The Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate conducted Feb. 4, 2014 at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, was anti-climactic at best.  Although the two men were evenly matched as to their general scientific knowledge, their lack of technical expertise in any specific scientific field was also glaringly evident.   Both men were able to argue various evolutionary or creationism viewpoints only up to the level of their understanding.  I doubt that either man would be considered qualified to teach science much beyond the high school level.  As a result, I suspect that very few who witnessed the event became better educated or were convinced to change their minds one way or the other.  In my opinion, the debate ended in a predictable draw.

View debate here.

Horse Head Nebula
NASA/Hubble image

That said, the debate did show that the argument over the two main theories of how the universe came into being, or one’s idea about the origin of everything, including life itself, depends largely on what sort of assumptions one is willing, or not willing, to make. Everyone starts out with a bias, or a particular pre-conceived world view.  Any real scientist should be open to allowing his/her worldview to be challenged, which is why such debates are to be encouraged.  Bill Nye demonstrated that he was open to debating the issue, which is more than could be said for most proponents of the evolutionary model.  The vast majority of evolution advocates refuse to participate in this type of discussion for the simple reason that they become frustrated by the inability to prove their own beloved theory.

We must keep in mind that to lend credence to a theory, or advance a theory beyond the realm of mere possibility, one must be able to demonstrate that it matches and explains the available evidence.  This is done by employing what has been described as the scientific method. The scientific method consists of systematic observation of one or more aspects of what we term “reality”.  The scientific method consists of measurement, experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. A hypothesis is nothing more than an explanation for a phenomenon. To be considered a “scientific hypothesis”, an explanation must be testable.  To become anything more than just a theory, the test results must be consistent, repeatable, and verifiable. Evolution simply does not rise above the level of hypothesis because it does not meet this strict scientific standard.  In other words, there is no verifiable proof that the theory of evolution is anything more than just a theory.

Mr. Ham pointed out the fact that two people may form a different hypothesis and/or draw vastly different conclusions after observing the exact same evidence.  Mr. Nye repeatedly pointed out that by employing the scientific method, one is able to make predictions, yet Nye failed to provide a single example where the employment of the scientific method has ever led to any indisputable proofs for evolution or provided any sort of a direct refutation of the creationist viewpoint.

Humility is the ability to admit that one doesn’t know all the answers.  Albert Einstein contended that all of mankind’s scientific knowledge is insignificant compared to reality!  Einstein accepted the fact that although man was an intelligent inquisitive creature, he was limited in his ability to understand the mysteries of the universe. Einstein declared that, “Before God we are all equally wise – and equally foolish.”   This profound statement underscores the futility of conducting any serious debate on how the universe actually came into existence.  Einstein described his religion as consisting “of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”  If a great mind such as Einstein could not fathom the intricacies of reality, who are we to claim the ability to unlock the mysteries of God?

Many scientists in all fields of research continue to believe in special creation because they have, in fact, repeatedly employed the scientific method and found that the results continue to support the hypothesis of intelligent design, or special creation.  To his credit, Mr. Ham did mention the names of a few highly regarded experts in various fields, men and women who share the creationist viewpoint as a direct result of the conclusions they have reached after decades of intensive research in specific fields of scientific study.

The indisputable fact is that there are thousands of molecular chemists, particle physicists, quantum mechanics, micro-biologists, astronomers, advanced mathematicians, and other highly regarded scientists and engineers who continue to believe in special creation for the simple reason that in their opinion, it is the hypothesis that best fits the observable evidence.

The theory of evolution has been demonstrated to be full of holes, yet there is absolutely NOTHING in the observable universe that disproves special creation. On the contrary, the evidence that there is indeed a God, a non-created omni-potent supreme being who created everything observable, (and many things we cannot observe), including the all important and often overlooked dimension of time itself, is simply overwhelming.  Are the six days of creation as described in the opening chapter of Genesis to be taken literally?  Of course they are, but only with the understanding that man’s concept of time is limited by his own experience.  God alone, in his infinite wisdom, determines the length of a second, the movement and order of stars, and the number of heartbeats each of us is given.

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”   [2 Peter 3:8]

CROSSING THE RUBICON – Will the Alamo Fall Again?

ImageWhen San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro revealed plans to designate the Alamo as a United Nation’s “World Heritage Site”, many Texans and patriots across America became incensed to learn that the UNESCO emblem may soon be flying over the ‘Shrine of Texas Liberty’.

The Alamo is esteemed in American history as the site of a heroic struggle against impossible odds — “a place where men made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. For this reason, the Alamo remains hallowed ground and the Shrine of Texas Liberty.”   []

The total area of the combined mission properties proposed for UNESCO designation, (including the required buffer zones), comprises 2,560.7 acres.—world-heritage-_toc_executive-.pdf

But let’s get a few things straight.  In the first place, this is not Mayor Castro’s plan. Designating the Alamo along with other Texas missions in the vicinity of San Antonio as a UNESCO “World Heritage” site is a Department of Interior- National Park Service plan in compliance with international standards and agreements.  President Obama made the proposal official last year.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has assured Texans that the U.N. flag will not be seen flying over the Alamo, and that nothing will change because of the designation except the potential for additional revenue:

“My legal team at the Land Office has reviewed this. I have personally met with the National Park Service staff working on this nomination and I am absolutely satisfied that a World Heritage Nomination will have no effect on the Alamo other than a possible increase in foreign tourists.”  [Jerry Patterson- Texas Land Commissioner]

The designation of properties and the ceding of American sovereignty piecemeal to the United Nations is nothing new.  Protected Lands designations are a major component of the Agenda for the 21st Century, an agenda supported and implemented by subsequent Democrat and Republican U.S. administrations.


“Sustainable development”, as it is sometimes called, with its disregard for private property rights and its communitarian natural resource management principles, has been adopted as the governing model for regional and local governments around the world.


Tourists drive right past the UNESCO placard displayed on the entrance sign to Grand Canyon National Park every day.

unesco_world_heritage_signHere at home, no one batted an eye when Philadelphia’s Independence Hall was designated as a United Nations “World Heritage Site” in 1979.   No one rose up to tell the U.N. to take their filthy hands off of our Lady Liberty in 1984.  I did not see protesters lining up when UNESCO’s protected commons designation was placed on Yellowstone National Park in 1978, or Carlsbad Caverns in 1995, or on nearly two dozen other American landmarks.

So why are folks getting upset about the Alamo?

“Legend holds that with the possibility of additional help fading, Colonel Travis drew a line on the ground and asked any man willing to stay and fight to step over — all except one did.”

“As the defenders saw it, the Alamo was the key to the defense of Texas, and they were ready to give their lives rather than surrender their position to General Santa Anna.”  

(From the official Alamo website.)

Isn’t it clear by now that the enemy has already breached the walls of liberty?   Global consensus and international agreements have replaced the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land.  Our elected leaders no longer operate under or are held in check by Constitutional principles.  Everything from the amount of water allowed in our toilets to the drugs we are forced to inject into our children has become a matter for the government, not the individual, to decide.

We have allowed the deterioration of our individual freedoms and State rights.  The institution of universal government controlled healthcare complete with fines for non-compliance, the misuse and abuse of our military, and the brainwashing of our youth by a U.N. mandated “common core” (a.k.a. “World Core”) curriculum are just a few examples.

But the Alamo holds a special place, albeit an almost mythical nostalgic place, in the minds and hearts of the American people.  We should never forget that in 1836, a small contingent of patriots held off several thousand Mexican troops for 13 days before finally being overrun. The Alamo was America’s Masada.

Today, Americans are surrounded on all sides by a seemingly invincible enemy.  State and County borders don’t really matter anymore.  Our Federal government is fully committed to managing America on a regional basis for the “global common good”.  The Landscape Conservation Cooperative map that I discussed in a previous post, is just one of the new generation of maps being used to manage America’s land and people in compliance with Agenda 21 mandates.  The LCC map is important because it clearly shows that the Federal government no longer respects State or international boundaries.

The GAP Analysis Project begun under the Clinton administration feeds GIS data directly into the United States Protected Area Database (US-PAD), which then reports directly to the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA/IUCN), which monitors progress towards the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, (specifically- goal #7).  The IUCN  is using these maps to numerically categorize all of the land area within what used to be a sovereign nation.

“In cooperation with UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), GAP ensures PAD-US also supports continental and global decision making by maintaining World Database for Protected Areas (WDPA) Site Codes and International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Categories for linkage to the North American Terrestrial Protected Areas Database and WDPA.”

So, what difference does any of this make?  Are Americans willing to sell the Alamo to placate the global community or will the Alamo in 2014 become to Texan’s what the Rubicon was to Julius Caesar in 49 B.C., a line in the sand that once it is crossed, signifies total commitment, no turning back?  Keep in mind, that if Caesar had not crossed the Rubicon, that little river would have remained an insignificant stream with no real historical importance.

Our Common Destiny, NOT! -The President’s Theosophy and Agenda 21

File:Katie Walking Labyrinth 2.jpg

“Walking the Labyrinth” – JamesJen- Creative Commons

When Barack Obama first emerged as a presidential contender, conservatives derided him for his lackluster resume.  They made fun of his experience as a “community organizer”.   Yet to all those mysterious men (and a few women) who have spent decades working in the shadows crafting policies that have now emerged into the light and become global mandates, (i.e. “Agenda 21”),  the title of “community organizer” carries a prestigious meaning.  There is no higher compliment among the world’s elite than to be known as a “community organizer” or “change agent”.

Speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations earlier today (Sept. 24, 2013), President Obama once again paid homage to the collectivist ideals of the U.N., opening his remarks by citing our “common prosperity”.  In previous speeches Obama has used many of the same communal terms, referring to mankind’s “common security”,  “common destiny” or our “common future”.  Obama closed today’s remarks by declaring that, “Time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change — to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history.”

Full text of Obama’s U.N. speech is available here:

So where did the phrase “our common destiny” originate and what does it really mean? Is Obama speaking the truth when he claims that we all share a common future?

For purposes of this discussion I will limit my references to two books that promoted several of the key concepts for what later became known as the Agenda for the 21st Century, or “Agenda 21” .  The first book is entitled, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development  commissioned at the request of the United Nations and published in 1987 by Oxford University Press.  That book was quickly followed by a similar volume called, Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, a Trilateral Commission book also published by Oxford University Press. This second book firmly establishes the idea that “sustainability” must become the new earth religion guiding mankind’s future.  David Rockefeller (founder of the Trilateral Commission) wrote the forward, and that old dragon himself, Maurice Strong, wrote the introduction as he prepared for the public unveiling of Agenda 21 at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.

In the introduction to Beyond Interdependence, Strong claimed that 2012 was a drop dead date for full implementation of Agenda 21.  He wrote that in the event the world failed to fully adopt sustainable development by that date, the nations of the world would face some type of “crisis” (real or manufactured) that would ultimately force compliance. [Note: The U.N. Millennium Development Goal #7 measures progress towards Agenda 21 "Environmental Sustainability". The deadline to meet all MDG's has been extended to the end of 2015].

A few years later, in 1994, David Rockefeller reminded a gathering of global billionaires at the United Nations Business Council that, “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long- We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”   

David Rockefeller , (if he’s still alive), would be 98 years old.  Maurice Strong, (age 84), has been living in Beijing since 2005, and serves as that government’s top advisor on sustainability and the environment.

Obama has been using the same communal language as these two aged globalists for the past five years.  While visiting Jakarta in 2010, (Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation on earth), Obama declared that, “our future security and prosperity is shared”.  Obama also said, “I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia gives us hope. It’s a story written into our national mottos. E pluribus unum – out of many, one.  Bhinneka Tunggal Ika – unity in diversity.”

Obama concluded his blatantly theosophical remarks thus:

“Ancient traditions endure, even as a rising power is on the move… That spark of the divine lies within each of us. We cannot give in to doubt or cynicism or despair… unity is more powerful than division; and that the people of this world can live together in peace. May our two nations work together, with faith and determination, to share these truths with all mankind.”

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visit the main prayer hall during a tour of the Istiqlal Mosque with Grand Imam Ali Mustafa Yaqub in Jakarta, Indonesia, Nov. 10, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

What “ancient power” was Obama referring to?  What “divine spark”?  And why did he use the word “lies” instead of “lives”?   In this same speech, Obama also referred to his visit to the Istiqlal Mosque earlier in the day.  However, in all this wonderful talk about unity and diversity, the President failed to mention that on the main wall of the mosque is a large metalwork of Arabic calligraphy spelling the name “Allah” on the right side, and “Mohamed” on the left side.  In 2008, (the year Obama was first elected), in the center area between the metalwork was a large multi-colored banner with Surah Thaha 1429 written on it. [See comment section for more details.]

Surah 1429 is from the 14th chapter of the Koran, called “Abraham”.   It is one of several verses that Muslims have traditionally used in waging a war of terror against anyone who stands in the way of the spread of Islam, or Islamic jihad.  It is a verse used to justify the murder of infidels, often cited just before a non-believer is beheaded.  Translated into English, Surah 1429 reads, “And they shall all burn in hell!”

It occurred to me that the devil would love to convince us that we really do all share a common destiny.  But while the elite politicians of the world are busy trying to unite nations and people around some shared future collectivist model, it is clear that God has other ideas.

Jesus came to redeem mankind out of this messy sin-riddled death-dealing world.  He is the Great Divider, the one who separates the wheat from the chaff.  We should thank God that we do NOT all share a common destiny.  There are really two distinct paths (and only two paths) we can go by.  One is the wide path that leads to destruction, the other is the narrow path, the Jesus way, leading to everlasting life and wholeness.

The fires of Hell will certainly become the common destiny for many, but for others there is another destiny.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  – John 3:16 KJV

WOLVES IN THE CLASSROOM – The Lightning Thief Unmasked

“The gods of Olympus are alive and well in the 21st Century! They still fall in love with mortals and have children who are half-god, half-human, like the heroes of the old Greek myths. Could you be one of those children?”

[Rick Riordan - introducing his novel, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief]

The American people have accepted the fact that our public school system should be totally “secular” in nature.  We expect public schools to avoid teaching anything deemed overtly religious for fear that our children will become indoctrinated into a particular worldview rather than educated.  This means of course that anything even remotely considered “Christian” has been completely banned from the classroom.  Most parents are okay with this perceived exclusion of religion since there are certainly plenty of other avenues to teach religion outside of the public school system.  Yet, what most parents don’t understand is that there is no such thing as a spiritual vacuum, and while Jesus Christ, or the God of the Bible, may not be mentioned in the public school classroom, plenty of other “gods” have been welcomed with open arms.

On February 29, 2012, my daughter came home from school and complained that her sixth grade reading assignment was “really creepy and weird”.   As a concerned parent, I began to investigate the material for myself.  What I found was extremely disturbing.   Just reading the first chapter of Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, in which the Greek “god” Cronus is described as eating his own children, convinced me that my daughter was right.  The first sentence in Chapter 1 starts out by telling young readers that “your parents told you lies about your birth”.  This declaration sets the stage for all the violence, adultery, and New Age beliefs promoted in this fantasy novel.

My wife and I ended up registering a formal challenge against the curriculum. We labored through a six month labyrinth of school district policies and curriculum review procedures before deciding that it was necessary to remove our daughter from the public school system.

I have compiled and self-published a journal which documents everything that transpired.  Some of it is almost beyond belief, and could be the subject for a novel in itself.  My journal includes copies of all the written correspondence between myself and various school district officials, legal professionals, notes from meetings and numerous internet links to the extensive research that I conducted supporting our objections to the curriculum as well as the final school district decision.   As a result of our efforts, the district did make some changes by requiring teachers to provide a list of alternate reading materials where none were available previously, and also will now require a notation in the reading list alerting parents that this specific material has been challenged.  Additionally the district will no longer allow the movie version of The Lightning Thief to be shown at school.  However, we felt the district’s changes did not go far enough to address all of the issues we raised.  This brief blog article is merely intended to encourage parents to become more involved in their children’s education, become better informed,  ask questions, and if necessary, challenge what is being taught.

Cronus Devouring One of His Children – oil on canvas by Peter Paul Rubens

In literature, the fantasy genre is a catch-all category that uses fiction to describe events that occur outside the parameters of everyday reality.   Fantasy is a form of storytelling that provides a representation of something which is considered impossible in real life.  It is defined as a story that departs from the accepted rules by which individuals perceive the world around them. Such literature often incorporates magic, talking animals, paranormal activity, supernatural forces and unexplained events. We’ve all read fantasy literature and watched fantasy movies.  Most of us retain the ability to separate fact from fiction and understand the concept of “make believe” and are not harmed by the experience.  Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson and the Olympians book series is designed as a middle-school reading curriculum that enjoys widespread acceptance in public schools across the United States and Canada.  But Riordan’s books are much more than just fantasy entertainment.  Sort of like Harry Potter on steroids, the Percy Jackson series goes far beyond witchcraft by elevating humanity to the level of the divine.

Typically requiring a full semester or longer to complete, The Lightning Thief reading unit depicts paganism, graphic violence, hallucinogenic drug use, promiscuity, adultery, bestiality, and incest. (I can cite chapters and page numbers upon request.)  The Las Vegas scene in the movie version is nothing less than a modern depiction of the so-called “Dionysian mysteries”, a drug and sex fest that was quite popular in ancient Greek society.  In the Las Vegas scene, Percy and his two companions, including a Satyr named Grover, spend five days imbibing drugs while Gover is depicted enjoying the affections of a troupe of Las Vegas showgirls.

Grover also gets to spend a week in Hades with the beautiful and exceptionally lustful Persephone, who exclaims upon meeting him, “I’ve never had a Satyr!”  After emerging from a strongly implied sex-filled week with Persephone, Grover has matured considerably as revealed by his new grown set of horns.  Who would consider this appropriate material for twelve year old boys and girls in a sixth grade classroom?  Despite our objections, the principle at my daughter’s elementary school insisted on showing the movie version as a reward for completing the reading unit just as he had done the year before, and the year before that.

[Official HD movie trailer can be viewed here:]

Video games, movie posters, and multiple sequels are all part of the Percy Jackson hype.  Some would argue that Rick Riordian’s Percy Jackson series, which purports to be a modern retelling of classical Greek mythology, is no worse than a lot of other books and movies we allow our children to be exposed to. But that kind of rationalization only confirms how successful the major publishing houses and Hollywood studios have been at promoting and marketing evil.

But even more disturbing than the skewed sexuality and violence in the movie is the fact that the book and accompanying study aids, comprehension tests, and teacher instruction materials, create a near total immersion experience into the worldview known as Theosophy, a worldview that teaches that each individual is divine and has the power and authority to decide what is right or wrong for himself.  Theosophy, for those who may not be familiar with the term, can most succinctly be described as the philosophy of “self worship”.

The Lightning Thief curriculum crosses the line between teaching Greek mythology from  a subjective historical viewpoint and promotes an overtly religious or theological viewpoint intended to indoctrinate young students.  The author uses Greek mythology as a setting to promote his view that in a universe populated with a host of unreliable “gods”, all of whom are competing with each other for our attention, it is far better to concentrate on bringing out the divine potential within one’s own self rather than rely on some powerful, yet petty deity for guidance or salvation.

The main theme of the Percy Jackson series is that all of the so-called “gods” are selfish, arbitrary, arrogant, lustful  prone to wrath, jealousy, envy, strife, etc.  They are constantly cheating on each other, having sex with men or impregnating human females, and causing mischief on the earth.  The heroes of the series are decent, self-controlled human beings who have come to realize that they themselves are endowed with a divine nature, half human and half “god”.   It should also be noted that Rick Riordan not only writes children’s fantasy novels, but has also authored numerous x-rated “adult” books.

The author himself holds two diametrically opposed views about the religious content of his children’s fiction.  In a public interview available on the author’s own website, Riordan stated that nobody believes this stuff [Greek mythology] anymore, claiming that it has “long stopped being any kind of serious religion”, yet he also repeatedly emphasizes that the ancient Greek “gods” and the myths surrounding them, as well as the pagan practices they inspired, “are part of our heritage… and deeply embedded in and inseparable from Western thought.” 

In The Lightning Thief book, one of Percy’s teachers, Mr. Brunner, (a.k. a. the “god” Chiron) instructs Percy to take a closer look at the foundation of America, to take a closer look at the evidence plainly visible:

 “Look at your symbol, the eagle of Zeus.  Look at the statue of Prometheus in Rockefeller Center, the Greek facades of your government buildings in Washington.  I defy you to find any city [in America] where the Olympians are not prominently displayed in multiple places.  Like it or not, and believe me, plenty of people weren’t very fond of Rome, either, America is now the heart of the flame.  It is the great power of the West. And so Olympus is here.  And we [the “gods” of Olympus] are here.”

[Mr. Brunner, a.k.a. the "god" Chiron in The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan, p. 73]

Indeed, if there is any agreement between myself and Mr. Riordan, it is on this very point. The Greek “gods” are here. We are surrounded by them.  But unlike Mr. Riordan, I don’t consider such entities to be “gods”, nor do I want to associate or equate myself with them.  There is only one God, and His name is above all names and greatly to be praised.

Controlling the Media – Part I: Wolves in Hollywood

People love a good story.  We love books and movies, fables and fairy tales, stories of adventure, intrigue, and romance.

Two of Hollywood’s most successful film makers, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, were the keynote speakers at the recent dedication of the new Interactive Media Building at the USC School of Cinematic Arts.  Both men predicted an “implosion” in the film industry as they described how individual creativity is being stifled while film content is increasingly being dictated by an elite cadre of powerful media gatekeepers. only a handful of media conglomerates controlling approximately 90 percent of the U.S. and Canadian box office, both Spielberg and Lucas described the difficulties of getting past the gatekeepers to create their latest works, “Lincoln” (Spielberg) and “Red Tails” (Lucas).   George Lucas explained that, “the pathway to get into theaters is really getting smaller and smaller.”

Why would Hollywood not welcome anything created by the likes of Spielberg or Lucas? Have these two men not already proven themselves to be masters of their craft?  Why did Lucas have to spend $58 million of his own money to make Red Tails?

The answer is because these particular films did not fit the Hollywood elite’s socio-political agenda.   Movies about the extraordinary challenges facing our 16th President and the sense of duty, self sacrifice, and determination that drove the Tuskegee Airmen are just too real, too historical, too damn patriotic, and too profoundly traditional for Hollywood.

Spielberg’s Lincoln depicted two aspects of American history that the gatekeepers in Hollywood did not want the public to see.  The first truth revealed by Spielberg is the shady way our democracy really works. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed using intimidation, deceit, and bribery.  In that regard, nothing has really changed in Washington over the past 150 years. second “secret” revealed by Spielberg is the fact that it took a Republican President and a Republican majority in Congress to end slavery in America.  In 1864 the Republican controlled Senate voted in favor of the 13th Amendment.  In 1865, all of the House Republicans voted for the Amendment to end slavery while nearly all of the Democrats were opposed.  If it were up to the Democrats, the Civil War would have ended much differently and slavery would NOT have been abolished in North America. In fact, had the Democrats prevailed, a second, even bloodier Civil War would have likely broken out decades later over the status of additional states, in deciding over whether such states would be “slave” or “free”.

Everyone knows that cultural immorality runs rampant in Hollywood just as political corruption runs rampant in Washington.  There’s nothing new going on behind closed doors or under the spotlight.  Immoral and socially degrading movies produced by Hollywood’s so-called “gay mafia” have been rolling across our screens for decades. The men who control our media are in the business of providing titillation of the senses rather than stimulation of thought processes.  But the types of movies that now make it to a mass audience have narrowed considerably.

The Hollywood gate keepers did not want Spielberg to make “Lincoln”.  There is no longer any room among the major studios for stories about duty, God and country.  There is no room for a depiction of a mortal man profoundly affected by the weight of a nation at war, a man, who by sheer force of will, through integrity and stubborn adherence to deeply held convictions and a profoundly personal faith, successfully steered America through the bloodiest time in our nation’s history.  There is no room for a story about the Tuskeegee Airmen who were able to overcome social and racial discrimination in order to help America secure victory over a greater evil, the political tyranny and religiously motivated racial genocide of Nazi Germany.  There is no room left in Hollywood for traditional notions of right and wrong, no room for humility or the concept of redemption, and certainly no room for family values or the God of the Bible.

The Hollywood elite are engaged in turning the traditional understanding of good and evil on their head.  Too many of us have been content with securing bread and attending circuses, and have paid little heed to where we are being led.   Some people are waking up to the fact that over the years Hollywood has been diligently working to create a generation of self-centered theosophists, a generation of people who think more highly of themselves than they ought to.  This new generation is being trained to view themselves as inherently divine, infused with latent supernatural powers just waiting to be revealed.  Anything that disrupts the acceptable socio-politically correct programming has little chance to make it into the mass media market.  Hollywood worships on the altar of self.  It is teaching the rest of us to do the same.  Movies that promote integrity, responsibility, self-sacrifice, or devotion to a higher calling are passé.

Great article here:

GMO GENIE Part IV – The Great Divide

My freshman Sociology professor was a mix between Sarumon- (the evil wizard from J.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy), and Freddy Kruger.  His reputation for baiting naïve freshmen into open debate just so he could slice them to pieces with his superior intellect and advanced debating skills was legendary.  I’ll never forget that first day of class when the “good” teacher wrote the following words across the blackboard:


Sarumon the White – From the film vesion of J.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

When this firebrand of a teacher exclaimed in his booming voice that, “THERE ARE NO INDIVIDUALS!” and demanded a show of hands of anybody who dared disagree, I sat there just like all the other 90+ students in the lecture hall, churning inside, but too damn scared to raise my hand to voice opposition.

The man’s shoulder length silver hair and matching beard were a common sight on campus.  He shunned automobiles and rode his bicycle everywhere he went.  This professor was an outspoken practitioner of Wicca and well known for his radical environmental views.  Back in those days, (1975), I had no qualms with the professor’s worldview and certainly none for his chosen mode of transportation. I was an agnostic myself and already a very passionate environmentalist.

As the professor scanned the room looking for victims, our eyes met just for a moment, and then I immediately looked down at my feet hoping he wouldn’t notice me.  I could feel his piercing black eyes penetrating my soul as he sized up the flock.  I wanted to raise my hand in the worst way, but I also didn’t want to be made to look like a fool in front of the entire class, especially on the first day of the new semester.   Not surprisingly, no one in the entire class raised their hand. The professor looked disdainfully about the room and said, “I thought so.”  I don’t remember anything else the man said or taught for the rest of the semester.

After that experience I promised myself that whenever the opportunity presented itself, even though I lacked training in the fine art of debating, or possessed an inferior intellect compared to those I disagreed with, or fell short in the required academic credentialing, I was never going to remain silent and let someone tell me that up was really down, and wrong was really right.  And that included anyone who called themselves an “expert” or went around parading a long list of titles or academic credentials.

I have learned that the Bible is true, God is real, and He has given us His Son, so that “whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”  [John 3:16]    I hang my hat on the fact that God will direct my steps, if I am willing, paying attention, obedient, and not blinded by my own desires.  As I have written in the first three segments of GMO GENIE, I hold a contrary position regarding Genetically Modified Organisms from that espoused by Dr. Calvin Beisner and the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

The theological debate regarding GMO’s centers on several factors, including the definition of “stewardship”, “dominion”, “good”, “evil”, and the ultimate purposes and goals of GM technology.  Cornwall Alliance claims that man has a “dominion mandate”, indeed, a moral obligation and stewardship responsibility to create new organisms by combining genes from different “kinds” of living creatures in the laboratory to produce stronger crops, increase yields, and “reduce the effects of the curse”.   Yet many professing Christians find the creation of these new chimeras abhorrent.

There are many ways to strengthen crops and produce higher yields without GM technology.  Man has developed all sorts of techniques and tools to make life safer, more pleasant, more productive, and last longer.  The debate is NOT about doing things that help us live in this fallen world.  The debate is about doing a specific thing that many people, and especially many Christians, believe that mankind has not been mandated by God to do and which could ultimately prove catastrophic. The debate is not just about the principle of re-making the plants and animals that God originally created by combining genetic material from different life forms in the laboratory, but it is about the wisdom of creating such organisms in the first place.  Once created, it then becomes a matter of judging the “product” itself. [See Matthew 7:20]

Reviewing all the arguments for and against GM as posted on the Cornwall Facebook page reveals that the conversation between opposing viewpoints can quickly devolve into what the apostle Paul described in 1 Timothy as “vain babblings”, arguments over cost benefit analysis, real or imagined effects, and other issues. One thing becomes very clear-  the GM process when looked at holistically involves many evils, including convincing, bribing, or intimidating individuals and governments to go along with the idea of releasing new patented creations into the environment, and then requiring nearly everyone on earth to purchase and consume them.  Cornwall’s position that GMO’s are a legitimate expression of man’s dominion mandate provides a cover of morality, not just to those seeking privatization and a government/corporate monopoly on food production, but for nearly anything else that man can conceive of doing.

Please note, as has been discussed previously, we aren’t talking about making stronger pea plants through the hybridization of similar kinds.  We are talking about incorporating genetic material from vastly different species in new and unique ways that are then controlled by patents requiring a legal obligation on the part of the grower.  With the simultaneous planned elimination of alternative seed choices, the farmer has little option but to comply.


In discussing GMO’s on Cornwall’s Facebook page, only two individuals raised their hands to argue against GM technology.  Outgunned by professional chemists and industry insiders led by Dr. Beisner, an expert debator and professor of “logic”,  we stood our ground.  The Cornwall folks did provide reasonable answers to many of the specific points and concerns we raised, but ignored the thornier issues concerning human rights, food freedom, and specific criticisms leveled at their Theological Framework for Evaluating Genetically Modified Food.

Beneath the word “stewardship” as Cornwall defines it,  lies the acquisition of influence, authority, power, control, and dominion over every aspect of creation.  At one point in the debate, I pointed out that had the Nazi’s won WW II, we would have been much further along with the creation of GMO’s than we are today.  One of the Cornwall folks responded to my NAZI comparison by pointing out that, “It was the Nazi’s ethics that were different, not their logic; and they certainly didn’t “elevate” logic.”

There may be a difference between the “ethics” of Nazi eugenics and somebody’s definition of “godly” genetic engineering, but the rationalizations for, and even some of the underlying goals of today’s GM technologies, are exactly the same as those crudely employed sixty years ago.  If there is indeed a line that the NAZI’s crossed that we shouldn’t cross, I think those researchers in Great Britain who just a few years ago admitted to having created ‘para-humans’ and animal-human ‘chimeras” should hear about it.  Somebody should explain where the ethical boundary line is to SENOMYX, a company that has been utilizing the cloned cells from aborted fetuses as a test medium for flavor enhancement ingredients found in consumer food products sitting on store shelves right next to the GM products.

Cornwall says they don’t support the genetic modification of humans. Such a statement is not just arbitrary, it is basically meaningless since genetic modification and experimentation of human DNA has been underway for quite some time.  Their shaky theological framework in support of genetically modified organisms provides an open door for the acceptance of all sorts of unimaginable GM technologies, including transhumanism.  All “ethical” bets are off when it comes to finding new and innovative ways to reduce “the effects of the curse.”

Christian love is born of unity in the Spirit.  And unity of the Spirit comes from God. When we hold opposing worldviews, or cannot agree on the purposes for which we have been created, then there cannot be unity.  Opposing opinions regarding GMO’s are growing more passionate on both sides.  Pro GM theocrats are creating a massive stumbling block for people of conscience who simply aren’t buying the propaganda put forth by an elite cadre of scientists and self-appointed theologians.  To assume that such a growing divide can be bridged by skilled arguments, peer persuasion, or the sheer force of “logic”, is the height of arrogance.  For such are the tactics of our adversary.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with the. Amen. “  [I Tim  6:20-21]

“If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.”   [Philippians 2:1-2]

Man’s pursuit of GMO’s will ultimately be judged by God as either wise or foolish.  He will either be pleased with what we have done, or He will not.  There are no shades of gray regarding “good” or “evil” in this debate.



GMO GENIE Part 3 – Dominion Unshackled

Institutionalized slavery has existed in one form or another for thousands of years, and still exists in some Muslim countries today.  Slavery arises when men believe they have the right and/or are endowed with the moral authority to assert dominion over another human being.

Examples of slavery, or bondage, are widespread throughout both the old and new testaments.  Leviticus 25:39-46 lays out the specific rules for the treatment of gentile slaves and Jewish “bondservants”.   The scriptures are full of examples, rules, and warnings regarding the mistreatment of those in servitude by their “masters”.   Another scripture commonly used to support a theological basis for the subjugation of others is Genesis 9:25, where Noah, angered over the shameful actions of one of his own sons, exclaimed, “Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” 

It should be noted that several Christian denominations and pseudo-Christian cults rationalized enslaving black skinned Africans on the false premise that dark skin is the proverbial “mark of Cain”, and that those who bore such a mark were cursed and deserved to be kept in bondage.  Of course this claim cannot be supported by any sound reading of the scripture.  In fact, the whole notion that Jesus was a blue-eyed auburn-haired “Aryan” is a purely European construct.  There is plenty of evidence suggesting that the Jews of Jesus day, and quite likely Jesus himself, although not “black” in the racial sense, likely had darker skin, darker eyes, and much darker (and shorter) hair than is commonly portrayed in Euro-centric art or Hollywood movies.

In the New Testament,  Paul’s letter to Philemon provides proof that Christian believers also owned slaves.  In fact, Paul’s letter revolves around the close relationship he forms with one of Philemon’s runaway slaves, a man named Onesimus.  But the fact that even Christians were slave owners does not mean that the scriptures, in principle, should be used to support the concept of slavery, or that the slave system is a biblical model we should follow.  Using the scriptures to support genetic engineering and the creation of new mixed-up life forms is like arguing that slavery, in principle, is permissible because although God set limits and rules, He did not specifically forbid the practice. In many instances, man has treated the natural world, not as a garden created by God that man has been directed to “dress and keep” [Gen. 2:15], but as a slave he is empowered to dominate.

Even though many of the founders of this nation were slave owners, no one in his right mind would argue that the U.S. Constitution, in principle, supports slavery.  Using the Bible to support the practice is equally absurd since the entire focus of the scriptures is not to provide man with the authority to practice unlimited dominion over other men, (or unlimited dominion over nature), but to point man to the Redeemer, the ONE who has the authority and power to free mankind from the “curse” of sin and death and rescue us from SPIRITUAL BONDAGE!

To this end, the Apostle Paul specifically tells Philemon to accept his former slave (Onesimus), a new Christian convert, as an equal.  “Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?”  [1:16]   Not only does Paul refer to Onesimus as a “brother”, but he also refers to him as “my son”. [vs.1:10]  For those who are in Christ Jesus there is no longer any division based on race or class distinction.

So how does this relate to GMO’s?  Well, in Great Britain researchers working through genetic engineering have created hybrids called “para-humans” or human-animal chimeras”.  Bioethicists (the so-called “theologians” of science) are debating over whether or not at some point such creations have a “soul”, or are deserving of the same human rights as the rest of us.  Many are warning that creating a new species of para-human for the purposes of scientific experimentation is immoral, on par, or even worse, than institutionalized slavery.

The precedent for altering the genetic make up of creation and/or abusing human life for the purposes of testing new products and/or experimentation is a GENIE that escaped from the bottle years ago.  The mapping of the human genome was completed in 2003 and immediately hailed as a triumph of progress.  Genetic engineering promised miraculous cures and immeasurable benefits.  Stem cell research became the new buzz word.  All moral restraint was cast aside as bio-tech companies such as SENOMYX began experimentation with cloned human fetal cells derived from abortions in order to test chemical flavor enhancers for potential use in a variety of consumer food products including Pepsi diet beverages and Nestle coffee creamers.   The University of Washington filled over 4,500 orders for these cloned aborted fetal cell lines in 2010 alone.   To some, dominion means there are absolutely no limits standing in the way of the advancement of science.

The emerging field of transhumanism was born out of the utopian potential promised by unshackled dominion over nature:  

“[Transhumanism] promotes an interdisciplinary approach to understanding and evaluating the opportunities for enhancing the human condition and the human organism opened up by the advancement of technology.  Attention is given to both present technologies, like genetic engineering and information technology, and anticipated future ones, such as molecular nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.”

Credit: DNA Stockphoto/David Marchal

Researchers working on manipulation of the human genome use the same rationale that those working on GM crops use, namely that the promise of the betterment of mankind through genetic engineering outweighs any concerns that a few “mistakes” might be made along the way.  Indeed, wouldn’t it be wonderful to eradicate starvation or disease by genetically creating a new “super man” or a new “super food” in the laboratory?   Transhumanism promises its adherents that they will be able to (eventually) defeat the aging process, overcome death and disease, and ultimately eliminate “the effects of the curse”.   Transgenic plants are being created using the same “dominion” principle and false promises as the creation of transgenic humans.  New GM crops are advertised as having the power to defeat insect pests, “end starvation”, and provide unlimited and sustainable nutrition for the world’s growing population.  The belief that man can not only improve creation, but re-make it in his own image, is the driving force behind such genetic modifications.

The entire notion of the “advancement” of mankind is at play here.  In their misguided search to derive theological principles from the Bible to support genetic engineering, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and Jordan Ballor in a recent Cornwall newsletter, argue that dominion over nature trumps stewardship over creation.  Convinced of man’s righteousness (or at least his superiority) and the power to do as he will, such people have focused on the ability to manipulate the created order without regard to the One who created it.  However, when it comes to man’s ability to combine two or more distinct life forms and “create” something entirely new, or that never was, or that should never be, the scriptures are clear.  There is only one God, one Creator, and one supreme Judge of good and evil.

From the Institute for Creation Research comes the following insight:

April 26, 2013

Creation and the Sciences-

“So God created man in his own image, in   the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) The first chapter of Genesis is the foundational chapter of the Bible and, therefore, of all true science. It is the great creation chapter, outlining the events of that first   week of time when “the heavens and the earth were finished, and. . . .   God ended his work which he had made” (Genesis 2:1-2). Despite the evolutionists, God is not creating or making anything in the world today (except for special miracles as recorded in Scripture) because all His work was finished in that primeval week. He is now engaged in the work of conserving, or saving, what He first created.

There are only three acts of special creation–that is, creation out of nothing except God’s omnipotent word–recorded in this chapter. His other works were those of  “making” or “forming” the created entities into complex, functioning systems.

His first creative act was to call into existence the space/mass/time cosmos. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). This is  the domain which we now study in the physical sciences. The second is the   domain of the life sciences. “God created . . . every living creature that moveth” (Genesis 1:21).   It is significant that the “life” principle required a second act of direct creation. It will thus never be possible to describe living systems   solely in terms of physics and chemistry.

The third act of creation was that of the image of God in man and woman. The study of human beings is the realm of the human sciences. Our bodies can be analyzed chemically and our living processes biologically, but human behavior can only really be understood in terms of our relation to God, whose image we share.


To arrogantly assume that man has the authority to manipulate and mistreat the very foundations of creation itself, to create, patent, and own new life forms, is something that cannot be pleasing to God.

“And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more.”  [Rev 18:11]