Abortion is MURDER and ‘Since March 2020, over 70,000 women in England and Wales have undergone DIY home abortion.
Abortion pills are being sent to women by abortion providers after calls as short as 30 minutes, without any face to face assessment, identity checks or ultra sound scans to see how far into the pregnancy the women are.
The abortion industry claims these new measures are “safe, ethical and effective” however the evidence suggests the total opposite.
Care for Women is a partnership of UK pro-life groups seeking to compassionately expose and detail the true impact these pills are having on women’s health and society at large through stories, data gathering and discussion.
We share a deep concern, not just for the unborn babies killed by these pills, but for the women taking them, without any in-person medical supervision, often totally alone. We care for women.‘https://www.careforwomen.co.uk/
Here’s a little background. It was ‘In March 2020, just before the first national lockdown began, a notice appeared on the government website, which appeared to allow women to conduct their own medical abortions at home.
Outcry followed and the notice was removed, the government confessing that it had been ‘published in error’. Any visitors to the website were reassured that there would “be no changes to abortion regulations.”
Back in Parliament, Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, assured the House of Commons that “We have no proposals to change any abortion rules as part of the covid-19 response.” And Health Minister Lord Bethell told the House of Lords, “we do not agree that women should be able to take both treatments for medical abortion at home. We believe that it is an essential safeguard that a woman attends a clinic, to ensure that she has an opportunity to be seen alone and to ensure that there are no issues.”
Yet, just days later, the government made an extraordinary U-turn, amending abortion regulations to allow women to abort their child at home.
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?
New Zealand is, in my opinion, owned lock stock and barrel by the CCP. Now, ‘Over the course of the past 12 months, New Zealand has been through a number of enforced lockdowns due to COVID-19. Despite these setbacks, our government’s response to the disease has been internationally lauded as an example of how to effectively manage a pandemic.
Some countries—initially, at least—placed their economies ahead of health outcomes. New Zealand, however, chose a different path. From the beginning, the government aimed to eliminate community transmission of the virus. The focus was on saving human life, without regard for age or underlying health conditions, despite the inevitable cost.
From a biblical perspective, this emphasis on the value of life is to be commended. We are all made in the image of God, despite living in a fallen world. As such, we should do everything in our power to extend the life and minimize the suffering of our fellow human beings.
It makes very little sense, however, if atheistic evolution is true. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is supposed to be the key to evolutionary progress. Why, then, should we care about prolonging the life of those least likely to survive a virus? Particularly when the most susceptible are well past their reproductive use-by date.
Sadly, this same valuing of human life does not extend to the most vulnerable in our society. As New Zealand enacted the government’s lifesaving COVID-19 strategy, our parliament passed the Abortion Legislation Act 2020.
The law change was aimed at removing abortion from the Crimes Act. This was to reflect the (sad) reality of abortion in this country. However, the pro-abortion lobby seized the opportunity to implement one of the most extreme pieces of abortion legislation in the world.
Abortion is now available up to birth on demand for any reason. (After 20 weeks, the abortion must be ‘clinically appropriate in the circumstances’. Experience with the previous legislation tells us that this will, in most cases, be a foregone conclusion.4)
There is now no legal age limit on seeking or having an abortion. Parental notification is not required for minors. Sex-selective abortions are legal (an amendment to ban sex-selective abortions was voted down by members of parliament). The 20-week limit for disability-selective abortions has been scrapped. And babies born alive after a ‘failed’ abortion do not have to be given medical support.
Medical practitioners who object to abortion do not have to assist in the procedure. But they are required by law to provide information on how to contact the nearest provider.
This contradiction in valuing human life is hard to comprehend. It is also impossible to reconcile with evolution. If those with the highest reproductive rate are more likely to contribute to evolutionary progress, as evolutionists would have us believe, why would otherwise healthy individuals choose to abort their offspring?
Most abortions in New Zealand are performed because our society has deemed unwanted pregnancy to be an inconvenience that can be ‘solved’ by medical intervention. This stands in stark contrast to the biblical understanding of life.’
‘So how, might you ask, does this relate to cows? Let me explain.
New Zealand is also held up internationally as a model for the efficient production of dairy products. We are the world’s largest exporter, accounting for over 20% of the dairy export trade. This is more than twice as much as our nearest competitor.6
To produce milk, cows must have calves. For maximum efficiency, it is preferable that the cows all calve at the same time. As such, late calving cows can be ‘inconvenient’ for the farmer. One way to solve this problem is to induce the cow, which results in calves either born dead, or requiring euthanasia because they are not viable.7
I have personally sought to speak to several Australian Federal Parliamentarians about the abortion issue with no success. However, a Queensland senator says “I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’ The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.” – George Christensen
Most Australians are unaware that hundreds of documented cases exist of babies being born alive after botched abortions and then left to die.
Federal and state guidelines say no treatment is required. Just let them die.
Courageous and compassionate state parliamentarians Nick Goiran of Western Australia and Dr Mark Robinson of Queensland, both Liberals, have been shining light on this practice for years.
Sadly, their parliamentary colleagues and the media avert their eyes.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate one is on, only those with the hardest of hearts don’t find the practice heart-wrenching and tragic.
I believe that if most Australians knew the truth about abortion and the harm it inflicts on mothers, they would demand reform.
It is a practice fiercely protected by our cultural and media elites; and by men, whose convenience is the primary beneficiary. Alternative views on abortion are mostly suppressed in the public discourse.
Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen, read of this while preparing to speak at the Brisbane launch of the book last July.
He promised that night he would push for law reform and this week he delivered, releasing the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021. You can read the bill here.
He also released research from the Parliamentary Library which independently validates the figures Gioran and Robinson have been quoting for years as well as providing new statistics from Victoria.
In WA, 27 babies had been born alive and left to die between 1999 and 2016.
In the 10 years to 2015, 204 Queensland babies died this way while 33 in Victorian perished after botched abortions between 2012 and 2016.
Christensen’s bill requires medical practitioners to treat a baby surviving abortion the same way they would any other patient. Who would oppose this?
Currently the federal government’s advice to a doctor or nurse encountering a baby born alive after abortion is to “not offer treatment”.
I wonder if Scott Morrison is aware of this.
Christensen appeals to provisions in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Both support the right to life. Both have been signed by Australia. But when it comes to the human rights of our most vulnerable citizens, we have chosen to look away.
In a media release issued yesterday and ignored by the mainstream media, Christensen says:
“I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’
“The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.
“As one state agency (South Australia) so brutally puts it: ‘the baby … is wrapped in a blanket and the mother is given the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies’.
“This issue has been on my heart and mind for a long time.
“Now that I have more information on the number of children we are talking about, though those figures understate the problem, I must act.”
Christensen’s bill points out that Australia is in breach of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“I have provided the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Act 2021 bill to the Prime Minister and other key ministers, seeking their support on adopting this bill, or allowing a conscience vote on it,” Christensen said.
“The bill makes it an offence not to provide life-saving treatment punishable with penalties of higher than $400,000 for health practitioners and higher for corporations.
“It also could see health practitioners who breach the law deregistered in Australia.
‘A lawyer was in the audience, so I asked him what a testimony was supposed to be. “The truth” he quickly replied! That by the way, is why lawyers are paid to probe, investigate, test and challenge any testimony in legal proceedings. They are looking for false testimonies.
However, it is just one testimony that concerns us today. A true testimony which many academics, scientists, church leaders and pew sitters sadly dismiss. It’s been labelled a testimony right from its origin. Not the testimony of man but of the Creator God. Remember the Ten Commandments? The record reports “God gave Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God”. (Exodus 31:18) After the affair of the golden calf Moses smashed the first set of the tablets in anger. God then told Moses “Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.” (Exodus 34:1) After Moses spent a second time with God on the mountain, he came down the mountain “with the two tablets of the testimony”. (Exodus 34:29)
Nowhere does the Bible treat the Ten Commandments as anything but the actual Word or Testimony of the Lord, e.g. at the giving of the first set we read “God spoke all these words”. (Exodus 20:11) In his address to the people of Israel recorded in Deuteronomy, Moses reminded them: “And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly.” (Deuteronomy 9:10)
As our lawyer friend addresses, if any part of a written or spoken testimony is not true, it is invalid. Including in this case the witness rule in the courts … ’you shall not bear false testimony’. (Ex 20:16) Note well that the Creator Christ testified in the commandments He made the world in six days. So all of those leaders of academia, theology or politics who dismiss the six days, actually have moved to dismiss all God’s commandments. No wonder they move on to legislate the mass murder of infants, block Gender Menders, promote BLM destruction, push climate lies and cash in on Covid-10 controls. Note well – you will all give eternal account to the One who is truth, for He cannot lie. He did make the heavens and the earth in just six days and His moral authority is based on that. You portray Christ any other way and you will be held accountable for calling him a liar – someone who gave false testimony, while taking the moral high ground in labelling false testimony a grievous sin.
Moses’ successor Joshua challenged the people to “… fear the Lord and serve him …. ‘choose this day whom you will serve’ … the gods of this world or the real God … But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:14-15)’
Kent Brandenburg writes and I agree ‘My Christianity isn’t tethered to what other people are doing or have done. Christianity is the truth. If I were one of eight remaining believers on earth, it would still be true. I don’t doubt it when people don’t live it. I feel sorry for them, but they haven’t affected what I think about Christianity itself. My Christianity is tethered to the Bible, God’s Word.
I’m writing about this, because of an article in Newsweek that came out on Tuesday this week, written by Issac Bailey, “I’m Struggling with My Christianity After Trump.” Something with that title in a major publication would be a head scratcher, except that most “Christianity” today and probably for most of history isn’t and hasn’t been actual Christianity. No one should be surprised about counterfeit Christianity. Bailey says he got his doubts about Christianity itself from the reality that professing Christians voted for Trump. I’ve heard other people say this.
According to scripture, anyone who leaves actual Christianity was never saved in the first place. Nowhere says a true Christian can lose his salvation. He can’t leave it, because he’s kept by the power of God (1 Peter 1:5). A believer cooperates with what God does in saving him, but it is God who keeps him saved. Scripture is clear on this. Many passages teach the eternal security of a believer, but two verses are definitive on the point that, if a professing believer defects, he was never saved in the first place: first, 1 John 2:19.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Second, 1 John 3:6.
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
Read both verses. The first one says that when someone does not continue, he never had salvation in the first place, that is, he was “not of us,” said twice in the verse. If he was “of us,” he would “no doubt have continued with us.” No doubt. The second verse says that a person who sins as a lifestyle, as seen in the present tense, “sinneth,” “hath not seen him, neither known him,” that is, a person who takes on a lifestyle of sin never saw or knew Christ in the first place. A true Christian can’t walk away from Christ. As Jesus said in John 10:28-29, no man, including himself, can pluck a true believer out of either Jesus’ or His Father’s hand.
If you read the Bailey article, you can see he doesn’t have biblical Christianity. I’m not saying that to be unnecessarily offensive or condemnatory. People call themselves Christians, who are not, because there are many various forms of popular “Christianity” in the world. That could be a whole separate article, all the different types, that aren’t Christianity. They are fraudulent perversions of the real thing. There is more false Christianity by far than there is true Christianity.
Most Christian denominations don’t even preach a true gospel. You should know that. They are preaching a false gospel. Most professing Christians to whom I talk don’t even know the gospel. I repeat, they don’t know it. Churches are not clear on the gospel. Even the ones who might believe a true gospel are more concerned about having a bigger congregation and so they do more to pander to people than tell them what they need to hear. There has been a cumulative and comprehensive erosion of the gospel in the United States for awhile and for a number of reasons.
In the first paragraph, Bailey says his “faith is in tatters.” Before I provide an assessment of what he says in his article, I have an opinion about what he’s doing. I don’t think he’s going to leave his spurious version of Christianity. He’s threatening to leave it like a child threatens to hold his breath until he dies if his parents don’t give him what he wants. True Christians are concerned that their testimony could result in defections from the faith. Jesus said at the beginning of Matthew 18 that it would be better to put a millstone around your neck and jump into deep water than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Bailey is saying that Christians are sending him into apostasy because of their vote for Trump. This is meant to strike fear into Christians, so that they at the least become non-political or disengaged from political action. Bailey will keep supporting actual murderers greater than any holocaust in the history of the world, the same people who booed God at their party convention, but a vote for Trump will send him off the deep end. He’s already off the deep end. His party is the party against divine design of the family, which is the most rudimentary and rebellious form of opposition to God in existence.
The people Bailey addresses specifically are the pro-life supporting Christians, implying that there are non-pro-life Christians. You can be a Christian, a true one, and not be pro-life. There is only pro-life Christianity. Everything else is an impostor. Sure, it might take a new Christian some time to get up to speed on this point, but he will get there, because he is indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, if he is really saved.
Many of the Trump voters, who claim to be Christians, are not. They do have a different Jesus. That includes some, if not all, of the people in the picture posted in Bailey’s article. As a matter of religious or theological comparison though, these pseudo Christians have a lot in common with the type of Christianity Bailey represents. They both have a novel fabrication or improvisation of Christianity, that is very loose with scripture. They put more authority in their own experience than the Bible, relying more on allegorization than exegesis.
For all of Trump’s many flaws, in a political way he represented to a lot of Americans and most true Christians, a last opportunity to save the federal government from a trajectory of progressive, oligarchical totalitarianism and globalism. Of course, that’s just a conspiracy theory, wink wink. There is no new world order planned for the future of the United States with no borders and the eradication of Americanism. Christians would like to keep their freedoms, freedom of religion and of speech. They would like to stop the present course of the elimination the nuclear family, something basic like a father and mother of opposite sex with the authority to raise their own children. The support of vouchers for education is about the freedom to educate their children in Christian values away from the humanistic, pseudo-science of gender fluidity.
It is not accident that today you hear the left use words like “cult” and “worship” as it relates to Trump. I’m sure they’re seen as effective propaganda. No Christian wants to be seen or known for being in a cult or worshiping a man. Bailey among many others uses this terminology. I don’t know anyone who follows Trump, let alone worships him. I understood why Christians would attend the rally on January 6. I know some people who were there and none of them knew anything about breaking into the capitol building to stop the counting of the electoral votes. I’ve explained this in previous posts, but they see both their voice and their vote being taken away. It’s obvious to them that a two tiered justice system already exists, where a true Christian can be prosecuted for not baking a cake for a same sex wedding and yet left wing anarchists can take over a large area of an American city without opposition. The mainstream of the media applauds it, likes it, has no problem with a Trump voter bleeding in the street.
Much of what Bailey wrote just isn’t true and other parts are misrepresentations, slanted in a dishonest way. He might just be deceived, but I believe he knows what he’s doing.
True Christians don’t pray to Jesus. They pray to God the Father like Jesus taught.
The group filmed “praying” in the front of the Senate chamber, it’s obvious, don’t represent biblical Christianity.
True Christianity isn’t white or black, as in “white church” or “black church,” as Bailey represents it.
All the things that Franklin Graham said about Trump are true. Graham doesn’t represent biblical Christianity, but I understand why a Christian would appreciate the list of accomplishments he mentions.
Bailey argues that Trump was not pro-life, because Trump oversaw a 200% increase in civilian deaths in Syria and Iraq in his first year. That is a very specific statistic that does not relate to the issue of being “pro-life” as defined. Pro-life means that you’re against murdering unborn children. How many civilians would die if ISIS continued on unfettered? That’s more difficult to measure, but that is why a very narrow, cherry-picked statistic was necessary for an opening statement. Trump oversaw a quick dismantling of ISIS his first year and then evacuation so that less future death would occur. Consider the following statistical chart of civilian deaths in the Iraq War between 2003 and 2021: Look at the Trump years, 2017-2020, compared to the previous ones. This belies what Bailey writes, his assuming, it seems, that no one would fact check him, if it even mattered. Despite Bailey’s twisting of the meaning of pro-life, nevertheless, more civilians were killed in Iraq in 2014 during the Obama presidency than during the entire four years of the Trump presidency.
Bailey blames Trump for the murders at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. No president has been more pro-Israel than Trump. Israel says this. There were fourteen mass shootings during the Obama years. It’s sheer political opportunism to blame mass shootings on a president. Was Trump also to blame for the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at a country western concert? Those were mainly Trump deplorables getting gunned down.
Another argument Bailey makes is that abortion rates go down during Democratic presidencies, because of government programs. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were higher unintended pregnancies when Democrats are president, because of greater support for contraception, most of which is abortifacient. Those aren’t called murders, but they are. Since 1965 over 11 million have been murdered by abortifacients, that don’t show up as abortions. That would be a good explanation for lower abortion rates too.
Pro-life people, of course, want to end all abortion, so the rate would decrease to nothing if they had their way. Instead, with the support of Bailey, almost 70 million have been murdered in the United States, which would be enough to cause a Christian to defect, except that’s impossible for a true Christian. True Christians are happy about slowing down the abortion rate. They don’t, however, support contraception as a way of getting there. A true Christian opposes fornication and all sexual sin that results in an unintended pregnancy. For a biblical Christian, an unintended pregnancy is by definition one outside of marriage. If Bailey is a Christian, he should support the biblical position, which is abstinence. That would also end the AIDS epidemic.
Insurrection occurred all summer with BLM and Antifa, doing far more damage and causing far more death than the capitol “riot.” Is that justified to Bailey, because he agrees with socialism and actual fascism? When you see the picture of unarmed crazies in costumes, a truly thinking person doesn’t see the comparison. One of the five “killed,” used as a statistic by the left, was an unarmed woman, who threatened no one with violence. Where is the outcry? Three Trump supporters died of natural causes. The one police death has hardly been covered. What happened there? Why isn’t there more coverage of his death? Not his funeral, not the way he’s been used politically, but what actually happened to him?
Bailey says that 60% of white Catholic voters voted for Trump, implying that Catholics are Christian. He lumps them with evangelicals who supported Trump. This is the most tell-tale evidence that he doesn’t understand biblical Christianity. He is pro-abortion. He is against the death penalty for murder. If you are a Christian, you support what God supports. You believe the Bible. Bailey does not.
The crucial aspect for a lasting faith, which is actually a saving faith, is the object of that faith. My faith doesn’t stand in men. The object of faith is Jesus Christ Himself, and He never fails. I believe the Bible. My faith comes by the Word of God. 1 John 5:4-5 say:
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
One reason true Christians won’t be swayed by what occurs in this world is because they aren’t living for this world. They are living for the next world, the kingdom of Jesus Christ and the eternal state. This reminds me of the hymn, My Faith Has Found a Resting Place, by E. E. Hewitt:My faith has found a resting place, Not in device nor creed;I trust the Ever-living One, His wounds for me shall plead. I need no other argument, I need no other plea;It is enough that Jesus died, And that He died for me.Enough for me that Jesus saves, This ends my fear and doubt;A sinful soul I come to Him, He’ll never cast me out.My heart is leaning on the Word, The written Word of God,Salvation by my Savior’s name, Salvation through His blood.My great Physician heals the sick, The lost He came to save;For me His precious blood He shed, For me His life He gave.’ https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/02/10/questioning-christianity-because-of-what-one-sees-occurring-in-the-world-or-from-people-who-call-themselves-christians/
‘As Big Tech continues its efforts to censor conservative voices, YouTube has banned the website LifeSiteNews from its popular video-sharing platform and removed all of its pro-life videos.
LifeSiteNews reported the move by YouTube Wednesday on their website, revealing they lost access to more than 300,000 followers of their channel.
“YouTube just completely removed the LifeSiteNews YouTube channel. This isn’t a temporary ban; every single one of our videos is completely gone,” the website’s staff wrote. “Thankfully, we have backups of all our videos, but this means hundreds of thousands of people have lost access to our truth-telling content.”
whatyareckon 