Is the draught broken? Perhaps but this we do know ‘While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease’ Genesis 8:22 .
Genesis
All posts tagged Genesis
The following is from an Australian Senator bringing her constituents up to date concerning the Religious Freedom Bill. This will not turn out good for those who have religious beliefs based on the Christian Scriptures. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 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.
Here is what the Senator wrote; ‘Australians of family and faith want to be able to live their lives in accordance with their faith and their convictions. The growing body of cases in Australia of people facing harassment, intimidation and persecution because of their religious beliefs and actions highlights the need for positive religious freedom laws. Some are even losing their livelihoods.
Indeed, since the 2017 same-sex marriage campaign and postal survey, people who hold and practice traditional values of marriage and family have been intimidated and harassed.
When freedom of speech, thought, conscience and belief is framed only as an “exemption” to other rights, they are “read down” against positive rights, rendering them subordinate to those other rights. A regime of positive rights in the form of religious freedom legislation would give greater effect to the right to manifest one’s freedom of thought, conscience and belief as outlined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Consequently, in June 2019, I launched a petition in the Australian Senate calling for the enactment of a Religious Freedoms Act to protect the right to freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion.
To date more than 30,000 original hardcopy signatures have been tabled in the Senate and I thank you to those of you who have signed my petition. My petition is ongoing and more signatures will be tabled this year.
I have continued to regularly speak in the Senate and in other forums on the need for protection of religious freedom as well as working with faith leaders and their communities toward this end.
On 29 August 2019, the Federal Government released its first exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills. Following almost 6,000 submissions and strong pressure from religious leaders, experts and stakeholders from across the faith spectrum, on 10 December 2019, the Federal Government released its second exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills.
The second exposure draft Bills are available at: http://ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/religious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-drafts.aspx
Whilst the Second Draft did address some changes, there are still major issues of concern including:
- The current draft bills DO NOT include or define religious bodies as being involved in “commercial activities”. Therefore, no full legal protection is provided to aged care facilities, retirement villages, residential colleges, school boarding houses, camps, conference facilities or marriage counselling organisations being operated by religious organisations. Protections should extend to all bodies which are conducted in accordance with, or in furtherance of, the doctrines, tenets and beliefs of a religion. That a religious body pursuing a religious purpose could cease to be a religious body because of “commercial activities” is deeply problematic. The solution is to ensure the commercial activities test MUST be removed.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal protections from discrimination to religious corporate bodies and unincorporated associations. The definition of “persons” should not just include corporate bodies, but there needs to be a mechanism by which a religious belief can be attributed to a corporate body in light of judicial rulings that a corporate body cannot have a belief. The solution is to ensure religious corporate bodies and religious unincorporated associations MUST be protected.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide full legal protections to religious bodies to preference the employment of staff that support the religious ethos of the organisation as well as to religious bodies to preference people of faith in the use of their facilities. This should include any consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The proposal that faith-based aged care, retirement villages and hospitals only be permitted to discriminate in respect of employment, but not services, will seriously compromise their ability to act consistently with their religious ethos. The solution is to ensure religious bodies MUST be afforded full legal protections to preference the employment of staff that support their religious ethos as well as preference people of faith in the use of their facilities
- The current draft bills DO NOT extend to State vilification laws. “Vilify” needs to be defined to remove the implication that “causing harm” amounts to vilification. The interaction between the protection of statements of belief and the protections to employees against indirect religious discrimination needs greater clarity. The “reasonableness test” (clause 8) leaves open the prospect that an employer may dismiss an employee, or a professional may have their accreditation removed, even though their statement of belief is protected under clause 42. The solution is for the protection for statements of belief MUST NOT be removed or watered down but extended to include State vilification laws.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections for employees to make statements of faith at their workplace or private time without fear of retribution from their employer (no freedom of speech or religion). It will not protect you from being the next Israel Folau! Concerns remain with the $50M threshold, the principle of “unjustifiable financial hardship”, and the fact that the current drafting may in fact incentivise secondary boycotts and third-party activism. They should also apply to persons irrespective of the turnover of their employer and whether they are engaged by government. Also, reasonable statements of belief should be protected from adverse discriminatory action by qualifying bodies and others (not just employers). In order to provide adequate protection, the protections to employees and professionals should extend to reasonable statements of belief made inside and outside the workplace or in the course of their profession. The solution is to ensure genuine statements of belief MUST be protected across the board inside and outside work.
- The current draft bills DO NOT override State laws, which gives too much power to State Governments that may be hostile to religion to pass laws prohibiting certain activities. The definition of “religious activity” should exclude “criminal” rather than “unlawful” activity. “Criminal activity” means activity that constitutes a criminal offence under the laws of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory. Whilst the Second Draft excludes council by-laws from lawful religious activity, it otherwise allows State or Territory laws to override the Bill. For example, the Victorian and Queensland Governments have recently proposed to ban conversion therapy (which is so broadly defined that it includes traditional religious teaching on sexuality and prayer and pastoral care based on that teaching). Such core traditional religious practices may be made unlawful by State laws and the Bill would provide no protection to religious bodies or individuals from discrimination. Further, courts have taken restrictive views of what comprises ‘religious activity’, confining that notion to prayer, worship or the observance of religious rituals or customs. This interpretation has the potential to exclude religious statements on matters such as marriage, gender or the family from the Bill’s protections, or to exclude religiously motivated acts, or to exclude refusals to perform ‘secular’ acts that are contrary to religious teaching. In light of this jurisprudence, such activities should be clearly included within the protected notion of ‘religious activity’. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST exclude only activities that are considered criminal offences.
- The current draft bill contains a “reasonableness test” that TOO BROADLY permits “reasonable” policies and conditions that discriminate against religious people and organisations. This leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable”. The “reasonableness test” for indirect discrimination and the “comparator test” for direct discrimination is too broad and leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable” and is therefore inconsistent with the strict grounds for limiting religious manifestation in Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both tests will weaken the protections to religious believers. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST be strictly interpreted to international standards Australia has ratified as under Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal and financial protections to Charitable organisations. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Freedom of Religion) Bill 2019 proposes an amendment to the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) that will clarify that a charity may advocate for a traditional view of marriage and not fail the requirement that it conform to public policy. This needs to be extended to ensure that a charity will not breach the public interest test and will not lose its tax-exempt status due to its traditional view of marriage. The solution is for Charitable organisations espousing traditional views of family and faith MUST retain their charitable status without any qualifications, exemptions or exceptions.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections to individuals who may hold genuine beliefs (minority) that are not the view of a religious denomination (majority). For example, an alternative point of view from a person in that particular denomination could be used to declare that individual’s belief as wrong. The protections in the Bill to religious bodies and persons should not turn on whether ‘a person of the same religion … could reasonably consider [the conduct] to be in accordance’ with the beliefs. The focus should remain on the sincerity of the belief, consistent with the approach taken amongst leading Anglophone Courts across the world, including the High Court in the Scientology Case. The requirement that religious bodies and persons must act in ‘good faith’ may also allow the imposition of secular notions of reasonableness. The solution is to ensure an individual’s genuinely held beliefs MUST be protected (a major hallmark of a mature and plural society).
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide maximum protection to health practitioners who seek to exercise conscientious objections and they DO NOT provide protections to faith-based health institutions. Conscientious protection offered to a limited number of health practitioners is insufficient. The solution is to ensure health practitioners and faith-based health institutions MUST be protected to exercise conscientious objections’ https://mailchi.mp/1f1752e00177/religious-discrimination-2nd-draft-exposure-bill-more-work-needed?e=63ff15b667
Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Most of us want clean air, clean drinkable water and a rubbish free environment. However, what the climate scammers are pushing really has nothing to do with any of the three. The climate scammers want to restrict our living standards and tax us for the privilege of living a lifestyle technology has provided so far. The climate scammers want to replace God the Creator.
Drought and famines have occurred on this earth for millenniums. Here are some Scriptures showing such.
Genesis 12:10 And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.
Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
Genesis 41:56, 57 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt. 57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.
1Kings 17:7 And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.
Famine is usually caused by the lack of rain so one should get the point by now that God is in control! This Climate Scam is all about doing away with God, more taxes, and more government intervention into the lives of the people. In the following video John MacKay speaks to that point. Even though this was a talk he gave in Scotland back in 2007 it is as relevant today as it was then.
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
Deuteronomy 33:15
“And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills,”
‘There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding what carbon dating actually is and does. For example, we mentioned in a previous Creation Moment that, contrary to popular opinion, carbon dating is not used to find a date for fossils because such fossils do not usually contain the original material of the organism.
Carbon dating relies on an isotope of carbon with a mass of 14, whereas normal carbon atoms have a mass of 12. About one in every trillion carbon atoms is carbon-14. It is just as well that the amount of carbon-14 is so small because it is radioactive, having a half-life of 5,730 years. Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere by bombardment by cosmic rays. These rays produce thermal neutrons which crash into atoms of nitrogen (mass 14), dislodging a proton in a microscopic game of pool, thus producing a carbon-14 atom. As carbon-14 acts chemically the same as carbon-12, it gets into carbon compounds and enters the food chain. Both plants and animals are constantly both taking in and emitting carbon-14, so its quantity is assumed to remain constant. On death, however, the existing carbon-14 will simply decay, so the amount of carbon-14 left can be used to calculate how long ago it died.
Used correctly, carbon dating is actually a useful technique, but it relies on the assumption that atmospheric bombardment has been constant. This is an unsupported conjecture, and the devastating effects and aftermath of the biblical Flood would have greatly affected calculated carbon-dates.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/what-is-carbon-dating/?mc_cid=5ef30aa0f2&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
The Church of England in the UK is moving further and further from the truth of the Word of God. The following are examples of this.
‘It was just over 50 years ago that the leader of the radical German Student Movement, Rudi Dutschke (aka ‘Red Rudi’) called for a “long march through the institutions” to realise the ideal of what has become known as cultural Marxism. This was the brain child of the Italian neo-Marxist, Antonio Gramsci whose key idea was that of ‘hegemony’ – the process whereby a dominant class could exert and maintain its influence over people through non-coercive means, such as schools, the media and marketing.
The aim is to get people to think, and especially feel, for themselves that certain values and practices, such as same-sex ‘marriage’, are ‘obvious’, ‘common sense’, ‘fair’ or even ‘natural’. Whereas Marx spoke of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, Gramsci’s vision was to undermine and eventually take over the ‘commanding heights of culture’. One of the main cultural heights in the UK is the Church of England. And it would seem that with the appointment of Stephen Cottrell as the 98th Archbishop of York, the long march in this institution is more or less over – the progressives have their man in place.’ https://christianconcern.com/comment/stephen-cottrell-a-crisis-of-confidence/?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=ebe5ae83f3-WN-20200103&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-ebe5ae83f3-127681039
‘Mermaids has trained professionals in the NHS, Police Service, Social Services, Schools, CAHMS and the workplace. We tailor all of our training to the specific needs and timeframes of each enquiry, if you are interested please get in touch by emailing us on training@mermaidsuk.org.uk or complete the contact form with a summary of numbers, location and a general overview of your current situation. For example, if you are a school supporting a child to transition, or an NHS trust, wishing to skill up key staff members with information and understanding of gender variance in children and young people.’ https://www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/transgender-training.html
‘John Parker, vicar and school governor explains what happened at the Mermaids training session’
You won’t read this in the mainline news for it doesn’t fit their narrative. Here it is; ‘This month the first person to obtain a legal “non-binary” sex designation has successfully petitioned the court originally responsible for his “non-binary” status to order that the sex on his birth certificate be restored to “male.” In documents exclusively provided to PJ Media, James Shupe’s petition described his “non-binary” designation as a 
“psychologically harmful legal fiction.” He told PJ Media he hopes this decision will prevent a woman currently seeking “non-binary” recognition from following the same lies.
“The charade of not being male, the legal fiction, it’s over,” James Shupe told PJ Media on Tuesday. “The lies behind my fictitious sex changes, something I shamefully participated in, first to female, and then to non-binary, have been forever exposed. A truthful accounting of events has replaced the deceit that allowed me to become America’s first legally non-binary person.”
“The legal record has now been corrected and LGBT advocates are no longer able to use my historic non-binary court order to advance their toxic agenda,” he added. “I am and have always been male. That is my biological truth, the only thing capable of grounding me to reality.”
While he became a hero for the transgender movement, Shupe now aims to dispel the lies of gender identity and reverse the harm caused by the precedent of his “non-binary” legal designation.
He referenced the case of Jones David Hollister, a woman who identifies as non-binary and is currently fighting to change her legal designation to non-binary. Hollister’s brief to the Oregon Court of Appeals cites Shupe’s case.
“I hope that Hollister and all the others are denied the right to change their sex to non-binary because it’s fraud and legal fiction based on pseudoscience,” Shupe said. “I was indoctrinated to believe that I had this thing called a gender identity and that suppressing it was causing my mental health problems. It was all a lie.”‘
‘Shupe went public about his detransition in an interview with PJ Media’s Bruce Bawer earlier this year after he asked for his official Florida documents to restore his legal sex to male.’ The whole article may be read at https://pjmedia.com/trending/ex-trans-man-reverses-non-binary-sex-designation-in-blow-to-lgbt-movement/
I grew up in Iowa and haven’t been ashamed of that fact until now.
‘An incredible story out of Iowa, where an Ames man was sentenced to 16 years in prison for burning an LGBTQ rainbow flag.
Adolfo Martinez stole a gay pride flag flying outside a church and torched it in front of a men’s strip club. NBCNews reports he was sentenced “to 15 years for the hate crime of arson and given a year for reckless use of explosives or fire and 30 days for harassment.” His sentence was enhanced by the fact that he was a “habitual offender.”
So why 16 years? A local pastor explains.
Ames Church of Christ Minister Eileen Gebbie said the sentencing was both heartbreaking and justified.
“Nobody got shot (and) nobody was sexually assaulted,” Gebbie said. “It was a banner. How much does that hurt? But I had to reflect on the fear it created in our sanctuary. People became afraid to go to church. We had to continue to talk about how to prepare for an active shooter and we learned from the trial Mr. Martinez had been watching our church for some time.”
So “fear”= 15 years? I always thought Lady Justice was supposed to be blind, and that “justice” was a concept that was defined by reason, balance, and fairness. But this is madness. This is vengeful.
The prosecutor believes the sentence was fair.
“I believe him to be very dangerous,” Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds said. “That’s why my office recommended the maximum sentence.”
Reynolds said the judge agreed to the 17-year sentence because Martinez has a long history of harassment and is a habitual offender and never showed any remorse.
“The defendant stated that there was nothing the judge could to stop him from continuing this behavior and that he would continue to do this no matter what,” she said.
He’s not threatening people. He’s threatening flags. The fact that he’s a habitual offender matters some, but this isn’t Minority Report and we don’t have a “pre-crime bureau.” We can’t predict future crimes he will commit and then sentence him for something he hasn’t done yet.
It is apparently not a “hate crime” to burn an American flag. It’s hardly a “crime” at all. In fact, it’s seen by many as an act of courage — “speaking truth to power” and all that. But we can only punish certain kinds of “hate” — the “right kinds” of hate that are smiled upon by the arbiters of social justice. Interestingly, the number of “hate crimes” seems to be growing all the time and the impulse to punish it is also expanding.
It makes a mockery of the concept of “justice” and “fairness.”‘ https://pjmedia.com/trending/man-sentenced-to-16-years-in-prison-for-burning-an-lgbtq-flag/?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&newsletterad=&bcid=08b5a1e2f2263b83e918fb56d7a12a3e&recip=26169367
This is another excellent short video from Creation Moments. I continue to be amazed how people believe the religion of evolution.
This video is from Creation, Evolution and Science Ministries. Their website is https://creationministries.org/ .
Evolution is taught as a fact in all public schools supported by the tax payer whether the taxpayer believes evolution is true or not. If it isn’t true it is a LIE foisted upon the students. Christians therefore must look for other sources that teach what the Bible teaches and that is there was a Creator.
This documentary shows the result of a worldwide flood known as Noah’s flood. This flood was the result of man’s sinfulness. Genesis 6:5 tells us And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
That flood of Noah’s time resulted in the formation of the Grand Canyon. If you do not know the Lord Jesus as your personal Saviour from your sins there is a judgement waiting for you. As the preacher’s told the jailer the same is true of you Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
whatyareckon 