence of Terry Sullivan's heresies. The first gullible young
man who comes along with a noble heart like Paul Hill's, and who Sullivan persuades
to conform to his own cowardice )) Sullivan will have on his hands the blood
of all those babies whom that man would have saved. God forbid that this might
already have happened.

For two reasons Terry Sullivan is more despicable than any abortionist who does not
claim to be a Christian. At least that abominable abortionist kills babies with
uncompromising zealotry, whereas Sullivan helps kill babies through his cowardly
compromising lukewarmness. And the abortionist who denies belief in Christ ))
as abominable as that abortionist is )) at least is not bringing disgrace to our
Savior's holy name. Terry Sullivan, through his false confession and blasphemy, is.