James 1:11-12 “For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways. Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.”
Many people do not realize that there is a fundamental disconnect between deep-time astrophysics and deep-time biology. This disconnect is known as the “Faint Sun Paradox”, first formulated in 1972 by astronomer and broadcaster Carl Sagan.
Single-celled life is supposed to have evolved in the Earth’s primordial oceans 4,000 million years ago. Water should have collected into oceans about 4,400 million years ago – 140 million years after the formation of the earth.
At that timescale, the Sun would still have been a young star, with only 70% of its energy output today. This would not provide enough heat to melt ice into water, so all the Earth’s water should have been frozen – meaning that single-celled life could not evolve in it.
Creationists see flaw after flaw with these evolutionary ideas. There is no mechanism for life to have evolved from non-living molecules in that primordial ocean. But it turns out that other evolutionary scientists don’t even have a model for the existence of water. So a fiddle factor would be something that could produce a greenhouse gas to warm the earth up. Canadian scientists are suggesting that bacteria obtained from Lake Kivu in DR Congo, which metabolize by producing iron oxides and methane, could be the key. Large iron ore deposits are offered as evidence. But the study fails to give a mechanism for where the methane went.
‘Beth Moore has announced she has left the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) although she is “still a Baptist.” Not sure if that means she now identifies with the churches of the New Testament that were totally independent—self-propagating, self-governing, and self-supporting.
Moore was shocked that so many SBC pastors supported Donald Trump and was highly critical of him (as was I) and saw only his grossness, not his greatness. She was seriously offended at the Billy Bush recording (as I was) where Trump boasted about grabbing women sexually.
Moore could not see the good that resulted from Trump’s policies—numerous babies saved from abortion, Blacks and Hispanics lifted out of poverty, religious freedoms protected, a strong economy that helped everyone, massive tax cuts, oppressive regulations removed, a wall built to keep out undesirable illegal aliens, etc.
Maybe Beth is blind in one eye and has a thick cataract on the other. Whatever, she does not see clearly.
Moore was also rightly concerned about 400 sex abuse charges in more than 20 years against SBC pastors. Of course, Moore knows that the convention does not license or ordain men; only a local church has that authority, so just a local church can pull credentials. While that is true, nothing keeps SBC leaders from putting accused pastors on probation until their churches look into the charges and resolve the issue. If not resolved, the SBC can remove offending churches from membership.
Moreover, a charge against a pastor does not equal guilt, contrary to mainline feminist leaders. We are told that we must believe any accusation made by a woman. Of course, that is insane. While every charge must be taken seriously, the allegation must be admitted or proved to be true. If a pastor is found guilty, he should be jailed. If a woman is proved to be a false accuser, she should be jailed. While sexual assault seriously impacts a woman’s life, personality, health, and the rest of her life, so does an assault on a man’s reputation affect his job, finances, his relationship with his wife and children, and his future.
I demand Equal Rights and Equal Responsibility, and Equal Accountability.
While I don’t ever want to be considered soft on pastoral sexual assault, it must be remembered that there are 47,000 SBC churches in the U.S. While one case of sexual assault is too many, 400 cases in 20 years out of 47,000 pastors (and almost that many associates) is comparable to the ratios in other denominations and non-church groups.
SBC critics speak of offending pastors (accused pastors) being moved to other locations when charges are made public; however, the SBC cannot move pastors to other places. To move to another church is a decision made by a local church and a potential pastor. That charge against the SBC is not legitimate.
One of Moore’s major supporters (who wanted to nominate her to be President of the SBC), Pastor Dwight McKissic recently left his state convention declaring, “We Are Getting Off the Bus,” meaning he has pulled his church out of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Moreover, he will pull his church out of the national SBC if he does not like how things go at their national convention.
He has a right to choose with whom to associate as a person and as a pastor.
The President of the SBC, J.D. Greear, said in a statement that he hoped the news of Moore’s departure would cause the denomination to “lament,” pray and “rededicate itself to its core values.” But the SBC, as an entity, left SBC “core values” a long time ago. It is now concerned with critical race theory, feminism, and all progressive issues that makes vice president what’s-her-name Harris stand up and cheer.
The SBC, if not dead, is dying; and the vultures flying over their corporate headquarters in Nashville are indicative of that. (For the metaphor-deficient readers, that is a symbolic comment since Nashville doesn’t have vultures—that fly.) Frankly, it is not a natural death, since the SBC is committing suicide.
I have dealt elsewhere with the convention’s divisive issues in which the denominational leaders have almost always made the progressive but wrong decision. The trend toward an extreme Calvinist position, education at the expense of evangelism, promoting social justice warriors, progressivism over tradition, and female leadership are the reasons crepe will hang on their corporate doors. They are doing it to themselves.
Those are the reasons Beth and others should have left the SBC convention. She made the right decision for the wrong reason.
While all the above hot issues are taking their toll, one of the most divisive is the role of women in the group and in local churches, of which Beth Moore is their main spokeswoman. Of course, that is a decision for a local church to make.
Leftist pastors in the SBC have promoted the possibility of Beth Moore being elected to be President of the SBC! Dwight McKissic, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, said, “If I thought Beth Moore would accept the nomination or be agreeable to being nominated,… I would nominate her for SBC president.”
He went on to say there was no Scripture to prohibit a female leader of the SBC since it is not a local church; however, there is the problem of having authority over men. He mentioned females who prophesied in the Bible, but that is not having authority over men. Moreover, to deny Beth or any woman a leadership position would be “sinful and shameful,” according to the good reverend.
Nevertheless, refusing Moore as president of the SBC would be Scriptural in my opinion.
Will the SBC make a break with its longstanding position of male leadership and thereby split the denomination? Probably so, and very soon. The SBC is complementarian. That is defined as “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” In opposition is egalitarianism, the unbiblical position that “men and women are equal in authority and responsibilities, including as pastors.”
A train wreck is about to happen.
As the late pastor Adrian Rogers wisely said, “As the West goes, so goes the world. As America goes, so goes the West. As Christianity goes, so goes America. As evangelicals go, so goes Christianity. As Southern Baptists go, so go evangelicals.”
If the SBC follows the path they are on and nominates any female, there will be a bloody battle on the convention floor resulting in the split heard around the world.
One must truly wonder if there are any conservative governments left in this world. Australia’s Federal government likes to spout that it is conservative but in reality it is not conservative in finances or culture. The Morrison government may not be as left as Labor is but it isn’t far behind. And when you consider the states that have Liberal governments it isn’t any better. The climate scam has taken over all the state governments as well as the Federal. I wrote to our state Federal member who is supposedly a conservative concerning the direction the Federal government was going in renewable stupidity and he wrote back saying the science is in. Well, anyway, here is Episode 3 of Spectator Australia TV and HOW SCOTT MORRISON IS FAILING AUSTRALIA IN 2021!
Psalm 139:13-14 “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”
‘“Babies in the womb” was the phrase used by one science article in place of the more usual, coldly inhuman fetuses. I approve of the phrase – because even the word fetus actually means “little one”.
The reason why we, as creationists are opposed to abortion and want to see it abolished is because it is the destruction of a human – a little human – made in the image of God. The psalmist says that God knit us together in our mother’s womb. These, and other biblical arguments pointing out the humanity of the unborn baby, show that the ending of the life of an unborn baby can only be described for what it is – the murder of a human being.
There are, therefore, many scientific indicators which also underscore these biblical foundations. It has been known for many years that unborn babies react to light. It had been thought that this simply meant that their incompletely formed eyes simply had light receptors, indicating “light on” or “light off”. A new study shows that the photo-receptors in second trimester babies are actually linked in much more subtle ways to other systems, such as the parts of the brain concerned with moods and emotions. In fact, babies can respond to the amount of light – not just the fact that light is present or not.
My wife and I will not take those China virus vaccine’s that use aborted (murdered) baby parts. Dr. Harnett speaks out on this and other important issues in this article so I have put the whole article here.
‘Someone asked me about my current relationship with Creation Ministries International (CMI) because he no longer saw any new articles written by me appearing on their platform (creation.com).
I explained that I no longer contribute articles or work with them. This situation came about through the organisation’s stance on fetal cells used in vaccines.
For a long time I felt that the leadership had an unacceptable element of biased editorial control. CMI says that they promote a biblical creation (not evolution) message and provide the opportunity for peer-review science publications that are free of the secular bias against such writings. But they have adopted certain corporate positions, which seems to fly in the face of free debate even within the biblical creation discussion space.
When some article is submitted that doesn’t fit their current corporate positions it will not be considered. Or if it is marginal it may be discussed in the Journal of Creation but the article would not be displayed on the website front page but in a journal index, and possibly later as a pdf, but not promoted.
Jason Lisle and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)
One of very important issues to the biblical creation community (distant starlight in a young vast universe) has been treated this way since 2001. We will just refer to it as the ASC model. You can find many articles on it on this website. Search “ASC model” or “conventionality thesis” in the search box.
I published many papers on the subject over at least 10 years ending in 2018 when I last published in the Journal of Creation. All my articles on the subject were ever only allowed in the Journal of Creation and never online (which is the much wider audience). See my post Can we see into the past? for an easy-to-understand Powerpoint presentation on the subject.
Jason Lisle originated the answer to the starlight-travel-time problem when he was still a graduate student. His paper was only accepted to be published in the Journal of Creation on this when he first proposed it in 2001 (under a pseudonym Newton, R., Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement, J. Creation 15(1):80–85, 2001 ) because I reviewed the paper and strongly supported its publication. This happened despite the fact that Jonathan Sarfati also reviewed it and rejected it. He didn’t/doesn’t like the idea and the only online web article on it on creation.com is written by Sarfati. He doesn’t understand it and used a strawman argument against it. No matter how much I and others have written on the subject it does not seem to have changed any views of the CMI editorial team.
I was told new ideas are canvassed and discussed in the Journal of Creation and later they may go on the web as they gain acceptance. But this never happened with the ASC model of Jason Lisle. Several of my Journal of Creation papers on it are now available as pdfs on the web but they were never promoted as holding a real answer. In my view, it is the only viable answer to the creationist starlight travel-time problem. I have written on why that is the case.
My own cosmological model, which I developed using Carmeli’s cosmology, has too many problems and I have since abandoned it. Even so it is still promoted as a viable model, even in their premier publication, see chapter 5 of the Creation Answers Book. But Jason Lisle’s model is not mentioned at all. That book may have been last reviewed 10 years after Lisle’s first article.
In January 2019 I wrote to the Australian CEO asking why their is no promotion of Lisle’s ASC model on their website, except one article by Sarfati unjustly critical of it, and why don’t any CMI speakers present it as a viable idea. It had been 18 years since the first publication about it and many other papers (by me) had followed but always only in the Journal of Creation. The CEO told me that he would get back to me on that. One year later I had not heard anything and wrote again in January 2020 asking the same question. Again he said he would find out and get back to me. But alas, crickets.
I have to conclude that CMI is not a free academic clearing house. They are as biased within their own set of decided positions as much as an evolution-promoting secular journal might be within its own position (i.e the evolution must always be represented as a fact). CMI is really a PR organisation not an academic institution open to free debate, even within the context of the biblical worldview.
Fetal cells in vaccines
I tolerated a lot of editorial control (one example explained above) until the issue of fetal cells in vaccines was added to their “vaccine position”.
You may not know but they kept their vaccine position paper non-searchable for many years and the link was only shared if someone asked. Probably because they thought it so divisive that they could lose people over it.
In May 2020 I read a Jonathan Sarfati authored vaccine letter (Vaccines and Abortion, 2012) online at creation.com, which discussed the use of fetal cells as acceptable in making vaccines. I don’t know why I had not noticed that earlier. The acceptance of the practice really flawed me and I could not sleep that whole night. I just couldn’t get the idea out of my head.
Dr Sarfati wrote another article on vaccines in June 2020 and included the same argument. He compared it to organ donations. He wrote: “Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way?” I could see so many problems with that comparison.
So I researched and wrote an article titled “Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified“. I sent my paper to the Australian CEO at the Australian CMI office and asked for comment and possibly consideration for publication. After about 3 weeks I had heard nothing. When pressed weeks later on it the CEO said he would respond point by point but he never did. No one at CMI ever responded to me on the issues I raised in that paper. I did have a private email discussion with the former CEO on the issue of the supply of fetal cell lines running low as the reason why new cell lines are needed and that the Chinese in 2015 developed a new cell line. But otherwise no one addressed my points made in the paper.
As a result I published it on my own blog site 1 June 2020. The reason the issue caused me to lose a lot of sleep is because I could not understand a Christian movement condoning use of murdered baby parts for any purpose, vaccine or medicine development. Possibly CMI would also apply their same reasoning to all the recombinant DNA drugs in development (>80) using aborted baby parts under the label of “life saving”. I don’t know.
The world cannot be trusted
It would seem that the editors of CMI publications have bought into the illusion of the global elites’ veracity and trustworthiness. That is, even though we live in a sin-cursed world with the heart of man desperately wicked, they trust in the establishment pronouncements.
They make the point that they are not anti-establishment per se. I agree, we should not be. But when the evidence piles up on the dangers of vaccines, some from the mainstream media but mostly from alternative news sites, due to the massive censorship, we should be more circumspect. We should look “under the hood” and see who is making the medical agents and question their motives.
In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.
In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)
“People take for granted what they see published,” John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. “But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own.”
While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.
Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.
There was the now famous paper, on a study involving 96 ,032 hospitalised patients and 81,114 controls, alleging to disprove the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective treatment for COVID-19 disease, published May 2020 in the number one medical journal TheLancet. It turned out to be completely fabricated, a total fraud. It is now retracted. There was never any such study ever done.
You might ask, how could the world’s leading medical journal with stringent peer-review not reject such a fraud? How could the Editors approve the fraud? Just look at the journal’s strong links to Big Pharma. Much of its financial support comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the journal editorial team have links via research to Big Pharma. This is a big concern for objective independence. See here for much more on the conflicts of interest and corruption in the medical industrial complex.
I wrote an article a few years ago (2015) that discussed some medical errors of the past and highlighted a new flu vaccine that was given to children in Australia making many very sick. This came about because the company rushed the safety trials to get it to market. See Science the new religion. My paper was more about not trusting too much in the science or those who use the science for financial gain. But CMI would not publish it. It was not part of the controlled narrative that suggests that at least some vaccines are dangerous.
Where I make my stand
My position is to stand against everything that is biblically and ethically wrong. It does not matter what the consequences. There can be no pragmatic view in the realm of abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, and that is what these experimental COVID mRNA injections involve. We must stand only on the Word of God and biblical morality.
But Sarfati of CMI has said that there is no mention of vaccines in the Bible. That is true. Yet we are told that eating the flesh of humans is an abomination to God (Ezekiel 5:7-11, Leviticus 26:27-30, Lamentations 2:16-21, Deuteronomy 28:52-57 are a few references). Injecting another humans cell fragments or DNA seems to be pretty close to cannibalism to me.
Acceptance of fetal cells in vaccines could easily lead to accepting cloned human flesh as a food source. See Salami made from human flesh of famous Hollywood actors. Produced by BiteLabs, who have to be a bunch of the mentally insane. No humans are deliberately killed to make that cloned meat either. Isn’t that also an abomination to God. It certainly is preparing people to accept human flesh, even if lab grown, as normal. What’s next? Soylent green?
This is nothing short of demonic practice. Vampirism! The so-called civilised Western countries have been aborting their unborn children at unprecedented rates. 1.4 million per year in the US and at least 100,000 per year in Australia. And now they are passing laws to murder them right up to full term. Even passing laws to not medical assist the child if born alive in a botched abortion. How heartless and how demon inspired the once Christian West has become.
Satanists also are giving instructions to mothers on the satanic chant to make as they are aborting their babies in the abortion clinics.
CMI claims only a few babies were aborted to make the cell lines used for vaccine development. That is quite disingenuous. Depending on the vaccine, dozens of murdered babies were used.
In 1962 the Wistar Institute, developed their cell line WI-38 from the 32nd abortion in their development process. That abortion was performed in Sweden and shipped to Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. They used lung tissue from the 3 months gestation, Caucasian female baby.
The attenuated rubella virus, clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant), was cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. Isolated by Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And 40 more elective abortions were used for rubella virus isolation by T.H. Chang (67 in total).
Therefore 67 abortions were required to produce rubella virus plus an additional 32 abortions to produce the cell line for cultivation which means there was a total of at least 99 elective abortions to create the rubella vaccine alone. The cell line was used also in development of MMR vaccines. See here for more details on other fetal cell lines.
Stanley Plotkin is probably the most famous developer of vaccines; pioneer and father of many vaccines, which used murdered baby parts. Watch this short 2-minute video segment recorded in 2018, where Plotkin is unrepentant and admits he is happy to go to hell for his deeds. The full 9-hour deposition is available on Bitchute.com
There are other arguments here also relating to the environment of using baby parts for any medical experimentation or drug development which most countries now are doing. The sale of fetal parts by Planned Parenthood is a prime example. Where does it end?
I do not believe the American people really put Sleepy Joe in the WH but that’s my opinion. But, whether they did or not Sleepy is there and that means the warmongers are ‘…back in control. Joe Biden has been in the White House for less than two months, and the warmongers that Biden has surrounded himself with have been feverishly setting the stage for the next war in the Middle East. I do not believe that it will start within the next week, but I do believe that it is inevitable. While President Trump was in the White House for four years, the U.S. didn’t start any new conflicts, but now the Biden administration is quite determined to start projecting “American influence” all over the globe once again. Most Americans don’t understand the bigger picture, but the truth is that this is going to have very serious implications over the next few years.’ For the entire article go to http://endoftheamericandream.com/9-signs-that-chess-pieces-are-being-moved-into-place-for-a-major-war-in-the-middle-east/
whatyareckon 