Where will this all end? Now Caesar wants to control who is allowed to go to church and worship the LORD! According to BIG BROTHER New South Wales You MUST HAVE THE VACCINE or YOU are not allowed to go! What other encroachments into our faith will Caesar want?
‘Churches in New South Wales will be required to use a vaccination certificate system once 70 percent of the population have received at least two injections of the COVID vaccine.
From mid-October, churches will be permitted to return to in-person worship on the provision that they only host vaccinated-only services.
Once the target is reached, places of worship must deny entry to any member of the congregation who is not fully vaccinated.
Chris O’Keefe of 9News said the state government has not yet signed off on the roadmap, however, “this is the plan that is being worked on, and it’s likely to be signed off on this week.”
Ironically, the news comes just days after the author’s of the Ezekiel Declaration received a barrage of criticism from certain church leaders for “preemptively” and “prematurely” suggesting the state governments would require a vaccination passport system within the church.
Isaiah 44:24“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;”
‘Who would have thought that squirrels would tell us how old the Grand Canyon is? Yet, creation scientists tell us that the tassel-eared squirrel, who lives near the rim of the canyon in Arizona, has done just that.
Tassel-eared squirrels are found on both the north and south rims of the canyon. Scientists have assumed that the squirrels were there before the canyon was formed, supposedly millions of years ago. However, since the canyon has kept the two populations apart for so long, the differences between them should show what millions of years of evolution will do to squirrels.
There are minor differences between the squirrels on the north rim and the south rim. But they’re not even enough to classify the squirrels as separate species. North rim squirrels have white tails and black bellies. Squirrels on the south rim have white bellies and dark tails. But many north rim squirrels have coloration like those on the south, and many on the south rim are colored like those on the north. Creation scientist Dr. John Meyer has carefully studied these squirrels. He has concluded that the squirrels on the north and south rim are actually one population that has a complete range of fur colors.
Allowing the unborn to be born is a tragedy to some people in today’s society. Simply put, ABORTION is MURDER and these people who support abortion are therefore for MURDER! However, the grace of the Creator God even forgives and saves murderers! Saul of Tarsus is an example. The following is a dialogue concerning a “heartbeat’ bill in the state of Texas.
‘The US state of Texas has passed a law protecting unborn children in the womb by making abortion illegal from six weeks into pregnancy.
The so-called ‘Heartbeat Act’ was signed into law back in May, however on 1 September, the US Supreme Court ruled not to block the law after abortion providers and lobby groups campaigned against it.
Christian Concern’s chief executive Andrea Williams debated journalist Hilary Freeman on GB News about the new law. Shockingly, Hilary commented, “I can’t see the difference between what’s going on in Afghanistan and what’s going in Texas. … A six-week-old fetus is not a child, a heartbeat doesn’t mean anything … it’s like a parasite really, when you’re pregnant. … Before we’re born, we’re not human.”
In this day of BIG Government and BIG churches meeting at multiple sites God is still in the business of doing His work with the few.
“The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.” (Deuteronomy 7:7)
‘Modern people—even Christians—tend to measure success in terms of bigness. God’s measure, on the other hand, is based on quality, not quantity. There were undoubtedly millions of people on the earth, for example, when the Flood came in the days of Noah, but only “few, that is, eight souls were saved” as the waters lifted up the Ark (1 Peter 3:20).
A few centuries after the Flood, populations had again increased, and great nations developed in Egypt, Sumeria, and elsewhere. But God called one man, Abraham, to establish a new nation, and he obeyed. Many great nations (Arabs, etc.) came from Abraham, but again God chose only one, Israel, to inherit the promise. Israel did grow, but as our text shows, even this chosen nation was nearly always insignificant compared to other nations.
In Israel’s history, many instances are recorded when God used just a few to battle many. God used Gideon’s 300 men to defeat 135,000 Midianites (Judges 7:7; 8:10). Similar deliverances occurred in the days of David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and others.
In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus told His disciples that “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). He also said to them: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32).
‘Three evangelical pastors, along with several Jewish congregations, have filed a joint lawsuit with the Australian Federal Government, seeking an injunction against the New South Wales and Victorian Government’s current COVID-19 lockdown measures.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday in the Federal Court, argues the state governments have selectively discriminated against religious groups in denying citizens the ability to congregate in Houses of Worship by arbitrarily deeming them “non-essential,” while allowing the public to gather elsewhere, such as in supermarkets and liquor stores.
The lawsuit will argue that Houses of Worship provide significant spiritual, psychological, and emotional support for communities, especially those who are suffering financially and psychologically from the impacts of the state government’s lockdown policies.
Furthermore, it will be argued that the governments’ indiscriminate selection of “essential” and “non-essential” venues under the Public Health Order is not supported by robust scientific or medical evidence.
According to the complaint, neither the NSW nor Victorian Governments have the constitutional or common law power to deny citizens their religious freedom which includes their ability to fulfill particular religious obligations and practices in their designated House of Worship.
Internationally renowned COVID-19 expert, Jayanta Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California has also provided an independent expert report in support of the action brought forward by the plaintiffs.
Lawyer Tony Nikolic said his clients were forced to appeal to the courts after the matter had been repeatedly ignored by the NSW state government, in particular.
“My clients have attempted to engage with the NSW and Victorian Premiers and their Ministers as well as various NSW, Victorian, and Federal Parliamentarians to have their grievances addressed in a diplomatic and respectful manner.
“Unfortunately, in the context of NSW, the NSW Government has been unwilling to engage with my clients in any meaningful dialogue. As a result, our only last venue for relief is the courts.”
Pastor Robert Ayoub, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said they have exhausted other options to no avail.
“Now we have. a legal option, where we take the matter to the courts and have it heard by a court,” Pastor Ayoub said in a recent interview. “We believe this is a respectful way to do things, and importantly, a legal way to do things.
“We’re not here to be vindictive, or dishonouring towards the government, we’re just seeking to be able to practice our religion freely, and we’re appealing to our government to allow. us to love our God and also love our neighbour, to love our community.”
The plaintiffs in the case have also backed The Moses Statement, an open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the State Premiers, urging a reopening of churches across the nation.
‘Few reports have shocked me like this one. In September 2020, it was reported that scientists from the University of Pittsburgh (US) had taken the scalps from 18–20 week aborted babies, grafted them onto the backs of live mice, and watched the human skin and hair grow.1 They also took some of the babies’ internal organs, and diced them small enough to inject into the rodents. Funded by US tax dollars via the National Institute for Health (NIH) the purpose of the ‘experiment’ was to investigate disease and immune responses in ‘humanised’2 mice and rats.
Published photos of aborted babies’ scalps grafted onto humanized mice at 12 weeks (credit: Agarwal, et al).3
The scientists published their findings in the prestigious online journal, Scientific Reports (nature.com). The researchers gathered information on how the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus infects human skin. This was achieved by studying mice immune responses to human—rodent skin grafts. In the researchers’ own words:
“Full-thickness human fetal skin was processed via removal of excess fat tissues attached to the subcutaneous layer of the skin, then engrafted over the rib cage, where the mouse skin was previously excised.”3
A 20 week-old human foetus, in reality a baby with fully developed nervous system that can feel pain.
To say that those with pro-life convictions (based upon the sanctity of human life) will find such a description extremely distasteful is a huge understatement. Sadly, there is more. Simultaneously, the mice were injected with the aborted babies’ lymphoid cells (derived from thymus and spleen) and hematopoietic stem cells (blood manufacturing cells) extracted from their livers. By doing this, the rodents (termed “models” for human biological study) were ‘humanized’ with organs and skin from the babies. Some of the rodents were then infected with Staphylococcus in the newly grafted human skin to study how the grafts and mouse internal organs responded.
It was observed that healthy skin grafts lasted up to 10 weeks. Multiple layers of new human skin cells developed ‘keratinocytes’ (outer-skin cells) and ‘fibroblasts’ (structural-cells). The human skin also grew new blood vessels and immune cells. Infected skin patches were also monitored for bacterial growth and damage. The hair from the babies’ scalps continued to grow in the original colours. The photos from the research paper show the darker human hair contrasted against the fine white hair on the backs of the mice.
Human dignity vs animal rights
The published research and associated imagery should shock us to the core. Each little scalp belonged to a baby who should have been loved, cherished, and nurtured. Instead, these little ones were sacrificed on the altar of convenience, merely as medical products, ostensibly to benefit others. As we have stated before, “CMI would still oppose embryonic stem cell research, because the end of possibly saving human lives does not justify killing others, in the same way that Dr Mengele’s medical experimentation on Jews during the Holocaust were inexcusable, and would be even if it had produced numerous medical breakthroughs.”
At the end of the Scientific Reports paper, an “ethical approval” section outlines the researchers’ strict adherence to official protocols for—rodent care:
“All animal studies/experimental protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Pittsburgh and were conducted following approved guidelines, which adheres to the NIH guidelines for housing and care of laboratory animals.”3
The question arises, was the same level of care offered to the unborn babies? Absolutely not. Their lives were snuffed out and exploited in abhorrent and macabre ways. After dismemberment at abortion clinics, they were administratively “de-identified” and referred to as “human fetal tissues”:
“De-identified human fetal tissues at the gestational age of 18 to 20 weeks were obtained from medically or elective indicated termination of pregnancy through Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), with the University of Pittsburgh, Health Sciences Tissue Bank. Written informed consent of the maternal donors was obtained in all cases, under a protocol reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Pittsburgh; approved guidelines and federal/state regulations were adhered to for all procedures. The use of de-identified human fetal tissues to construct humanized rodents was reviewed and approved by the University of Pittsburgh IRB Office.”3
Here, institutionalised human ethical ‘approval’ is emphasised—but it is certainly not God’s approval. He cannot condone such barbaric destruction of human life—for any cause. As Creator, God alone has the sovereign right to give or take life.
Imago dei defines humanity
The next sentence in the so-called ‘ethical approval’ section lays bare the philosophical and moral bankruptcy behind the thinking that approves such monstrous practices:
“The use of de-identified human fetal tissues did not constitute human subjects research as defined under federal regulations…” (emphasis added).2
This is the horror exposed. Unborn children are not being legally recognized as possessing human rights. Nevertheless, why, in the same sentence are fetal tissues labelled as being “human”? Which is it? Only when God’s Word is rejected as being foundational to correct moral thinking, are such contradictory and ethically repugnant statements contemplated. Such depraved reasoning inevitably leads to morally abhorrent, shocking practices, as in 2014 it was reported that some UK hospitals were being heated using incinerated aborted babies.
Unborn babies are people. They are made in God’s image and likeness (Latin: Imago dei; Genesis 1:30) and bequeathed by their Creator with the gift of life, dignity, and worth. They are also vulnerable, and should therefore be afforded special protection in law.
This kind of tax-funded research used to be banned under a succession of US administrations. The tragedy is, under recent and present governments, such restrictions were overturned,4 in which case, we can expect more horrors to come. History demonstrates that, if such ‘research’ can be done, it will be done. Tragically, the moral compass necessary for people to govern righteously in society is broken.
Conclusion
Not until people return in their thinking to the standards of God’s Word will the rights of the unborn be protected. Babies in the womb are fully human, made in God’s Image. The research described above should shock the conscience of people in every nation which practices abortion, and permits the insidious medical research that exploits it. However, the sad reality is that consciences will not be stirred unless people face up to the consequences of breaking God’s moral law. Evolutionary thinking sees humans and rodents merely as distant cousins, therefore the unborn have no inherent dignity or worth. Only Genesis provides the moral framework for protecting humans created in His Image.
References and notes
News first reported in: Trasancos, S., How aborted children are used in medical research in 2020; ncregister.com/blog/how-aborted-children-are-used, December 15 2020. Return to text.
Humanized mice carry functioning human genes, cells, tissues, and/or organs. They are commonly used as small animal models in biological and medical research for human therapeutics. Return to text.
Agarwal, Y., et al., Development of humanized mouse and rat models with full‑thickness human skin and autologous immune cells, Scientific Reports, 10:14598; September 2020 | doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71548-z. Return to text.
When so-called ‘Christian’ schools promote transgenderism there is not much hope with the public system.
‘When a six-year-old boy in their son’s class started to come to school sometimes dressed as a girl, Nigel and Sally Rowe, who live on the Isle of Wight, raised concerns with the Church of England school. They say that their son, also six years old, came home from school upset and saying that he was “confused” by the situation.
Nigel and Sally met with the headteacher and class teacher, and followed up with a letter setting out some of the questions that they had. But the school’s formal response was “cold”, they say, and didn’t address their concerns.
In the letter, the school suggested that an “inability to believe a transgender person is actually a ‘real’ female or male” and the refusal to “acknowledge a transgendered person’s true gender e.g. by failing to use their adopted name or using gender inappropriate pronouns,” was “transphobic behaviour”.
whatyareckon 