Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
‘Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam wants abortion on demand to be enshrined in the Virginia Constitution.
Now, Northam wants the state General Assembly to approve a constitutional amendment that would guarantee a “right” to abortion, One News Now reports.
Olivia Turner, leader of the Virginia Society for Human Life, warned that the amendment would allow partial-birth abortions again and end a parental consent law that ensures parents are involved before an underage girl aborts her unborn baby.
“The odds are very high that unless there is a huge outcry from the general public, the constitutional amendment to the Virginia Constitution allowing a right to abortion could, in fact, pass,” she told the conservative news outlet. “We don’t have the votes to stop it in the House of Delegates, and it’s questionable whether we’d be able to stop it at the Senate level.”
To be added to the Virginia Constitution, the legislature must approve the amendment in two consecutive sessions and voters must approve it on the ballot.
Right now it may look like Northam and the other baby murderers are getting by BUT there is a Day of reckoning when they will stand before the Judge of all the earth!
Psalm 104:25 “So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.”
‘Some of the strangest creatures you can possibly imagine live around undersea hydrothermal vents known as “smokers” that spew out volcanically heated water and minerals. One of the most unusual creatures is an armor-plated snail that never needs to eat!
The as-yet-unnamed snail was discovered in the Indian Ocean. The sides of the snail’s foot have overlapping scales. Like the rest of the shell, these scales are coated in iron sulfide. This coating is the result of bacteria that, it is thought, deposit the iron sulfide on all outer shell surfaces. Most mollusks have a gland in their esophagus that contain symbiotic bacteria. These bacteria turn sulfides in the water passing through the snail’s gills into nutrition for the snail. However, in all mollusks known until the discovery of this snail, the mollusks must still eat to have enough nutrition to live. This newly discovered snail has a gland that is 100 times larger than any other snail. It provides the snail with all the nutrition it needs, so it never needs to eat.
The West is digging its own grave. ‘In Monday’s ruling inserting “gender identity” into the word “sex” in a 1964 employment law, the U.S. Supreme Court called a man a woman, possibly leading to eventually forcing everyone else to do so also. The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require. All this in the name of “equality,” a word that has become a totalitarian weapon.
How long will Western Civilization last as we know it?
The 6-3 majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump. These presidents promised voters their justices would uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, and were elected in significant part based on these now-broken promises.
This decision is a disgrace to these bedrocks of Western civilization, our nation built upon them, the voters who vote for them, and to these men’s honor. President Trump ran promising judges who wouldn’t murder America, and Gorsuch just gave him and everyone who voted for him a giant middle finger. The court’s newfound weakness will also be exploited and explored by leftist legal agitators whose goal is the destruction of the American system.
“There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation,” writes Justice Samuel Alito in a dissent Justice Clarence Thomas joined. “…A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”
Open ‘Sex,’ Insert Queer Theory
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. Alito torches this argument in numerous ways. Here’s just one:
At oral argument, the attorney representing the employees, a prominent professor of constitutional law, was asked if there would be discrimination because of sex if an employer with a blanket policy against hiring gays, lesbians, and transgender individuals implemented that policy without knowing the biological sex of any job applicants. Her candid answer was that this would ‘not’ be sex discrimination. And she was right.
“Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result… [But] [w]hen the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest,” Gorsuch asininely claims: You simply rewrite the “express terms of the statute” as a majority of justices please, just as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, and reason your way backwards into a politically predetermined conclusion no matter the meanings of the words Congress thought they were writing into law. “Sex” therefore transforms into “sexual orientation and gender identity,” concepts unknown when the 1964 law was passed.
“The precedents set here will have major implications… This will mean that legislators actually won’t know what they are voting to pass—because words might change cultural meaning dramatically between the time of passage and some future court case,” writes Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Courts are not supposed to legislate because citizens cannot consent to legislation imposed by courts, and have no direct means for altering Supreme Court decisions like we can alter laws through our elected representatives. When courts legislate, they disenfranchise the people. They invalidate our votes, our God-given natural right to rule ourselves. By adding words to statute that Congress did not put there, and has repeatedly and explicitly refused to add, these judges are destroying our Constitution, our way of life, the people’s sovereignty, and thus our human dignity.
Making War on Real Rights With Fake Ones
This is a salient example of what Christopher Caldwell calls the United States’ second constitution, which is at war with its first: the identity politics laws and regulations passed largely since the 1960s in the name of “antidiscrimination.”
“Just as assuming that two parallel lines can meet overturns the whole of Euclidean geometry, eliminating freedom of association from the U.S. Constitution changed everything,” Caldwell writes in “Age of Entitlement.” At the time, it wasn’t obvious how “extra rights” could destroy natural rights. But it is now.
As Alito notes, the Supreme Court’s addition of “gender identity” to protected employment classes may cause lawsuits claiming “that the failure to use [transgender people’s] preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination. The Court’s decision may also pressure employers to suppress any statements by employees expressing disapproval of same-sex relationships and sex reassignment procedures.”
In other words, “antidiscrimination” and free speech cannot coexist. Neither can legal identity privileges coexist with freedom of association: “if a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment. Yet today’s decision may lead to Title VII claims by such teachers and applicants for employment,” writes Alito.
Given all that has happened after Obergefell v. Hodges, which we were vociferously told was ridiculous to forecast — transgenderism immediately going mainstream, pushing religion inside the closet LGBT people were vacating, limiting people’s ability to freely express their faith and ideas, forcing education institutions to promote LGBT politics and behavior — it’s naive to think such scenarios will not quickly become reality as a result of this court decision.
Get Ready for Years of Legal Battles
This decision also cements public schools’ status as social enforcers and subsidizers of far-left politics, as they can have no potential legal defense against a teacher switching genders in front of students, putting boys in girls’ locker rooms and sports, or teaching preschoolers that Heather can have two or even three mommies. Queer theory is now reigning U.S. employment law. This means it must also dominate all institutions of higher education that are not explicitly religious, both public and private.
Religious schools and homeschooling now offer the only potential safe haven to parents who don’t want their children indoctrinated to believe it’s awesome to amputate healthy penises and breasts. Even those options are under threat, and it will take oodles of litigation to work out the details.
Rod Dreher has more on this: “John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented one of the losing plaintiffs in one of the SCOTUS cases, …points out that religious liberty is still very much in play, and will be at issue in future cases. But what SCOTUS has done today is to redefine ‘sex’ to include ‘sexual orientation and gender identity.’ Because of that, he said, ‘there is no end in sight to that kind of litigation.’”
This is litigation LGBT activists are very well-prepared, motivated, and well-financed to pursue. Given Republican politicians’ history of cravenly sacrificing Americans’ constitutional rights to gaslighting from identity politics agitators who don’t vote for Republicans, most notably when Vice President Mike Pence was governor of Indiana, we’d all better redirect any donation from Republican campaigns to legal protection like ADF and The Becket Fund.
We Need Lots More than Judges From Republicans
This is a time to redouble pressure on Republicans to stop helping Democrats shred the Constitution and Americans’ natural rights, withdrawing support from them if they do not. This decision makes Congress irrelevant, unless they decide to make themselves relevant again by eliminating the underlying law on which this decision is based.
The last century of abdicating their responsibilities when in power shows Republicans are not keen on defending our rights. They’d prefer to give rousing speeches about our rights at conventions like CPAC while scapegoating our continued loss of these rights on the judges and the bureaucracy they’re supposed to oversee. That needs to end, and for it to end, all constitutional hypocrites need to be made uncomfortable until they do the right thing.
All elected officials and candidates need to start being asked in public, on videos immediately posted to social media, why they aren’t doing anything to keep naked men from getting access to naked girls in showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms. Republicans need to be asked how they can tell us to vote for them “because judges” when their Supreme Court nominees just passed an LGBT version of Roe v. Wade that will lead to teaching preschoolers the confusing, anti-science lie that “boys can have girl brains.”
They need to be asked on camera whether they support the Constitution’s unconditional guarantees of freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the freedom to worship, and if not, how they can take an oath of office swearing fealty to that Constitution. They should be asked how they can justify not voting to eliminate Title VII now that the Supreme Court has made it a Trojan horse for forcing lingerie shops to hire men to fit women’s bras and female beauticians to wax a man’s genitals. They should be asked what effective steps they are taking to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not finance genital mutilation, and that medical and therapeutic professionals lose their licenses if they mutilate the healthy bodies of underage boys and girls.
They should also be asked these questions in private from major donors, and primaried out of office when they answer the wrong way. Campaign donors’ businesses should be boycotted if they do not withdraw support for Republicans who can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman.
Fighting this may not work. That two-thirds of our nation’s highest court clearly despise the Constitution and the way of life it protects, and which it is their sole job to defend, may be yet another indication that the United States we know and love is heading into a dark night of oblivion, like all empires before it. If that is the case, however, I’m going down fighting as hard as I can.’ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/16/scotuss-transgender-ruling-firebombs-the-constitution/
‘Race is a social construct. The Bible doesn’t mention race, except the human race, the single Adamic race.
Some have more melanin than others, so their skin is darker to varying degrees with actually very little physical difference between people. The DNA of any two human beings is 99.9% similar in content and identity. God doesn’t care more for someone with more melanin and neither should any person. Skin color identifies and distinguishes. If a crime is committed, race is one means of describing a suspect. I heard Shaquille O’Neil in recent years call himself the black Steph Curry. He brought attention to the variation in their skin color. He did that. For what reason? Enough of that though. Black lives matter and they matter to me too. They don’t matter less than white or yellow or brown or red lives. The meaning and value of human life and lives are wrapped up in their being made in the image of God. This is not any more clear than in Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” With the first murder, that of Abel, God said (Genesis 4:10): “the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” The shed blood cried out to God for retribution. The life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Life matters to God, so it should matter to us. Black lives matter. When they do matter to someone, how can one tell? How can you tell if black lives matter? People say it, but is it the truth? Should it be that someone types a hashtag for everyone? Is it opting for a blackout Tuesday? Attending a march or anti-racism protest? Is it by facilitating an uncomfortable conversation about race? Through countless memes, videos, and posts about race on social media pages? Instructions on how to educate ourselves? Should it be through an explanation of white privilege? Giving book recommendations about race? Maybe more than any other way, will people know black lives matter to you by your criticism of other non-black people who use language you can label as oppressive? People aim to appear to care. It’s a show — the Pharisee part of this. It signals virtue, which is in fact absent in most cases. Someone who has done nothing for black lives shouldn’t be touting his own compassion with memes. He is a Pharisee praying on the street corner. He poses like picking the most appropriate image is his big sacrifice, seeking the approval from those from which he hungers it. Black lives matter is another hoop to jump through for acceptance or at least, not rejection. Someone should ask, what did Jesus do? What did the Apostle Paul do? They were both concerned about the gospel. This life is very, very short. The Jewish problem with Gentiles was judged by its affect on the salvation of Gentiles through a perversion of the gospel. Jesus didn’t protest slavery in the Roman empire. The gospel would bring the owner and slave together like Philemon and Onesimus in Philemon, now brothers beloved. Our church is heavily pigmented mainly because we don’t target anyone. We don’t pander to any audience, which is the essence of impartiality. We don’t reach out to the blacks, to the whites, to the Asians, to the Hispanics, to the Indians. Hyping race is racism. Ignoring it isn’t. We reach out to everyone regardless of this social construction called “race.” We treat race like it doesn’t exist, because it doesn’t. Since race doesn’t exist, black, white, red, or yellow culture doesn’t exist. It’s only scriptural or unscriptural culture, spiritual or carnal, godly or ungodly, or sacred or profane. There is no black music or white music. The English language isn’t white or black. You can’t “sound black” or “sound white.” You’re either saying it right or saying it wrong. You’re not helped by saying it wrong. Race itself is a lie, so the pressures created around it to cave to wrong behavior are the price of the lie. It’s what turns people into racists. When black lives matter to you, first, you care about the eternal soul of the black person. Instead of accentuating skin color, do you talk about the two ways the Bible categorizes people: saved or lost, sheep or goats, tares or wheat, or light or darkness? When you don’t preach the gospel to black people, don’t tell me that black lives matter to you. They don’t. How many black people have you preached the gospel to, professing Christian? If it’s none, when you have black people all around you, you are a heartless hypocrite with zero compassion. Stop promoting yourself on social media like you care. You don’t. You are a pathetic self-promoter. That’s all you are. When black lives matter, you want black lives to be eternal lives, which has nothing to do with skin color and everything about believing the gospel. If you haven’t done that, and you don’t do it, you hate black people, while saying that you love them. I knocked on every door of the iron triangle in Richmond, California. I skipped no neighborhoods. On many occasions, I played basketball in areas where there were only black people, and afterwards I preached the gospel to them. I knocked on every door in Parchester Village, the Rodeo projects, and North Richmond. When black lives matter to you, second, you make disciples of black people to Jesus Christ. That is very similar, almost identical to evangelizing, except this means you are sacrificing to spend time with at least one black person to teach him to observe all things whatsoever the Lord has commanded. How many black people have you discipled? Some of the loudest at publicizing their own racial virtue, have done zip. It’s most of you reading. Please sit down. Retire your social media from the spread of this lie that black people matter to you. They don’t. The third way to tell if black lives matter to you is your support of missions to black people. It’s not just them, but it’s the whole world, which includes black people. Africa is mainly black. Are you willing to go to Africa out of love for Africans? Actual Africans from the continent of Africa? Our church supports three missionaries to Africa and at one time, four, but now one has gone to Australia to evangelize that country. Do you keep up with missions to Africa? Do you read missionary prayer letters from Africa? More black people live in Africa than any other place. What are you doing to reach Africa? Another way to tell if black lives matter to you is, four, do you sacrificially serve black people? What do you do to help black people? Helping someone means involvement. You work with them directly. You bear their burdens. I’m not talking about a hand out. I’m talking about helping them personally get out of a cycle, maybe by providing free child care, which my wife and I did for years for two black girls, while their mother worked. I would have helped them if they were white or Asian too. Race is a social construct. I stood before a crowd of almost entirely black people every month for eight years, asking if I could take any one of them out to find a job. If someone wanted it, I would meet him at a location in town to try and help. This was my own time, not spending the taxes someone else pays. We have had black people living with us, providing them short term housing, until they could get a place to live. Do black lives matter to you if you don’t oppose black abortion? Between 2012 and 2016 over 136,000 black children were murdered in New York City through abortion. Do these black lives matter? All black lives matter, not just one murdered by a police officer. More black people are killed by abortion than any single means, so, five, you can tell that black lives matter to you if you oppose the abortion of black lives. That is not popular to say. You can’t post that on your social media and receive two hundred likes from the readers. If you are silent about black abortion, then black lives don’t matter to you. Very few black people are killed by white people. It’s difficult to find official statistics, so I go back to 2013. According to the FBI in 2013, 2,491 black people were murdered in the United States, 189 by white people and 2,245 by black people. 409 white people were killed by black people. The biggest danger to black lives are black people. If it is black lives that matter and not just politics, then the biggest threat to murder, besides abortion, are black people killing each other. Six, if black lives really do matter, all of them, then more attention must be given to blacks killing blacks, than whites killing blacks. No murder is justified, but if black lives matter, then the focus should be on what ends the most black lives. That isn’t white people. It’s a very small number of black people who are killed by white police officers. It’s a very large number of black people killed by other black people. Every black person is made in the image of God. Every black person is endowed by the Creator with the right to life. Black lives matter. If it really is black lives matter, then these six above will be heard. Do you first care if black people will be in the kingdom, will be in heaven with you? That’s forever, not just the short life that we live, but all eternity. Do you second care about what ends the most black lives, so that the most possible black people can live? If you do not hear about these, then it isn’t about black lives, but about something else.’ https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well
‘The World Wide abortion counters uses one of the more conservative estimates on the number of abortions world-wide since 1980 (40 Million per year for 30years) and this equals 1,200,000 Billion (from Lifesitenews.com)’ http://www.numberofabortions.com/
The days in which one could speak freely within reason are OVER! Now, you can speak foul language of almost any conservative BUT when it comes to the PC speech police you had better walk (speak) right or should I say left?! A radio presenter in the UK found out that only BLM! Yes, ‘Manx Radiotook Stu Peters off air after Wednesday’s programme in which a black caller challenged him for writing “all lives matter” in an online forum.
“I’ve had no more privilege in my life than you have. I’m a white man, you’re a black man,” he told Jordan Maguire.
The 46-year-old African American died after a white police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes as he pleaded that he could not breathe.
A Black Lives Matter protest is due to be held in the Manx capital Douglas on Tuesday at 12:00 BST.
‘Disturbing’
Speaking on his programme, Mr Peters said he “can understand” why the movement had begun in America, but expressed incredulity at how protests had spread around the globe.
He said: “What I can’t understand is why people around the rest of the world are protesting, and specifically in the Isle of Man. Why you would have a protest outside of Tynwald about it?”
Chief Minister Howard Quayle said the death of Mr Floyd was a “shocking, and a disturbing incident”, adding “we hope that justice will prevail”.
He added: “I have been told that Manx Radio is now investigating what happened, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further while that investigation is under way.”
Mr Peters, who was born and grew up in and around Manchester, moved to Douglas in 1997.
He has worked on several Manx Radio shows, most recently including The Late Show: Stu Peters; Late, Live & Unleashed!
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female
In spite of what Moses wrote and what the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said some continue to question not only the Bible but science. For example; ‘T.L. from the United States writes:
I was in a debate with a friend of mine about the creation of gender. She stated that Adam could not have been created first because women have two X chromosomes. She goes on to address the X deactivation in women, saying that this only occurs because both X chromosomes are the same making it a “female” chromosome in both men and women (she also said that the master “switch” in males is them “switching” from the “default”). She goes on to say that men are “half female” and women are “fully female”, making them superior in that they bare life. She also said males are pretty much useless and that we can see this in other life (bees, the infrequency of male lions, “all female” lizards, etc). So my questions are, is the first X chromosome a “female” chromosome, even in men? And does this mean that God made Adam “half female”(as my friend puts it)?
No, the X chromosome isn’t a ‘female’ chromosome. Everyone needs it. And no, males (including Adam) are not ‘half female’.
First, your friend is wrong on the science. The idea that female is the ‘default’ embryological condition is now known to be false.1 This idea was based on a few studies in the mid-20th century, and it was thought to be reinforced in the early 1990s by the discovery of the SRY gene, a gene on the Y chromosome which plays a crucial role in testis development. Because of this, female sexual development was thought to proceed as a ‘default’ in the absence of SRY.The idea that female is the ‘default’ embryological condition is now known to be false
However, subsequent research overturned this idea. For instance, the absence of SRY isn’t enough to build a functioning ovary; two X chromosomes are needed. Women with only one X chromosome almost always have ovary dysfunction, and the vast majority are infertile. And those (very) few that can conceive and carry a pregnancy to term are at much higher risk of complications both during and after pregnancy.2
Moreover, some genes, if their products are present in high enough concentrations, can stop male development even when SRY is present. For instance, the NROB1 gene on the short arm of the X chromosome codes for a protein named DAX1. This protein plays an important role in the development of the adrenals, hypothalamus, pituitary, and gonads. The protein is also involved in maintaining hormone production in these glands after they are formed.3 People who have XY chromosomes, but have a duplication of the NROB1 gene, produce enough DAX1 to inhibit the products of SRY. This stops male development completely and the person develops female characteristics.4 This is not merely the taking over of a default; this is an abnormality that overrides the normal development of an XY person.
Furthermore, ovaries and testes require ongoing maintenance throughout life. Researchers found that the gene FOXL2 (on the long arm of chromosome 3) suppresses SOX9 (a gene crucial for male development that is found on the long arm of chromosome 17), which prevents certain cells in the ovary from differentiating differently into ‘testis-like’ cells.5 Similarly, the DMRT1 gene (found on the end of chromosome 9) suppresses certain genes involved in ovarian development. 6 If both require ongoing maintenance, then there is no ‘default’ gonad, whether the testis or the ovary. Many of the tools used for building and maintaining both ovaries and testes are found in the genome outside the “sex” chromosomes.
Together, this shows that proper female development is an active process, and it isn’t simply the ‘default’ path an embryo takes. Instead, during development, a set of cells migrates to the outside of the embryo and hangs out on the allantois. At the appropriate time, they chain up and do a conga line, enter the embryo, find the developing gonads, enter them, and get to work. Before these cells arrive, there is no sexual differentiation. As Kim and Capel explain:
“Unlike most developing organs in the embryo that follow a single developmental track, the gonad forms with the potential to develop as one of two alternative organs, an ovary or a testis. For this reason, the gonad primordium is called ‘the bipotential gonad’.”7
Since when is God limited by sex chromosomes in the gender he makes first?
Second, your friend is wrong on theology. Think about it: the all-powerful God couldn’t have created Adam first because of sex chromosomes? Since when is God limited by sex chromosomes in the gender he makes first?
At any rate, from a genetic standpoint, it seems much simpler to make Eve from Adam (as per Genesis 2). Why? All God would have to do to make Eve from Adam’s side is to erase the Y chromosomes in the cells taken from Adam’s body and duplicate the one X chromosome already present (Eve, the rib, and modern genetics). On the other hand, if God created Eve first, he would’ve had to form a Y chromosome de novo to make Adam from Eve. (This is like what God probably did in miraculously creating Jesus’ zygote—i.e. He took one of Mary’s eggs (and the haploid genome in it) and created a second haploid genome within the egg with a brand new Y chromosome.) Of course, neither of these ‘methods’ of creating one gender from the other is a problem for God, since he’s all-powerful.
Third, a woman’s two X chromosomes are not identical (with the possible exception of Eve), since one is inherited from each parent. And one of the pair is deactivated early in embryological development, because only one is needed for gene expression. Having both active would create an excess of many gene products and would lead to all sorts of problems. Nevertheless, as mentioned above and in the linked article, since single-X females are mostly infertile, the presence of a second X chromosome is important for normal female sexual development.
Fourth, comparing us to the rest of the animal kingdom is irrelevant, since sexual differentiation varies across animals. Some can even change their sex in response to environmental conditions (and of course be completely reproductively viable). For example, while some reptiles and fish can perform parthenogenesis (where the females produce young without fertilization from a male), it is generally uncommon and just a ‘fallback’ option in the absence or dearth of males (see ‘Asexual’ lizards and pioneer plants and The weird, wonderfully-designed sawfish). Nor can humans naturally perform parthenogenesis (Was the Virgin Birth non-miraculous?; and should Christians bother with atheists?). Birds sexual chromosomes are the opposite of humans (male birds are ZZ, females are ZW), and platypuses have a system that is unlike anything else.
‘Blood tests, x-rays, CAT scans were being taken; heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen levels were being monitored; intravenous flows of medicine were being administered and adjusted with feedback from the blood tests. As I sat with my relative for several days, I couldn’t help but think that evolution had nothing to do with any of the science involved.
There were at least six doctors of different specialties seeing him – Infectious Disease, Cardiologist, Gastro-Intestinal, Pulmonologist and Nephrologist, plus, of course, his Primary Care Physician. Not one of them needed to use evolution to look at his case or to analyze the various tests and results. Evolution, you see, does not rely on the Scientific Method and does not have any real application in the practice of ANY science. Rather, it is an attempt to explain biological origins and developments without God. In other words, evolution merely provides “just so stories” to teach the secular notion that we have NOT been designed and built by our great Creator.
Yet, we see a continuing deception about how supposedly “Charles Darwin” should be “the one rallying cry” for all things scientific! Such is the pernicious deceit of evolution. Indeed, this month in secular academic and progressive circles, there is another push to celebrate “International Darwin Day” (February 12, Darwin’s birthday) – for “principles of intellectual bravery … scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin.” Darwin Day is primarily pushed by such groups as The American Humanist Association (a society advocating for atheists) and their leftist allies in media, government and academia.
My recent experience at the hospital, though, revealed to me once again that science treats human bodies as precisely designed-and-specified complex machines. This, of course, begs the logical inference that with such design and specification, there must be a great Designer!
The doctors were monitoring everything. Was body temperature normal at 98.6 F? Were oxygen levels in the blood above 90%? Was blood pressure normal? Were heart rates normal? Were key enzyme, protein and sugar levels in the blood normal? Was urine output normal? In other words, was the human body functioning according to design specification?
Doctors know what to expect for healthy function of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and other organs. Outside of the normal range, people get sick and die. The normal range does not change.
But to the modern ear, the theme of everything is “change”. Change is the master key. This is a philosophy that has grown out of evolution … applied not only to biology but to human society. Nothing is fixed, everything evolves. The belief that everything evolves has had a disastrous effect in many areas – much of which has been discussed in these letters.
Not only does this philosophy of change – of the evolution of all things – go against biblical truth, it goes against what has been called “self-evident” truth. The American Declaration of Independence includes these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
These are transcendent and eternal truths – we are all equal before the cross of Jesus Christ, and by extension, therefore, before the seat of justice. We have a Creator, and He has endowed us with a right to life and freedom as individuals!
Here is another reason why we need to keep proclaiming the truth about evolution. Evolutionism has made “change for the sake of change” tolerated – even when the change has perverted eternal and transcendent truths! We now redefine marriage! We redefine genders! We redefine the taking of innocent human life and call it good! Fortunately, we still have freedoms in this country – but other nations are losing them. Sadly, we are moving in that direction, but for now, in spite of abortion law, we are still free to protest and to lead people to honor the Sanctity of Human Life – as was just celebrated again this January in America!
Under evolutionism, change is to be embraced and facilitated. It is supposedly inevitable. And it is given a positive term – “progressive”. This is actually the same as what the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials of 1946 claimed when they famously defended their actions in the Concentration Camps by arguing that they were simply “giving evolution an assist”.
We can basically make society whatever we want it to be because constant change means that nothing is permanent, eternal or transcendent. Indeed, with such a philosophy, traditional values must be fought against so mankind can move out of its “current state of imperfection” and toward the enlightened end of evolutionary progress – which tends to be the whims of a dictator.
But this is just not biblical. In fact, it is diabolical. We should not want to celebrate evolutionism with “Darwin Day”. Rather, we should want to continue to expose it for the anti-science, anti-God, destructive, authoritarian-supporting force that it truly is! As Christians, we must keep proclaiming the truth, the whole truth of God’s Word, which does not change but “abides forever” (1 Peter 1:25).
The following is an old but very relevant article from the Front Page Magazine August, 2016.
‘When a pair of black separatists recently murdered five police officers in Dallas and three others in Baton Rouge, they were aiming, by their own proclamation, to carry out righteous retribution against an American society which they deplored because of its deep-seated “white skin privilege,” a concept first popularized by Bill Ayers and his fellow Weatherman radicals who, in the early ‘70s, aimed to foment a violent race war against a supposedly Klan-like “Amerikkka.” Although their terrorist tactics and aspirations made the Weathermen a fringe group, their views on race proved, over time, to have legs. The notion of white skin privilege became an article of faith among progressives, accounting for everything that was racially wrong in America, beginning with its constitutional framework.
Even those liberals who initially resisted the concept of white skin privilege as a slander against a noble country that had just gone through an unprecedented civil-rights revolution, eventually embraced it to explain why racial disparities persisted even as overt racists vanished from public life and institutional barriers were toppled. Civil-rights professionals, meanwhile, were faced with yet another problem: how to remain relevant and prominent in an era when white racism was being dismantled and delegitimized in a manner never before seen in human history.
The common solution to these dilemmas was to depict the nebulous concept of “white skin privilege” as a thread woven so deeply into the fabric of American culture, that it could never be fully extracted; to claim that whites, no matter how earnest or well-intentioned, would never be able to truly shed the racism that infected their hearts. In other words, to claim that real racial healing could never occur, even in a thousand years, because whites, by definition and DNA, would remain racists, even if unwittingly, until the end of time.
Out of this mindset grew the academic field of Whiteness Studies—a.k.a. Critical Whiteness Studies—which first made its way onto college campuses in the early 1990s. And from its inception, this discipline bore no resemblance whatsoever to other group-identity-based curricula like Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Women’s Studies. Whereas those fields steadfastly celebrated their respective groups and emphasized their status as innocent victims of societal oppression, Whiteness Studies depicted whites uniformly as malevolent oppressors of people with darker complexions. They weren’t Italians, or Brits, or Poles, or Germans—they were just depraved white miscreants, best known for their many crimes against humanity. As Jeff Hitchcock, the co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture, said in 1998 at the Third National Conference on Whiteness: “There is plenty to blame whiteness for. There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color. There is no crime that we have not committed even against ourselves…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.”
And absolutely nothing has changed in the field of Whiteness Studies in the years since then. Last fall, for instance, University of Colorado associate professor Amy Wilkins candidly explained that her Whiteness Studies class was in essence “an advanced course on racial inequality.”
The_ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education_ describes Whiteness Studies as “a growing body of scholarship whose aim is to reveal the invisible structures that produce and reproduce white supremacy and privilege.” Central to this definition is the notion that the average white person is largely unaware of his own racism, and that he must be helped to overcome the dreaded “ignorance of one’s ignorance” which prevents him from even recognizing “racism as a system of privilege” that benefits him at the expense of others.
The writings of feminist Peggy McIntosh are renowned in the field of Whiteness Studies, where professors and course readings often make reference to her famous metaphor of white skin privilege as an “invisible knapsack of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.”
Whiteness Studies professor Lee Bebout of Arizona State University, for his part, says that “white supremacy makes it so that white people can’t see the world they have created.”
Not long ago, the University of Wisconsin–Superior sponsored an “Unfair Campaign” whose slogan—“It’s hard to see racism when you’re White”—was promoted aggressively via billboards, online videos, and posters. One poster showed a group of white students with the words “Is white skin really a fair skin?” written on their faces.
University of Wisconsin English professor Dr. Gregory Jay informs us that “Whiteness Studies is an attempt to think critically about how white skin preference has operated systematically, structurally, and sometimes unconsciously as a dominant force in American—and indeed in global—society and culture.” Moreover, he contends that telling white people that they’re racists whether or not they realize it, will ultimately foster interracial harmony: “I believe that Whiteness Studies must be part of the general effort to eradicate prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and racism.”
With similar detachment from reality, Portland Community College claims that its annual “White History Month” initiative condemning the many evils of “whiteness” will help to “change our campus climate” for the better.
At Scripps College in Claremont, California, all incoming students receive a “survival guide” designed to alert the newcomers to the racism lurking quietly in the dark corners of white people’s hearts. One entry in this manual, titled “Dear White Students,” declares that “we as white students, must identify the ways that we are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy and work to unlearn our racism”; that racism is often manifested in “subtle ways through language” and “the perpetuation of white supremacist values like perfectionism [and] individualism”; that “reverse racism does not exist because there are no institutions that were founded with the intention of discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin”; that the “anger” of nonwhites “is a legitimate response to oppression, as is … a general distaste or hatred of white people”; that “we [whites] do not get to dictate how people of color respond to racism, nor do we get to delegitimize reactions that make us uncomfortable”; and that “our comfort is not more important than the safety of our peers of color.”
In other words, white students are advised to metaphorically lie down, belly-up, in contrite supplication, and to hold that pose for the remainder of their lives.
The common themes that run through all of the aforementioned programs and courses are Universal White Guilt on the one hand, and Universal Black Innocence on the other—flip sides of the same racialist coin. More than that, they are the twin centerpieces of the leftist mindset which aims to pit various groups of people against one another by dividing them neatly into oppressors and oppressed, victimizers and victims, evil and good. This tribal mentality, which sees human beings as members of mutually hostile groups rather than as individuals, is as contrary to the American ideal of individual rights and liberty as any mentality that has ever existed.
Moreover, it’s precisely this same tribalism which is promoted endlessly by the grievance mongers who constitute the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement that inspired the gunmen who recently murdered those eight police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. And the college classroom—the very place where young people are routinely indoctrinated with the type of racist rhetoric that pervades the field of Whiteness Studies (as well as Black Studies, for that matter)—is where this tribalism is most likely to find minds that are receptive to it. As the _Washington Post_ puts it, BLM’s “strongest foothold may now be … the American university.” Given these sobering facts, a legitimate case can be made for the idea that much of the trillion-plus dollars in student-loan debt that young people have racked up, has been money that was entirely wasted.’ https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ugly-racism-whiteness-studies-programs-john-perazzo/
Can a person choose to whom they are born? Can a person choose where they are born? Can a person choose what color of skin they are born with? Of course, the answer to all three of these questions is, No! We must as individuals accept somethings in life just because they cannot be changed and skin colour is one.
If it is of any interest to the reader I have pretty much white skin, Caucasian. Recently, a gentleman has been in correspondence with me concerning an article I wrote
Charles Darwin is the man who promoted much of today’s racism through his evolutionary teaching.
some months ago. I thought I would share with you a couple of statements he made. He wrote ‘It is about your white privilege, your white privilege. If your life is valued more than mine because you are white, is that consistent with the TRUTH? Yet, in America that is the truth. You don’t have to hate me in order to oppress me. Your whiteness does this and the system that privileges your whiteness does this.’
The following article is the Biblical view of today’s controversial race issue!
‘Waiting in airports and long airplane rides have become a way of life for the ICR staff scientist. Imagine my appreciation when two black servicemen engaged me in a delightful conversation about creation the other day.
As it turned out, both men were dedicated Christians, but had no previous teaching on creation, although both knew evolution had to be wrong, based on the clear statements of Scripture.
Finally, they asked the question which they had always wanted to ask, but had never dared to: Where did the races come from?
Perhaps I was reading too much into their comments, but I felt like weeping (and still feel like weeping) as I recognized what generations of racial prejudice had done to these two men. From Darwin on down, evolutionists have preached that the Negro race was lower on the evolutionary scale, much closer to the apes than the Caucasian. As a matter of fact the whole concept of race is evolutionary, not Biblical, for”God hath made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). All of mankind springs from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and then through Noah’s family. The Biblical distinction is between national groups, and especially languages, not skin color or other physical characteristics. These two men, and probably many blacks, had been bludgeoned by evolutionary dogma into questioning their own self-worth, wondering if their standing before God was equal to that of other ethnic groups.
Actually, the Biblical model regarding the origin of physical characteristics is easily the best historical and scientific explanation. Starting with Noah’s family, the creation model postulates a “racially mixed” population, with much biological potential for variation. As family groups were isolated by language barriers, environmental factors allowed particular traits already present to be expressed more frequently, while genes coded for other characteristics were not favored and were eventually suppressed.
Genetically speaking, the differences between the various races are extremely small. All are of the same species, are interfertile, and produce fertile offspring. The most noticeable difference is in skin color, but the fact is, we are all the same color; some people just have a little more of that color than others. Skin shade is due to the amount of a substance called melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin. Racially mixed individuals can parent children who are all the way from quite dark to quite light, or anywhere in between. The predominant shade for freely interbreeding individuals would be brown.
While prejudice, persecution, and racial hatred follow directly from the application of evolutionary teaching, some have even proposed racism in the name of Christianity. The Christian must not allow himself or herself to think this way. The Lord Jesus certainly didn’t. He was likely neither white nor black, but somewhere in between. He died to provide all men the opportunity for eternal life (II Peter 3:9, for example). Indeed, heaven will be populated by “a great multitude . . .of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues (who will) stand before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes” (Revelation 7:9), all redeemed by His blood. In the end, all racism, as well as racial distinctions, will be abolished.’ https://www.icr.org/article/where-did-races-come-from
“principles of intellectual bravery … scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin.” Darwin Day is primarily pushed by such groups as The American Humanist Association (a society advocating for atheists) and their leftist allies in media, government and academia.
whatyareckon 