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?
Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”
‘Words can be difficult to follow because the same word can be used in a technical sense in different ways, depending on the context. To an economist, inflation refers to the rate of rising prices. To a cosmologist, however, inflation refers to a hypothetical era billions of years ago.
The relative timescales are very important to help us evaluate this concept. According to deep-time cosmologists, the universe began in the so-called Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, when a quantum event caused a singularity to come into existence. 10-36 seconds later, the universe expanded at a hugely accelerated rate. 10-36 is one over one with 36 zeros after it. At 10-32 seconds after the Big Bang, this inflation ceased, and the universe carried on expanding at what might be termed a “normal” rate for 13.7 billion years, minus 10-32 seconds.
Inflation theory is required to explain how cosmic microwave background radiation is so uniform. It is also required to explain a number of other phenomena, such as the non-existence of magnetic monopoles, or why the universe is flat.
But this rapid inflationary expansion required energy to cause it to happen. Where did that energy come from? The only model they can use suggests that other bubbles of space-time could, and probably have, opened up elsewhere, forming multiple universes, without any realistic beginning.
‘The Washington Postturns loose its fact-checkers on John Kerry’s claim that we have just nine years to save the planet, which he arrived at by saying we had 12 years three years ago and doing the math. But um he’s not a climate scientist, and to their credit and our surprise, the Post gives him two Pinocchios (out of a possible four) for “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations.” Along with a dressing down for not realizing that in the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report, “the key date was 2050, when the gain in emissions needs to be halted” although contradictorily, “The report’s key finding was that action needed to be taken immediately — not in 12 years.” Thus “With the ‘12-year’ fixation, he [Kerry] somehow managed to both make the task seem less urgent and also more hyperbolic.” Sadly the fact checkers themselves deserve at least two Pinocchios because their finding is quite reasonable but their explanation interlaces sensible points with hyperbole about extreme weather, bad math about warming, and scare stories.
The piece starts fairly well, warning that “Kerry is using a figure that is frequently cited but often misused. It’s a good example of how scientists may write a long and complex report, and then it’s interpreted by the news media, pundits and politicians in ways that make the scientists frustrated that their nuanced conclusions have been twisted into a talking point.” But lest they should get cancelled, they immediately add “If anything, scientists say, Kerry’s phrasing understates the problem facing the planet.”
Oh, scientists say, do they? Which scientists? You know. Them. The scientists. “The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change may still be a subject of debate in the political sphere, but it has been a settled issue among climate scientists for years.” Which they bolster by citing Anderegg et al.’s infamous 2009 paper that looked at people who published a lot of papers saying there was a climate crisis and found that they said there was a climate crisis.
The fact-checkers also cite without fact-checking it that the 2018 IPCC report “said the planet — which has already warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels (approximately 1850 to 1890) — would warm 1.5 degrees (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) between 2030 and 2052 unless significant steps were taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” As we’ve pointed out, the idea that we can determine to a decimal place the change in temperature between the Great Exhibition and the election of Donald Trump is silly, and the fact that it always comes out to a round number is highly suspicious.
Now speaking of round numbers, about which yes we told you so, in one of its stronger passages the fact-check quotes Drew Shindell of Duke University, a lead author of that IPCC’s “mitigation chapter”, that “To save computer time, the research community typically evaluates future climate scenarios every decade rather than every year, choosing multiples of 10. So when we wrote the IPCC report in 2018, we could examine possibilities for 2020, 2030, etc., going forward. There really wasn’t enough time to make changes in economic systems by 2020 starting from 2018, so the first time at which we could see major changes was 2030, and that’s why we could draw conclusions about how much our emissions needed to be cut by 2030 to have much chance of meeting our climate targets…. the point of all this is that there is nothing at all special about 12 years or 2030. If we cut emissions by 2029 or 2031, the necessary cuts would be similar, but we only had years that were even multiples of 10 to look at.”
So saying well, it was 12 years in 2018 so it’s now nine means you have no idea what the scientists were actually doing. It’s pseudo-precision along the lines of saying the planet has warmed by 0.8C since 1880 with 2/3 of it since 1975, which implies we know it warmed 0.26C in the century after 1880. Without having measured the temperature in about 99% of it in 1880 or, come to think of it, 1975 either. Or 2016.
Not to get themselves in trouble, the fact-checkers then cite the IPCC that “Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70-90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2°C (very high confidence).” Which they rightly say means there’s a continuum or, as Judith Curry bluntly put it in advocating more realism in both science and adaptation, “1.5C is a made up problem.” Not that the fact-checkers are taking her view.
Instead the piece warns that the continuum thing means “the damage would have already started before 1.5 degrees was breached.” Which also means that if it hasn’t, including the corals not dying, there’s a bit of an issue here with the whole scary picture. As with their subsequent claim that “the world is heating unevenly. A Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post series showed that, despite an average global increase of 1 degree Celsius, in several parts of the world the 2 degree threshold has already been reached. In those regions, this has resulted in major weather changes that have upended livelihoods and cultures. More than 1 in 10 Americans — 34 million people — are living in rapidly heating regions, including New York City and Los Angeles.”
Curious that the fastest-warming places are either (a) wherever the journalist lives or (b) a giant metropolitan agglomeration with a major Urban Heat Island effect. That one they did not fact check. Or the idea that weather has upended livelihoods and cultures in New York and LA.
Finally, they quote someone telling Kerry to stop talking about specifics and scare people with vagueness, recommending this formulation: “The scientists have been telling us for decades that we need to act as fast as possible to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Despite that, substantive action has been delayed so long that we’re now bearing witness to the harm caused by warming that has already occurred in communities around the world. It is still well within our power to turn the tide, slowing and eventually halting global warming by bringing our net carbon emissions to zero. But we have to act now to prevent ever greater societal harm and disruption in the coming years and decades.”
The trouble, of course, is that if you talk that way people might ask who the scientists are, what the worst consequences might be, what harm you have in mind and what you want us to do. And then you’ll be back to specifics some fool might fact-check. Like that one about the polar bears dying out, which Facebook may still slap your wrist for pointing out is untrue.
‘William Happer Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University This speech was given at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on February 19, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.’ https://www.hillsdale.edu/
‘The Bible is a prophetic book. That alone is an amazing statement, because it is the only prophetic book in the world, because it is the only one written by God. Prophecy has a lot of purposes, a major one being a validation that that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. As you open the New Testament, it is easy to see the importance of prophecy all over it. God wants us to take it seriously.
The first page of the New Testament in Matthew, a genealogy, is related to prophecy, because the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are prophetic. The genealogy proves that Jesus is a fulfillment of those predictions. Then you get the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy that says that Jesus is a fulfillment of that. Then you have the magi setting off looking for the Messiah based upon what? Prophecy. Then there are four wondrous prophecies in four different geographical location in the second half of Matthew 2 that confirm who Jesus is. Matthew 3 talks about John the Baptist, himself another fulfillment of prophecy.
When Peter preaches on the Day of Pentecost, almost every point he makes relies on prophecy. When the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs, what is that? It is a fulfillment of the prophecy of John the Baptist, Acts 1:5, which is repeated by Jesus before He ascends into heaven. When the unbelievers mock what’s happening in Acts, Peter defends it with what? Prophecy. He refers to Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:17-21 to kick off his sermon there, explaining to the audience what’s going on. He starts:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God
It is such an unusual, outlying event, outside of the norm for comprehension, Peter makes the connection to the Old Testament. This gigantic crowd wasn’t all drunken. This is what Joel was talking about, and Peter says that what was occurring there on the Day of Pentecost was “in the last days.” Generally, when people say, “We’re in the last days,” they mean something different than what Peter says, so that becomes confusing. Peter’s usage of the last days is the correct usage and it’s what we should imitate.
We’re not waiting for the last days. We’re already in them. Peter was saying that he and his audience were in them. 1 John 2:18 says,
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
“Last days” or “last time,” which is the same terminology, is ironically a terminology from Old Testament prophecy. That’s what is supposed to get us up to speed is the Old Testament usage. Here are some places:
Isaiah 2:2, And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
Jeremiah 23:20, The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly.
Ezekiel 38:8, After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.Daniel 10:14, Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.To the Jews, the last days were the Messianic era, when the Messiah had come and was in operation. To God, this began when Jesus came the first time. This launched the last days. It’s also why Peter can be using a passage with amazing astronomical events and say they are referring to the Day of Pentecost, when those things didn’t take place. What they experienced on the Day of Pentecost, I like to call the “sample pack.” It’s like when you go to Costco and you taste a sample, so that you’ll be receptive of the whole box.The last days had arrived, because Jesus had arrived with the accompanying miracles, wonders, and signs. The ones on the Day of Pentecost are in the same program as those that will appear when Christ undoes the seals during the seventieth week of Daniel, what we refer to as the seven years of tribulation. What the audience in Acts 2 understood as the Messianic age, that Joel was prophesying, was already started. This was the prefulfillment of that with the ultimate fulfillment later. In one sense, it’s all the same event with book ends, Jesus coming as Savior and then Jesus coming as Judge.The magi were anticipating the coming of Jesus. Believers today should be anticipating the second coming. How do you interpret what you read in the prophetic passages? Look at all of the prophecy of scripture and compare. The prophecies will give you clues. Revelation is symbolic language, as revealed in the first verse with the word, “signified.” Prophecy uses symbolism, but that isn’t freedom to treat it like your Gumby doll.If God can do astronomical events, like He will according to Joel 2, then He can do the smaller, albeit plainly divine, ones of Acts 2. That’s the push-back and explanation from Peter. These things are occurring because we are already in the last days.I believe we are meant to look for the fulfillment of prophesies that haven’t been fulfilled. We are required to be scriptural with this and not to speculate. If we are speculating, we should say we’re speculating. When someone asks, do you think we’re in the last days, they are meaning something other than what that phrase means. I don’t like to give them an answer that reaffirms their wrong view. A better question is, do you think that some of what we see happening portend to unfulfilled prophesies from scripture? I say, yes.Let me give you an example. Revelation 13:17 says,
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
I think it is good to make an application of this with what we see happening today. The world economy will be centrally controlled in a totalitarian way. We can look today how this might be applied. We can see it can happen. That is a good application of that above verse. How does one man control everyone? Can technology give this capacity? We should point to that, look at the contemporary examples. That doesn’t contradict what I see New Testament authors do with Old Testament prophecy.Prophecy in scripture is real. We should take it literally. That doesn’t mean we don’t take the symbolism into consideration. We do. We understand the symbolism based on comparing every passage with every other passage of the Bible. It gives us enough clues to understand. This is hard to be understood like Peter said about Paul’s prophetic passages (2 Peter 3:16). It can be understood though. As preachers or teachers in the church, we should want people to understand the prophecy and how the yet unfulfilled parts should be understood.We should oppose globalism, because it looks like the one world government and church of the antichrist. There is a tension here. If we really want the Lord’s return, perhaps we could hasten it by supporting the one world government. The elimination of borders is a contemporary issue that relates to prophecy. We should use prophecy to make that application. This is right thinking. This is a good use of the Word of God.Let me give you two more examples. The Apostle Peter prophesies how the world will end in 2 Peter 3:10. That’s how it will end. This results in my denying the contemporary climate change teaching. That is an application to the world we live in, based on what Peter said. It says a lot more than that, but we shouldn’t ignore it.The culture of the United States and then the world is deteriorating. This looks like a trajectory toward total apostasy. It has affected a hearing of the gospel. Let’s be honest. When Isaiah went to preach to apostate Israel, he couldn’t get a hearing. We are in similar times. These are times like Noah was in. Man is of the same nature he’s been since the fall. We can say that we’re getting closer to the end, because we see this trajectory. We don’t want it. We’re still being faithful, but we’ve got to make the application. People need to know.Much more could be said. We don’t want to stretch scripture beyond what it’s saying, and in that sense, just use scripture. We should preach what the Bible says and apply it, including the prophetic passages.’ https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/03/01/are-we-living-in-the-last-days-the-right-approach-to-biblical-prophecy/
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Now, that’s what God’s Word has to say and yet so-called Christian organizations go ahead and put their stamp of approval on the Sodomite life style. For example, ‘Bethany Christian Services, the country’s largest Protestant adoption and foster care agency, will begin serving LGBTQ couples, a significant change for the evangelical outfit and a sign of the growing cultural shift.
Bethany, which is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with offices in 32 states, announced the change in an email to employees today. Its board of directors approved the policy change back in January after nearly a decade of internal discussion.
An agency spokesperson said it has already been working with LGBTQ families in about 12 states.
“This decision implements consistent, inclusive practices for LGBTQ families across our organizations,” said Nate Bult, Bethany’s senior vice president of public and government affairs. “We’ve had a patchwork approach for the last few years.”
The change is the latest in a hot culture-war topic pitting faith-based adoption and foster care agencies and civil liberties groups against one another. Many faith-based adoption and foster agencies have come under increasing pressure over the past decade as city, state and federal authorities have added LGBTQ non-discrimination policies. Bethany was among them.
In 2018, the city of Philadelphia suspended contracts with Bethany for a period of time. The agency then decided to change its policy in Philadelphia and serve LGBTQ couples.
The Trump administration briefly lifted an Obama-era rule that barred adoption agencies, foster care agencies, and other social service providers from receiving taxpayer funding from the Department of Health and Human Services if they declined to serve people based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
But those rules will likely revert back under the Biden administration.
And in Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court is expected to rule later this year on whether religious child placement agencies can refuse to place children with LGBTQ couples. In that case, the city of Philadelphia demanded that Catholic Social Services comply with its requirements, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When the agency refused to do so, the city opted not to renew its contract. Catholic Social Services then sued.
Bult said that while not all of Bethany’s 1,500 employees may agree with the inclusive approach, most have been supportive and have known that the agency is examining the issue.’
So, before we make a decision to do what God has told us is wrong let’s take a survey on what people think!So, ‘In making its decision, Bethany commissioned Barna Group, a Christian polling firm, to ferret out the views of Christians about LGBTQ adoptions. Barna found 55% of Christians said either that sexual preference should not determine who can foster or adopt, or that it was better for children to be in an LGBTQ home than in foster care.
The survey also found that 76% of self-identified Christians agree, at least somewhat, that it would be better for Christian agencies to comply with government requirements pertaining to the LGBTQ community rather than shut down. (The survey was taken last year among 667 self-identified Christians.)
There we have it! A survey and three former executive directors and CEOs AGREED with the policy! Therefore WE can disobey the Word of God! It doesn’t matter what God’s Word says but a survey and what three past directors think will determine what is RIGHT! What a sham. Bethany Christian services NEEDS to REMOVE the word CHRISTIAN!
‘Students in public schools have no chance to hear the reasons why life cannot “emerge” from rocks and water.
The recent landing of the Perseverance Rover has ramped up talk about life on Mars (17 Feb 2021). In all cases in secular media, the assumption is made that life (if it exists) would have made itself by chance. Another common assumption is that once simple life emerges, nothing stops it from proceeding all the way to intelligent brains because of the assumed creative power of Darwinian evolution.
Advocates of intelligent design and creation are always loaded for bear to address origin-of-life issues. They never get the chance to explain the reasons, though, because Big Science and Big Media and Big Education control the messaging to students.
Mars in a Minute: Why is Curiosity Looking for Organics? (NASA/JPL). The video aimed at children argues that finding organic molecules is equivalent to finding the conditions for life. See also the classroom activity “Looking for Life” aimed at grades 4-8.
Organics are carbon-based molecules – key ingredients to life. If Curiosity finds organics in ancient rocks, there’s a better chance Mars once had good conditions for small life forms called microbes.
Curious Kids: We have been trying to contact aliens – but do they want to contact us? (The Conversation). An eight-year-old student named Sai asks if aliens want to contact us. Jacco van Loon, astrophysicist and Director of Keele Observatory steps up to the microphone in the “Curious Kids” service of The Conversation to give the official Darwinian answer. He admits that nobody knows what aliens are thinking, but he never questions the existence of aliens, and why they must be there.
The question presumes that aliens do exist. And again, because we haven’t found any yet, we don’t know if they do. It is possible they may exist, for one simple reason: we exist.Whatever made the likes of bacteria evolve into complex bodies with intelligent brains on Earth may have also occurred on another planet.
He mentions “whatever” not “whoever.” The idea of a Creator with intelligence is completely ignored. Notice, too, that he assumes that “evolution” has the power to take life from bacteria to the human brain by “whatever” – the impersonal, chance-based Stuff Happens Law.
Time is the magic wand that lets miracles happen by chance, van Loon goes on to explain, but his answer is based on ignorance, not observation.
On Earth this transformation seems to have taken place quite suddenly some 700 million years ago. At that time the Earth was already almost 4 billion years old, and had been inhabited by simple lifeforms such as bacteria for much of that time. Why did it not happen sooner? And what made it happen? Until we find the answers to those questions we cannot tell how likely it is that it also occurred elsewhere.
It is fallacious to build a case on an example of one. van Loon speculates that since humans are curious and want companionship, aliens probably want that, too.
Some aliens might simply not be interested in life beyond their own world.
On the other hand, it may be that life such as ours is actually very common. With so many worlds and civilisations to choose from, we may simply not yet have caught their eye. If that is the case, we might soon detect alien life around nearby stars for ourselves.
Poor Sai never had a chance to hear an alternative view that life was created for a purpose. He was never taught that the requirements for life preclude a naturalistic origin. He will keep looking up to the silent stars waiting for ET to phone home.
Has life existed beyond Earth? (Purdue University). This is a piece about Briony Horgan, associate professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Purdue University, who is a member of the NASA Perseverance Rover team, and how she is “going to great lengths” to find out if life ever existed on Mars. This piece is typical of NASA press releases that assume that if life ever existed on Mars, it evolved—it was not created. As for why Jezero Crater was selected for the rover’s landing site,
“… we think Jezero Crater is the best location to search for evidence that life existed on Mars, if it ever did. And what we find will help us learn more about whether or not we are alone in the universe.“
Students are inspired to be like Briony, growing up to be good evolutionists, and eventually, to become brainy scientists like Dr Horgan, who believe that water and rock are sufficient to produce living organisms and brains.
Life of a pure Martian design (University of Wien). Scientists at this university put earth life on soil from a Martian meteorite to see if it would grow. Fallacy alert: this has nothing to do with whether Mars life exists. At most, it shows how hardy Earth life is. They think it gives NASA a way to look for “biosignatures” on Mars to distinguish life from non-life. But what if Mars life (if it ever existed) is completely different from Earth life? (Fallacy alert #2).
Could game theory help discover intelligent alien life? (Phys.org). The answer is, naturally, “It could, and if pigs had wings, they could fly.” Like the previous example, this SETI article assumes what aliens are thinking.
“Soon we should have the first catalog of planets that may be inhabited by civilisations who already know something about our World. They may know just enough to be tempted to send a message. These are the worlds we really need to focus in on. If they know about game theory they’ll expect us to be listening.”
In preparing for my weekly radio program on a local station I came across the Aquatic Ape Theory.
‘The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) was formulated by Alister Hardy in year 1960. The theory attempts to answer a lot of unanswered questions that have plagued mankind about our heritage – why do we walk on two legs? why are we naked? why do we sweat? How come that babies automatically hold their breath under water? etc. Hardy suggested that we during the evolution have spent a considerable time on the coastlines and adapted to a semi-aquatic environment, not on the hot dry savannah or in the forest with the other primates.’ https://theaquaticape.org/human-evolution/aat/
As atheists and theistic evolutionists seek to answer their own questions I’ll stay with Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
whatyareckon 