Top Sites

The Fundamental Top 500

      

Author Archive

REPROOF OF GOOD MEN

REPROOF OF GOOD MEN

(Friday Church News Notes, December 7, 2012, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) – Where did we get the idea that no warnings should be given in regard to good men and churches? That is one of the vain and unscriptural traditions that IFBaptists have inherited from their forefathers. All such reproof of good men is considered mean-spirited and divisive and wrong-headed, but Jesus reproved the good church at Ephesus for the very reason that He loved it and wanted to see it prosper and not be destroyed (Revelation 2:4-5).

Paul reproved the good preacher Peter because he loved Christ and the truth and didn’t want to see hypocrisy destroy the work of God (Galatians 2:11-14). The prophet Jehu reproved the good king Jehoshaphat for his compromise because God commanded him to do so and the prophet feared God more than man (2 Chron. 19:2). The Psalmist said, Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head… (Psa. 141:5).

The Danger of “Adapting” CCM – Garlock’s Warning

THE DANGER OF ADAPTING CCM – GARLOCK’S WARNING (Friday Church News Notes, April 15, 2011, www.wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) -

Many independent Baptist churches that still have any sort of conviction against CCM are adapting it by using the words while toning down the rhythm. They are trying to take the rock out of Christian rock. They think they can tame the beast and turn Charismatic praise music into fundamentalist praise music. This results in the gradual acceptance of and increasing use of CCM, the gradual allowance for sensual rhythms, a continual pushing of the boundaries.

Many discerning men have issued warnings about this slippery slope, including Frank Garlock. IF A CHURCH STARTS USING CCM IT WILL EVENTUALLY LOSE ALL OTHER STANDARDS. You need to draw a line concerning your music (Garlock, Bob Jones University chapel, March 12, 2001).

Dr. Garlock has been instructing churches about the danger of using the world’s music for many decades. He has a doctorate from BJU and has taken every graduate course in music offered by the celebrated Eastman School of Music in Rochester, New York, sitting under Howard Hanson.

Garloc’s first book was The Big Beat in 1971, which warned about the danger of rock & roll at a time when I was living the rock & roll lifestyle to the hilt. In 1973, Dr. Garlock published the Symphony of Life seminar on video, and it had a wide and godly influence. That was the year that God in His great mercy saved me and changed my taste both in lifestyle and music. I turned 24 that year, and a few months later I published the first of my own books warning of the dangers of rock. It was titled Mom and Dad Sleep While the Children Rock in Satan’s Cradle.

Notice in the previous quote that Dr. Garlock is dogmatic, saying that if a church starts using CCM it will eventually lose all other standards, and he doesn’t allow for any exceptions. He doesn’t say that there is a way to adapt CCM to avoid this slide.

My Crowd

MY CROWD (Friday Church News Notes, May 13 2011, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143)

As for fellowship and association, I want a crowd today that is willing to raise the flag against compromise and apostasy high without hesitation — publicly, clearly, being willing to name the names of those who are leading in the compromise –without speaking out of both sides of the mouth, without facing two ways. I want a crowd that doesn’t just give lip service to the fact of growing compromise among IB churches but that warns plainly of such compromise and distances themselves from it in real, practical ways.

I want a crowd that not only preaches against Christian rock but also doesn’t hold hands with those who use it. I want a crowd that really hates the quick prayerism that has given multitudes of unconverted hell-bound sinners assurance of salvation and wants to distance themselves from those who practice it, not making excuses for it and not giving mere lip service to the importance of repentance.

I want a crowd that knows that Jack Hyles built a man-centered cult and not a New Testament church, a crowd that plainly, unhesitatingly, publicly exposes Jerry Falwell for the dangerous compromiser that he was instead of speaking sympathetically of him and only haltingly, vaguely mentioning his errors. I want a crowd that wouldn’t dream of sending staff members to Saddleback conferences or youth groups to Dollywood.

I want a crowd that understands that the very essence of New Evangelicalism is trimming one’s message down to the essentials for the sake of any sort of broader unity or fellowship, even for evangelism and world missions.

I want a crowd where a serious teaching-warning ministry like Way of Life is welcome and appreciated. Yes, I want a crowd that doesn’t take cheap shots at warning ministries. And I thank the Lord that there is still a crowd like this among IBaptists, though it is definitely in the minority.

20/20′s Hit Piece Against Bible-Believing Baptists

April 18, 2011 David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

The 20/20 report Victim’s Forced Confession pretends to be a fair and balanced report on abusive churches, but instead it was a hit piece against Bible-believing Baptists everywhere.

The report a mixture of truth, slander, hypocrisy, and hatred of God and His Word.

Let’s begin with the truth.

The report covers the Independent Fundamental Baptist Cult Survivors, a loose Facebook network of those who claim to have been abused by Independent Baptist churches. It focuses on a couple of particular cases of sexual abuse that were allegedly covered up by churches. These cases involved married men who were members of IB churches who had sexual relationships with underage girls.

I have no reason to disbelieve most of the allegations that are made in this context, because I have been warning for decades that some IB churches are cultish. A former IB church member is reported by 20/20 as saying, The whole culture is you don’t question the pastor. Another person says, A man who is essentially unaccountable to anyone else you have a recipe for abuse.

That is exactly right. I have written many reports about IB pastors such as Jack Hyles of First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, and his predecessor Jack Schaap who require unquestioning loyalty and who treat all forms of criticism as an attack on their spiritual authority. Sadly, this problem extends to many IB churches. First Baptist is one of the largest IB churches and its school, Hyles-Anderson College, has trained many preachers since its inception in 1972.

As for the coverup of sexual abuse and immorality in general, there is no doubt that it has happened. Pastors have been reinstated at some other church after committing adultery and homosexuality. I think of Jack Hyles’ son, Dave, who after committing adultery with women at Hyles Anderson was recommended to a pastorate in Texas, where he committed adultery with multiple women. This type of thing brings great reproach upon the name of Christ, who requires high moral standards of pastors and deacons (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1). Every Christian is a mere sinner saved by grace, so it should not surprise us to learn that Christians sin, but God requires a lot of those who hold positions of spiritual authority. James said, My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1).

Now let’s consider the slander.

20/20′s accusation that Independent Baptists as a movement are a cult and are guilty of the type of abuse documented in the report is slanderous. They should have done a lot more research. The IB movement is very large and diverse. While First Baptist of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College has a lot of influence, it is only one part of the IB movement. I have documented this in the report What Is Independent Baptist? Independent Baptist is not a denomination; it is simply a name that describes churches that are Baptist in doctrine and that are independent in polity.

There are differences among Independent Baptists in such matters as music, dress standards, the Bible version-text issue, Calvinism, Baptist briderism, the practice of communion, alien immersion, repentance and evangelistic practices, pastoral authority, church growth practices, relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention and evangelicals, and other matters touching on ecclesiastical separation.

The bottom line is that Independent Baptists are truly independent. I don’t doubt that there are good old boys networks that operate in some IB circles, but there are also large numbers of IB churches that are outside of the influence of these networks. Independent Baptists are not yoked together in any organizational sense with other Independent Baptists who might hold a different doctrine or practice. Some of the larger IB schools, such as Hyles-Anderson, West Coast, and Crown, wield influence, but only in their own circles. None of them have a reach that extends to a majority of IB churches. Large numbers of IB preachers are trained either in their own churches or in the countless medium to smaller IB schools that are not under the influence of the larger institutions. IB preachers are a very independent-minded group of men. Large numbers of IB preachers refuse to bow down toward any man-made institution and refuse to kow-tow to the big boys.

To lump all IB churches together into one pot of cultic abuse is slanderous.

I have personally preached in hundreds of IB churches whose pastors do not demand unquestioning loyalty, whose pastors are humble men who know that they are under discipline just like anyone else in the church, whose deacons and teachers are godly, compassionate men and women and are nothing like those exposed in the 20/20 report.

20/20 interviewed and gave total credence to the criticisms of some people who were allegedly the subjects of abuse in IB churches, but they could have interviewed thousands of people who grew up in IB homes and churches and would testify that they were treated with Christian compassion and grace.

This brings us to the hypocrisy of the 20/20 report.

20/20 found some abuse and possibly some coverup of sexual abuse. We wonder why that should be so shocking in the wicked society in which we live.

20/20′s ABC television network is culpable in creating the climate of moral relativism and the tearing down of divine authority that has produced rampant immorality, including the abuse of women and children. If man is merely an evolved worm, why should he not act out his impulses? If there is no supreme law-giving God, what is the basis for absolute morality? What moral culpability does a termite have when it eats the pillar of a house so that it collapses and injures people? If the Bible is a myth-filled book and Jesus was merely a good man and there are no moral absolutes, why would it be wrong for a man to abuse a child? What about homosexuals and their rights? If a homosexual acts out his love for boys, who is to say that is wrong? In fact, there are organizations of homosexuals that don’t believe that it is wrong. Will ABC expose them? Will it interview the boys who are the objects of homosexual advances? Will it treat them as victims the same way that it has treated the girls who were allegedly abused by IB church members?

Will 20/20 create a report about sexual abuse and coverup within the homosexual community?

Will 20/20 create a report about sexual abuse and coverup within the Muslim community?

No, because they are hypocrites with an agenda to discredit the God of the Bible, and they are not even handed or balanced in their reporting when it comes to such things.

This brings us to the final point, which is 20/20′s hatred of God and His Word.

Much of the report was devoted to their outrage at the fact that some people still take the Bible seriously.

The sexual abuse was indiscriminately lumped together with the alleged mental abuse created by fundamentalist preaching.

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to take the Bible seriously and to interpret it literally.

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to believe what the Bible says about corporal punishment. While we reject the foolish statements that were quoted by 20/20, such as spanking two-week-old infants or laying 100 stripes upon children (I have no idea where they dug up that nonsense), we do not reject the Bible’s wise teaching on corporal punishment. It wasn’t that long ago that corporal punishment was used in public schools in America. When I was in junior high school in Florida, our principle had a fearful paddle made from the end of a water ski with holes drilled in it! Most people then didn’t consider that abusive. Corporal punishment can be exercised properly without moving into the realm of abuse, and the vast majority of IB churches believe in a wise, compassionate use of the rod and are opposed to any sort of abuse.

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to believe that the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church. But the Bible’s teaching on this has been believed by most Christians for 2,000 years, and it was believed by the Jews for thousands of years before Christ came. It is 20/20′s feministic views that are the new kids on the block of human society. The Bible exalts women. Nowhere does it teach them to follow their husbands blindly. Husbands are under divine authority just like women are. Husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church, which is a very high standard of love. Any husband that abuses his wife and who treats her with anything other than compassion and respect is disobeying the Bible. Women played a large role in Christ’s earthly life and in the early churches. It was women who were the first to visit the empty tomb and the first to believe in Christ’s resurrection. The church at Philippi started with a woman’s prayer meeting. Phebe was one of the apostle Paul’s helpers (Romans 16:1-2). Priscilla is always mentioned in the context of Aquila’s church planting efforts (Acts 18:26; Romans 16:3; 1 Corinthians 16:19).

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to preach that there is only one narrow way of salvation through the blood of Christ and that those who reject God’s way will not be saved. But to think that this is abusive is to assume that the Bible is not true, because the Bible plainly teaches this doctrine and if it is true then it could not possibly be abusive to preach it and to warn men and women to be saved in the right way before it is too late. And it could not possibly be abusive to think that those who are not saved in the Bible way are lost. 20/20 painted those who believe this as self-righteous, and doubtless some are, but most Baptists who believe that there is only one way of salvation aren’t self-righteous. They know that they are sinners just like everybody else and they know that they don’t deserve salvation and could not possibly earn salvation through their good works. In fact, they know that their good works are filthy rags in the sigh of a holy God (Isaiah 64:6).

20/20 would have its viewers think that it is abusive to preach the Bible’s commands to live in a way that is separated from the wickedness of this present world system. They mock churches that encourage women to dress modestly in a society that flaunts immodesty. They mock churches that seek to maintain music that is spiritual in quality and to avoid music that is conformed to the pop culture. But the Bible says that the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12). God’s people are taught not to love the world (1 John 2:15-17), not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2), and are warned that to love the wicked world system is to commit spiritual adultery (James 4:4).

The 20/20 report Victim’s Forced Confession pretends to be a fair and balanced report on abusive churches, but instead it was a hit piece against Bible-believing Baptists everywhere.

____________________________

WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE SHARING POLICY: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our very expensive literature, video, and foreign church planting ministry. Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and FBIS articles. You are free to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print edition of our books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we need the income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy.

No Scientifically-Proven Evidence for Evolution

January 25, 2011 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article)
Charles Darwin did not offer any scientifically-proven evidence for his theory. The book On the Origin of Species did not prove that species arise from the process of natural selection. It only proved that species adapt through various processes. A century and a half has passed since Darwin published his thesis, and the scientific proof remains elusive. In fact, remove the evolutionary assumptions, and the evidence disappears.

Consider the following testimonies from Ph.D. scientists, most of whom once believed in evolution:

Despite all the millions of pages of evolutionist publications–from journal articles to textbooks to popular magazine stories–which assume and imply that material processes are entirely adequate to accomplish macroevolutionary miracles, there is in reality no rational basis for such belief (John Baumgardner, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, In Six Days, p. 230).

I reviewed many books on Darwinism and from them outlined the chief evidence for evolution, which included vestigial organs, homology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, beneficial mutations, evidence of poor design, the fossil record, atavisms, nascent organs, the argument from imperfect, natural selection, microevolution versus macroevolution, shared genetic errors, the backward retina, junk DNA, and other topics. … Slowly, but surely, I was able to eliminate all of the main arguments used to support evolutionism by researching secular literature only. At some point I crossed the line, realizing the case against evolutionism was overwhelming and conversely, so was the case in favor of the alternative, creationism (Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. in human biology from columbia Pacific University and Ph.D. in measurement and evolution from Wayne State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, chapter 4).

there is not one single instance whereby all the tests essential to the establishment of the scientific validity of evolution have been satisfied. There are hypotheses, grandiose models, suppositions, and inferences, all of which are formulated and reinforced within the collective and self-serving collaborations of the evolutionist gurus. However, none of this amounts to true scientific evidence for evolution. It was in the 1970s that, to my great surprise, bewilderment, and disgust, I became enlightened to this (Edward Boudreaux, Ph.D. in chemistry from Tulane University, In Six Days, p. 205).

Over a period of a couple of years, it became apparent to me that the theory of evolution has no legitimate factual evidence (John Cimbala, Ph.D. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, In Six Days, p. 201).

As I looked at the evidence–trying to be a dispassionate scientist–I could not find the evidence for the multitudes of intermediate forms which should exist if evolution was true (Raymond Jones, Ph.D. in biology, Standing Firm, The Genesis Files, edited by Carl Wieland, p. 28).

It is my conviction that if any professional biologist will take adequate time to examine carefully the assumptions upon which the macro-evolutionary doctrine rests, and the observational and laboratory evidence that bears on the problem of origins, he/she will conclude that there are substantial reasons for doubting the truth of this doctrine (Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University, The Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEX4 Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33).

I have never seen any evidence for evolution. All that I see around me in nature points to a divine designer (Angela Meyer, Ph.D. in horticultural science from the University of Sydney, In Six Days, p. 143).

How secure is the idea that there is an uninterrupted creative sequence from the big bang through the formation of the solar system, the solidification of the earth, the spontaneous generation of life, and the evolution of plants, animals, and humans to end in the world around us today? Is this scheme impregnable? By no means. It has fatal gaps and inconsistencies (Colin Mitchell, Ph.D. in desert terrain geography from Cambridge University).

I no longer believed there was any validity to Darwinism, having become convinced of this as much by the evolutionist literature I had read as by the creationist books. The standards of evidence supporting evolution seemed trivial compared to the evidence on which engineers have to base their work (Henry Morris, Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 222).

I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionary professors at universities, and I have never read or heard any scientific fact that contradicts what the Bible says. There are evolutionist’s interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary to Scripture (Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University, interview with David Cloud at the Creation Museum, June 23, 2009).

For three years, I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well [to debate chemistry professor Dr. Charles Signorino]. For three years, I lost every scientific argument. In dismay, I watched the myth of evolution evaporate under the light of scientific scrutiny, while the scientific case for Creation-Corruption-Catastrophe-Christ just got better and better. It’s no wonder that the ACLU (actually the anti-Christian lawyers union) fights by any means to censor any scientific challenge to evolution! (Gary Parker, Ph.D. in biology/geology from Ball State University, Persuaded by the Evidence, p. 254).

After all the research to date, we are still unable to explain the origin of galaxies as inhomogeneities in the universe from the perspective of evolution. We seem, in fact, to be further away from a satisfactory explanation of evolutionary galactic origins than we were when we started to study the subject, using modern physical theory. As in one field of science, so in all others, we are unable to explain the origin of the beautiful and complex realities of this world from an evolutionist approach (John Rankin, Ph.D. in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide, In Six Days, p. 122).

Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as the evidence is picked and chosen and the great poll of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As the depth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, all pointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design (Timothy Standish, Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University, In Six Days, p. 117).

If the evolution or creationism discussion were decided by sensible appeals to reason, evolution would long ago have joined the great philosophical foolishnesses of the past, with issues such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or the flat-earth concept. … evolution is not adhered to on scientific grounds at all. Rather, it is clung to though flying in the face of reason, with an incredible, fanatical, and irrational religious fervor. It loudly claims scientific support when, in fact, it has none worthy of the name (Ker Thomson, D.Sc. in geophysics from the Colorado School of Mines, former director of the U.S. Air Force Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory, In Six Days, p. 217).

The principles and observations of true science do not contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but in fact offer support for the creation of all things in six days! (Jeremy Walter, Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University, In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John Ashton, pp. 21, 22).

I am firmly convinced that there is far more scientific evidence supporting a recent, six-day creation and global flood than there is an old earth and evolution (Keith Wanser, Ph.D. in condensed matter physics from the University of California, Irvine, In Six Days, pp. 103, 104).

I became convinced that people believe in evolution because they choose to do so. It has nothing at all to do with evidence. Evolution is not a fact, as so many bigots maintain. There is not a shred of evidence for the evolution of life on earth (A.J. Monty White, Ph.D. in gas kinetics from the University College of Wales, In Six Days, pp. 257, 259, 260, 263).

In 1969 Dr. John Grebe, speaking to the Texas State School Board, offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could provide any first example of physically verifiable evidence (or even a basic mathematical model) sufficient to elevate the then hypothesis of macroevolution up to the status of scientific theory. The challenge was offered to the top evolutionary scientists of that day. Grebe was the director of nuclear and basic research at Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan. One man who tried to collect was atheist David Bradbury. He had been a brash defender of evolution for 20 years since his university days. Not only was he not able to find the evidence to defend evolution. Bradbury eventually became a Bible-believing Christian and he re-offered Grebe’s challenge. On January 28, 2002, he wrote,

This $1,000 challenge remains open (and uncollected). Until someone (teacher, board member or professor) can cite even a single example of empirically confirmable evidence that random shifts in gene frequency acted upon by natural selection can (or does) cumulatively collect to produce macro-evolutionary change, it would appear only reasonable to responsibly refrain from introducing such conjecture as proper scientific theory to students and to the public (Report on Comments on Proposed Modifications to Draft of Ohio Science Academic Content Standards, http://www.arn.org/docs/ohio/ohioreport020402.htm, viewed April 5, 2010).

____________________________

Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/subscribe.html. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 27th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/index.html. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but only from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/wayoflife/makeanoffering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org

WAY OF LIFE LITERATURE SHARING POLICY: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our very expensive literature, video, and foreign church planting ministry. Way of Life’s content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, video presentations, O Timothy magazine, and FBIS articles. You are free to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You are also welcome to use excerpts from the articles. All we ask is that you give proper credit. Things we do not want copied and distributed freely are items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print edition of our books, PDFs of the books, etc. These items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we need the income from the sale of these to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy.

All the President’s Climategate Deniers

Michelle Malkin – Syndicated Columnist – 12/2/2009 11:15:00 AM

All the President’s Climategate Denier

‘ClimateGate’ Deception Continues to Unfold

As “ClimateGate” continues to unfold, prominent scientists are finding the boldness to speak out.

Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 12/2/2009 5:00:00 AM

OneNewsNow.com

ClimateGate refers to the e-mails and computer codes that were leaked from climate research centers in the United Kingdom. The e-mails and codes detail how temperature data and climate models were manipulated to show alleged “manmade global warming.” (See earlier articles - Article 1 Article 2)

Former science advisor to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, says he was attacked in some of the e-mails. He notes that another eminent professor of physics in the U.S., David Douglas, was also attacked. According to Monckton, he was contacted by Douglas and informed that conspirators had delayed publication of one of his papers that proved climate science was being overhyped.

Christopher MoncktonMonckton explains: “The conspirators managed to get the publication of the hard copy of that paper delayed by one year so that they could have time to cobble together a basically fraudulent paper authored by the man who had rewritten the scientists’ version of the 1995 U.N. report so that where the scientists had said, ‘We can’t see any human effect on the temperature,’ this man Ben Santer turned it around and wrote the opposite and said, ‘Well, in fact, there is a human effect from this’ — even though the scientists hadn’t said that.”

The former science advisor labels this clear evidence that there is interference at high levels in the editorship of the “learned journals” in which scientific research is published. Criminal charges are being pursued in this matter. Monckton adds that he is also in communication with members of both houses of Congress concerning the fraudulent activities uncovered in ClimateGate.

Google gags the skeptic
On a related note, Monckton also is accusing Google of playing dirty tricks with Internet searches. A popular Internet video featuring the noted climate skeptic was allegedly “buried” beneath junk searches on the popular Internet search engine Google.

Monckton says Google knowingly hid the video that featured him discussing the dangers of signing a climate treaty in Copenhagen later this month.

Google image“They made no sense at all,” says Monckton. “[The junk search results] were just put there — and put there by somebody who must have paid Google something like a million dollars to allow these pages of rubbish to appear above the page on which my video could be found.”

He says it was not until Google was confronted about the biased techno-treatment that things changed.

“[T]hat persisted for a week until we told Google if you don’t take that down and rearrange it we will go public and expose what you have done and you will eventually face statutory controls so that you cannot manipulate information in this way so as to prevent people from genuinely finding the information they want on your search engine.”

Monckton notes that Google backed down rather quickly. He adds that Al Gore serves as an advisor on Google’s board.

Outspoken MP Slams Canada’s “Abortion Regime”

Friday November 27, 2009


Outspoken MP Slams Canada’s “Abortion Regime”

By John Jalsevac

OTTAWA, November 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite the fact that Canada has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world and that recent polls show that most Canadians would prefer to have some restrictions on abortion, the political pressure to keep the status quo on the issue is so firm that it is rare for a Canadian politician to even mention the issue, let alone critically.

But one Conservative MP has bucked the trend of silence and recently issued a salvo against Canada’s “abortion regime” that he argued is directly and seriously harmful to mothers, as well as their unborn children.

“As a compassionate, caring, progressive society, we should provide the kind of support and options for the expectant mother, so that she doesn’t feel her only choice is to choose death for her offspring,” said Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott in a hard-hitting press release issued last week. “To put women in that kind of position is not the hallmark of a caring, compassionate, progressive society. That’s providing ‘no choice.’”

Vellacott was responding to remarks by Evelyn Reisner, executive director of Saskatoon Planned Parenthood, who told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix earlier in November that the Saskatoon cut-off date for abortion of the 12th week of pregnancy, “increases the risks to [pregnant women's] health, causing a ‘higher rate of infections, complications and deaths’.”

The Saskatoon StarPhoenix also reported that, in the view of some people, there aren’t enough Saskatoon doctors performing abortions.

But Vellacott argued that the decrease in the number of doctors performing abortions in the city can be traced to advances in technology that have revealed what abortion does to the unborn child, and to the growing body of evidence that abortion hurts women.

“Saskatoon’s doctors should be commended for the leadership they are showing by reducing the availability of abortion in our city and for supporting real alternatives for women in need,” said Vellacott.

Interestingly, Vellacott’s views on abortion may not be as “extreme” as many in the political establishment would make them out to be – at least according to a recent poll. According to the Environics poll, released this week, 56% of Canadians would like there to be protections for the unborn at some point before birth. Currently Canada has no restrictions on abortion, technically allowing an unborn child to be killed up to the point of birth.

In addition, 68% of Canadians polled said that abortions should be either privately funded (18%) or only tax-funded in cases of medical emergency “such as a threat to the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest.”

The Saskatchewan MP went on in his statement to highlight the lengthy list of problems that abortion can lead to for mothers, including “a greater risk of breast cancer, cervical lacerations and injury, uterine perforations, hemorrhage, and serious infection. Long-term physical consequences of abortion include sterility or subsequent ectopic pregnancies and premature births. Premature births are associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy, as well as respiratory, brain, and bowel abnormalities.”

The outspoken MP also claimed that the current “abortion regime” is conducive to abuse. “Aborted women tell stories of being badgered, harassed and coerced into getting their abortion by boyfriends, partners, parents, employers, or other unsupportive circumstances,” he said. “Abortion has also been used to cover up the sexual abuse of girls who were minors. Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available. With widespread abortion access, the male partner also has come to think that he can blame the woman if she chooses not to have an abortion after an unplanned pregnancy.”

Vellacott also accused Reisner of “being disingenuous – at best – when she claims that the limited access to abortion in Saskatoon will lead to a ‘higher rate of infections, complications and deaths.’” He pointed out that the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson, once America’s most prominent abortionist, after becoming pro-life, admitted that he and others fabricated their huge figures of 5,000-10,000 potentially deadly “back alley” abortions per year and kept repeating these fabricated numbers until the media unquestioningly reported them.

Vellacott said, “The intelligent women of today are owed a full and complete disclosure of information on the life changing abortion effects and long-term harms. Women are done a great disservice and are not treated with equality when there is not a fully informed consent.”

“When women look beyond those pushing abortion, they discover that there are more services available today to women facing crisis pregnancies, so that they don’t have to feel trapped into killing their unborn child. We need to provide the compassionate, caring support for women and their pre-born children at such a vulnerable time, so that someday, abortion is a very rare thing in our country,” added Vellacott.

Vellacott concluded, “We should be doing so much more for women in this regard so they don’t feel backed into a corner and coerced. As a caring, compassionate, progressive society, we should provide the kind of supports so that they have real choice, so they can do the instinctive thing – so they can choose life.”

To contact MP Maurice Vellacott to express your support:

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Unit 3-844 51st Street East
Saskatoon, SK  S7K 5C7

Tel. 306-975-4725, Toll Free 888-844-8886
Fax 306-975-4728
Email: vellam1@parl.gc.ca

Global-warming data sets ‘simply made up’

Criminal charges are being pursued in what is being dubbed as “ClimateGate.”

Pete ChagnonOneNewsNow – 11/30/2009 10:50:00 AM

It all started when an alleged whistleblower from the UK’s Hadley Centre leaked e-mails detailing how temperature data was being forged to prove alleged “manmade global warming.” Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted “climate skeptic,” says the actions were criminal and should be prosecuted.

“The Hadley-CRU temperature data set is simply a joke. It has no scientific data whatsoever,” he asserts. “It’s simply made up; it’s just nonsense.

Christopher MoncktonMonckton notes that the information was available under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, and accuses the Hadley Centre of conspiring with the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) to destroy the data and e-mails before the public got a hold of it.

“They conspired together and with other people to destroy Freedom of Information Act data which they knew had been requested and they knew had been validly requested,” states Monckton.

“That is a serious criminal offense [which] carries a very large fine,” he continues. “There are scales of one to five for fines, and this one is a five which I think at the moment is at least £10,000 — and if you don’t pay it you go to prison.”

Monckton argues that the criminal offenses go beyond the Freedom of Information Act, that they are crimes against science itself. He notes that temperature data sets from the Hadley Centre and CRU are used to calibrate NASA satellites that are in turn used to track global temperatures.

Gashmu Saith It!

The following is excerpted from the booklet The Technique Catastrophe by Evangelist Bob Creel (P.O. Box 4548, Sevierville, TN 37864, 865-712-4537 or 865-908-4244). It is subtitled An explanation of the multitudes of false professions in the Independent Baptist movement.
___________________________________

Remember back in Nehemiah chapter six, when Sanballat and Tobiah, the enemies of the Jews, tried to get Nehemiah to meet with them so that they could stop the building of the walls in Jerusalem? When he refused, they then threatened to write to the king and tell him that Nehemiah was planning to make himself king and rebel against Artaxerxes. As an extra measure to make this lie believable, they stated that they were going to tell king Artaxerxes that Gashmu saith it was so. You’ll find this in Nehemiah 6:6.

Wherein was written, It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu saith it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel: for which cause thou buildest the wall, that thou mayest be their king, according to these words.

Whoever this Gashmu character was, his name must have been much set by with the king. They felt as though their lie would be stronger and have a better chance of being believed, if they were to attach Gashmu’s name to it.

It seems as though this has become the pattern for the Independent Baptist movement! As long as you can attach Brother So-N-So’s name to an unscriptural practice, it will place more credence to a lie! My friend, all the Gashmu’s in the world cannot change God’s prescribed method of working with an individual’s soul, nor does it turn a lie into the truth! Anyone who denies the need for conviction and repentance in a soul winning experience is a liar! Anyone who instructs you to use a vehicle other than the one that has been assigned to you [in God's Word], is guilty of misrepresenting God’s plan! Anyone who indicates that your reward is based upon how many people you lead to Christ has misled you! The Gashmu’s of this world march on, but that doesn’t change a lie into the truth!

Perhaps our real need is to stop reading the material of the Gashmu’s and spend a little more time in God’s Word! Most of our soul-winning practices line up with the Gashmu’s and not with the Bible, which helps me to understand why we are claiming so many conversions and so few additions!

If you add up the number of professions that some of our pastor friends have each year, and multiply it by the number of years they have been in that church, it would in some cases exceed the number of people that live in their area! Some of the missionary letters that I have read lately brings me to the conclusion that we will be able to call all of the missionaries home within the next ten years, because the entire population of that country will then be saved.

No, beloved, improper practices are lining people up at the gates of hell today, thinking they are saved, because some soul winner told them they were. You have a choice. Listen to what Gashmu saith–or what the Bible saith!