Sunday, December 20, 2009

Is This Christianity Today? ANCIENT-FUTURE Holy Ways or Heresies?

The above photographs are in order of appearance (left to right): Robert Webber, Father John Neuhaus, Richard Foster,  and Father Peter Gillquist and Chuck Colson.
What do these men have in common? For one thing, they are all editors for the magazine, Christianity Today. What else do they have in common? That we shall see in this article!

The main purpose of this blog is to reveal how this 'Matrix-like' world is perpetrating lies, illusions, deceptions, misguided information, etc. in all spheres of life, be they political, social, religious, and what not.

In reviewing materials regarding the Emergent Church Movement, I recalled an article written by The Berean Call, and when I re-read it, I wanted to use it for reference material, but found that every paragraph, every sentence was so RELEVANT that I decided to post it here unedited. I will interject my own comments in green.
This article shows the deception of the so-called legitimacy of the ancient church fathers, and their practices as something that is 'needful', 'essential', something that the church today is 'lacking'. This idea conveys that we are somehow deficient without these things, when in fact, these are mystical, occult practices of darkness, of which we as Christians should have nothing to do with!

Read this article and decide for yourself -

Another related topic that I will cover in an upcoming article is that of contemplative prayer, something that is taking the evangelical church by storm, but is essentially eastern mysticism dressed up in Roman Catholic and Orthodox clothing, and is being adapted for those in formerly biblical churches and societies, with no small amount of promotion from the likes of Richard Foster (Founder of the Renovare Institutue) and Robert E. Webber.

Without any further delay, here is TBC's article - Ancient Future Heresies: Feb. 28, 2008

Here's an idea. Let's go back through historical church eras and glean from such time periods those issues deemed to be of value in the development of the Christian faith. Let's review the first-century church, the church between A.D. 100 and 600, then consider the medieval era (A.D. 700 to 1500), followed by the Reformation period (A.D. 1500 and later), and so on. To be effective in this endeavor, it's important to have a good understanding of the cultural context in which the Christians of each era practiced their faith. In addition, we'll need to study the Church Fathers and gain the insights they provided.

Why? Well, those who are promoting this "re-presenting the past" believe that today's Christianity will greatly benefit as it "re-invents itself" in order to effectively bring the message of the gospel to the postmodern world. If you think this may not be a good idea, you could be labeled a "traditionalist," one whose faith and practice is inflexible and out of touch with our rapidly changing culture-and church. That's the view that Christianity Today (CT) has of what's going on in evangelical Christianity.
You may consider me a traditionalist then, because the Gospel has always been effective every where its been proclaimed, in every era of our history, when accomplished by the parameters set down by the LORD Jesus Himself and His apostles! Romans 1:16 states it quite plainly:

ROM 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Note that its the power of God that accomplishes this work: since when did God in His almighty power ever need our assistance in "re-inventing Christianity" in order to more effectively bring the message of the Gospel??

In introducing its February 2008 feature article with a cover-page declaration, "Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church: How evangelicals started looking backward to move forward," CT senior managing editor Mark Galli writes:

You might say a number of CT editors have a vested interest in this issue's cover story. David Neff, Ted Olsen, Tim Morgan, and I have been doing the ancient-future thing for many years, at Episcopal and/or Anglican parishes. And if this were not enough immersion in the topic, in his spare time, David Neff heads up the Robert E. Webber Center for an Ancient Evangelical Future, founded by the father of the ancient-future movement.
Acknowledging the magazine's inherent (and historic) bias, Galli notes that "the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time [yet] it hasn't been until recently that it's become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good" (emphasis added). That, of course, is Galli's opinion and, sadly, a growing multitude of influential Christian leaders agree.

This most certainly is an indictment against the evangelical church, if by evangelical one understands that the church has leaned wholly on the scriptures alone for doctrine and conduct in all things regarding church and godly life in Christ Jesus! Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) is no longer the theme of the Christian church today... its godless ecumenism, a work of humanism, and well nigh a deification of human belief, imagination, and dogma!

Robert E. Webber, who died last year, is certainly the "father of the ancient-future movement," and his many books have provided encouragement and content for leaders of Emerging Church fellowships. As a Wheaton College professor for three decades, he also played a significant part in influencing that evangelical institution's capitulation to ecumenism, particularly its support of Roman Catholicism (see TBC 7/02, 6/02 by T.A. on ECT at Wheaton).

Webber wrote in his book, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World, "Currently, Western society is in a transition from the modern world to a postmodern world... shifting us toward the affirmation of new values...resulting in a whole new culture and rais[ing] new questions about the way a biblical Christianity is to be understood and communicated."1

Affirmation of new values as a result of shifting into a postmodern world? Postmodernism is a euphemism for apostasy and a denigration of the whole counsel of God as represented by the scriptures. Postmodernism questions (". . . raising new questions . . ."??) the validity of scripture and scriptural accounts as 'myths' and 'shared stories' rather than accounts of the truth, and of doctrinal truth!

The solution for Christianity to be viable in this cultural transition, Webber contends, is to "recover the universally accepted framework of faith that originated with the apostles, was developed by the [Church] Fathers, and has been handed down by the church in its liturgical and theological traditions."2

This Church Fathers' "framework of faith," along with "its liturgical and theological traditions" is found primarily, according to Webber, in the era of "Classic Christianity," between A.D. 100 and 600. And it was to that church age that most of the speakers at the 2007 Wheaton Theology Conference on "The Ancient Faith for the Church's Future" sang their praises. CT describes what took place at the Billy Graham Center in the Cliff Barrows Auditorium, including taking the audience through prayers from the Gelasian Sacramentary Book of Sacraments of the Church of Rome), a fifth-century book of Catholic liturgy containing the priest's instructions for celebrating the Eucharist and recommending them for worship in today's Protestant churches.

One speaker promoted the Catholic "medieval fourfold hermeneutic," which emphasizes the nonliteral interpretation of the Bible, and another "gleefully passed on the news" to this highly receptive crowd "that Liberty University had observed the liturgical season of Lent."

The non-literal interpretation of God's Word was first suggested as a modus operandi by Origen, a supposed early Church Father and a Gnostic! Gnosticism is anti-thetical to sound biblical exegesis (the study of what the Bible says in its original languages) and is heavily steeped in occult and mysticism!

The writer of the article then asks, "Had Catholics taken over?" in this former bastion of conservative evangelicalism. His answer is NO! This Wheaton College conference was simply evangelicals looking to the past for "rich biblical, spiritual, and theological treasures to be found within the early church" as supplied by the early Church Fathers.3

Are evangelicals truly paying attention to the Church Fathers? University professor D. H. Williams, author of Evangelicals and Tradition, substantiated "the recent upsurge of evangelical interest in patristics (the study of the Church Fathers): 'Who would have thought, a decade ago, that one of the most vibrant and serious fields of Christian study at the beginning of the 21st century would be the ancient church fathers? There has been an opening of new avenues...[created] by the almost overnight popularity of bishops and monks, martyrs and apologists, philosophers and historians who first fashioned a Christian culture 1,500 years ago.'"4

I submit that what these fashioned was not a Christian culture, but a culture akin to Pergamos, that ancient Roman/Greek city where every religious system available was amalgamated into a 'hodge-podge' of do-it-yourself-religion, that admittedly had a strong Christian influence in it, but added that which are unequivocally NON-ESSENTIALS! Remember, that when you add to the TRUTH, you subtract from it!

Although these developments may seem shockingly new to some and seem to have sprung up overnight, Christianity Today gives some preparatory background (see also "Evangelical Mysticism?" TBC 2/08). The article quotes Robert Webber from his then controversial 1978 book Common Roots:
"My argument is that the era of the early church (A.D. 100-500), and particularly the second century, contains insights which evangelicals need to recover."

CT notes that 25 years later Webber rejoiced in his book Younger Evangelicals that they [emergent fellowships] "want to immerse themselves in the past and form a culture that is connected to the past...."
Nearly a decade earlier than Common Roots, a number of Campus Crusade leaders went on their own "recovery" of ancient liturgies, specifically from Eastern Orthodoxy. Peter Gillquist, Jack Sparks, Jon Braun, and others left Campus Crusade to form what was a forerunner of today's ancient-future-emergent movement (emphasis mine). They turned to the writings of the early Church Fathers "to practice a more liturgical form of worship than in their previous evangelical background."5

They called their movement the New Covenant Apostolic Order and, later, the Evangelical Orthodox Church.
In 1978, Quaker and CT advisory editor Richard Foster wrote Celebration of Discipline. His book, which introduced Catholic and occult meditative techniques to evangelicals, sold more than a million copies and was selected by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the 20th century. Foster later formed Renovaré, an organization dedicated to teaching spiritual formation through the mystical beliefs and practices of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Desert Fathers. Eugene Peterson (CT editor), author of the very popular paraphrased Bible, The Message, was the New Testament editor of the Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible.

These developments are foundational to today's Emerging Church phenomenon and indicate that such roots will carry it well beyond its merely being a fad among today's evangelical youth. More recent support (noted in last month's TBC) is the change in attitude among evangelicals toward Roman Catholicism fostered by "Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium," an endeavor of Chuck Colson and Father Richard John Neuhaus (both CT editors) and the stunning success (thanks to evangelicals) of Mel Gibson's extremely Catholic The Passion of the Christ
Is any of this "for the good," as Christianity Today declares?

Let's both reason from the Scriptures, and simply be reasonable (ISAIAH 1:18).

The Ancient-Future search to discover gems from "Classic Christianity" comes up short by a century -- the century in which the New Testament was written. The critical difference should be obvious. The writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit (emphasis added) as they penned God's Word (2 TIM 3:16; 2 PET 1:21, 22).

What writings from A.D. 100 and later can claim such inspiration? None. But we're told that some were disciples of or lived at the time of the apostles. True, but proximity to the apostles is hardly a guarantee against heresy nor does it come close to inspiration. Furthermore, much of the first-century-written New Testament reproved and corrected errors that had already entered the church!
Remember the Apostle Paul's warning to the Ephesian elders, who were certainly closer to Paul than any of the so-called Church Fathers:

ACTS 20:28-31
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Again, why this attraction to the ancient Church Fathers? Could any of them say with Paul,
PHIL 4:9
Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you?

We can trust his God-breathed words completely. On the other hand, it takes very little scrutiny of men like Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others, to see their flaws, let alone their heresies. AMEN!!
For example, Origen taught that God would save everyone and that Mary was a perpetual virgin; Irenaeus believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus when consecrated, as did John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem; Athanasius taught salvation through baptism; Tertullian became a supporter of the Montanist heresies, and a promoter of a New Testament clergy class, as did his disciple Cyprian; Augustine was the principal architect of Catholic dogma that included his support of purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism, mortal and venial sins, prayers to the dead, penance for sins, absolution from a priest, the sinlessness of Mary, the Apocrypha as Scripture, etc.

It's not that these men got everything wrong; some, on certain doctrines, upheld Scripture against the developing unbiblical dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.
Nevertheless, overall they are a heretical minefield. So why seek them out? (emphasis added)
Worse yet are the Desert Fathers and the Catholic mystics. Anthony the Great, known as the father of Christian monasticism, is the most revered of the Desert Fathers. According to Athanasius, the devil fought Anthony by afflicting him with boredom, laziness, and the phantoms of women, which he countered by becoming a hermit and isolating himself for years inside a tomb. He communicated with the outside world through a crevice that enabled him to receive food and to offer spiritual advice. Supposedly, the devil, upset by his holiness, would come and beat him unmercifully.

Later mystics were no less bizarre-or unbiblical. Benedictine nun Julian of Norwich, a favorite of evangelical mystic wannabes and "Christian" feminists, believed in universal salvation, that God was in all things, referred to God as "Father-Mother," and experienced intense visions of heaven and hell. Her most famous saying became a positive mental attitude mantra: "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well." Like Anthony, she had herself walled off from society, living for 20 years in a cell attached to a church, where a small window provided access to food and a view of the church altar and of the Eucharist.

Could these hermits and mystics really interest evangelicals? Christianity Today says they do. Referring to "monastic evangelicals" and the "new monasticism," an insert in its cover article observes how "growing numbers of evangelicals" are "taking their newfound love affair with Christian tradition" beyond "books and talk" and are "now experimenting with advent candles [and] sampling [Catholic] practices associated with Lent...." CT credits Richard Foster's Devotional Classics as possibly fueling this latest trend, and it notes that Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and a number of emerging church writers have "been calling evangelicals to monastic models as a guide for the future."6
As a former Roman Catholic, I [Tom McMahon] am staggered when I see who and what Christianity Today is blatantly promoting.

Robert Webber, for example, writes in Signs and Wonders of an experience that changed his Protestant life. He received the Eucharist (allegedly the "actual body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine") while at a Catholic retreat center: "You might say I was surprised by joy!...I had never had an experience like that in my life....I had been in dialog with another worship tradition, and I was surely the richer for it"7

I likewise came from a Roman Catholic background and at one point entertained the idea of becoming a priest. That which Mr. Webber partook of, I had participated in for well over a decade before I left that church. What the Eucharist is, is a paganistic concept of one's God being transubstantiated into material substance to be consumed by the adherrant. This is what created in Mr. Webber a sense of joy and enrichment?? Please note that I harbor no hatred nor ill intentions towards any Roman Catholics, or any other religious persons. On the contrary, I have compassion on them and would desire that they come to the knowledge of the truth. The allegations made in this newsletter and in my comments are ascertainable through careful research which any one can obtain if they are truly interested in knowing truth from falsehoods. The Two Babylons by Alexander Hyslop as well as Dave Hunt's book A Woman Rides the Beast are two excellent beginning points for any researcher.

Thousands of steadfast biblical Christians were martyred for refusing that idolatrous and gospel-denying "worship tradition."
Campus Crusade leader-turned-Orthodox-priest Peter Gillquist explains the "mission" he and those who joined him are on: "Our desire is to make North America Orthodox!" As former conservative evangelicals, they believe that "if we [could] become Orthodox, then anyone in North America can!" Furthermore, due to their apologetics and evangelism training, "...we represent a strong force for Orthodox evangelization....And we know there are many others just like us who if given the time and persuasion will join the Orthodox ranks (emphasis added) just as we have."8

I find Mr. Gillquist's comment not only provocative, but also revealing! Note what he actually said: "Our desire is to make North America Orthodox!" He didn't say, 'America' or 'the United States' . . . he said North America! Why this entire region and not his home country? In my opinion, I believe its because the upcoming North American Community, and North American Union (both modeled after the European versions as aptly documented in various sources) will have a state-sanctioned religion, a 'neo-Roman Catholic/Orthodox Evangelicalism' to the exclusion of biblical Christianity, which will be outlawed!

Will this soon pass? No. It's all part of related agendas that are building the end-times apostate church (REV 13:8). Its tools are experientialism, subjectivism, mysticism, and dominionism, all of which aggressively and obstinately subvert the Word of God. They are intentionally (in some cases unwittingly) being used to work out Satan's primary scheme against God and mankind (GEN 3:1: "Yea, hath God said...?) as they undermine His Truth. Is God doing anything about it? Yes. As evidenced by what's been presented here and so much more, He is sending "strong delusion" among those who have not a "love of the truth" (2 THESS 2:10,11). AMEN!

We desperately need to heed the words of Jesus in REVELATION chapters 2-3 that give critical warnings to churches that profess to be His. To Laodicea, which very likely represents the last church age before His return, He declares.

REV 3:19-22
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Baker Academic, 1999), 15.

Ibid., 17.

Mark Galli, "Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church," Christianity Today, February 2008, 23.

Ibid., 24.
Galli, Christianity, 28.

Robert Webber, Signs and Wonders (Nashville, TN:Star Song Publishing Group, 1992), 5.

Peter Gillquist, "Arrowhead Springs To Antioch:Odyssey To Orthodoxy," The Word, October 1987.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Evolution: True Science? Theory? LIE!

Greetings All!  

In this article I will be presenting information I received from a brother in the LORD I met online, and he understands much of what's going on in the world today, particularly where globalist forces are working relentlessly in achieving a singular, one world government in a socialist mode.

An interesting thing about socialism, and its hard core leftist version (Communism- A communist is simply a socialist with a gun, that's in a hurry) is that when they convert another nation to socialism, one of the first things they do towards that effort is indoctrinate the people with...Marxism?
No, Darwinism! Evolutionary 'theory' that is.

UPDATE as of 11-27-09
EVOLUTION Losing Ground In Classrooms -

According to an international poll released by the British Council, the majority of Americans - 60% - support teaching alternatives to evolution in the science classroom. The percentage is the same for Britons....Of course, the British media reporting this are chagrined. Britain is the birthplace of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, and the official-sounding British Council, the UK group behind the "Darwin Now" campaign that commissioned the Ipsos MORI poll, have spent precious resources educating the world about Darwin. Now some believe the poll shows that efforts by Darwinist organizations aren't working.


UPDATE as of 5-03-10
Our Creator God don't make no 'junk'!

Exploding the Darwin-Friendly Myth of Junk DNA [Excerpts] This just in from [the strong promoter of evolution] Nature Magazine of all places (page no longer available on their web site). [Human genome at ten: Life is complicated: The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. "Not that long ago, biology was considered by many to be a simple science, a pursuit of expedition, observation and experimentation."


Before a people can be subjugated to the State, there is a higher authority that must be abrogated: God. If the prevailing view of God is erased from the consciousness of the majority, if governmental policy and law doesn't acknowledge God in any way, they are then free to usurp the ultimate authority for themselves, and they become the 'granter' of "privileges" for no one is granted "inalienable rights" and certainly not granted them by God (as humanists and socialists would annul from the beliefs of the population).

So evolution is the foundation for such humanistic, socialistic systems (and much more than this besides!).

This is also why the first ten chapters of Genesis is criticized, ridiculed, disbelieved by so many, because the account of this first book of Moses would fly in the face of evolutionary beliefs, particularly the creation account. If evolutionary beliefs are maintained then the Gospel and the atoning sacrifice of the LORD Jesus Christ would also be meaningless, and irrelevant: if evolution were true, then death would have been a natural part of creation for millions, and billions of years; not the tragic loss of life via separation from God because of a fall into sin by our progenitors, father Adam, and mother Eve.

This is why it's imperative as Christians that we contend fervently for the Truth of God's Word, for acknowledging Him as Creator, and to refute evolutionary belief systems for the LIE that they are. Evolution would negate our Creator by denying the creation, it would negate our LORD as the authority of Truth and lawful ruler-ship, it would negate our Savior and our need for His supreme sacrifice as the only propitiatory hope of salvation!

Evolution is not a peripheral issue for Christians: we cannot compromise with 'half-way' theories like Theistic Evolution (more about this issue at the end of this article). We must earnestly contend for 'the faith' that has been delivered to us!

With all this said, let's have a look at what Dan Miner has to share with us:


Abiogenesis is impossible
No mechanism exists to enable evolution to occur
Evolution has not been observed
Nothing can live with incomplete parts and systems
There is no evidence of evolution
Not enough time for evolution to occur
The Bible is true

ATP Synthase
This tiny protein complex makes as energy-rich compound, ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Each of our trillions of cells performs this reaction about a million times per minute. Over half a body weight of ATP is made and consumed every day! It is a protein complex of at least 29 separately manufactured subunits fit together.

ATP is required in manufacturing DNA, RNA, proteins, clean up debris, transporting chemicals into, out of, and within cells, by the energy released by ATP separating into ADP and a phosphate atom.

ATP synthase occurs on inner membranes of bacterial cells, innermost membranes of mitochondria and chloroplasts of plants and animals.

ATP is made by combining ADP and phosphate, using Hydrogen ion (H+) gradient.
Each cell has thousands of these machines spinning at over 9,000 rpm.
Three ATP molecules are formed by 10 protons for each full rotation of the axle.

ATP is required in the process of making ATP, including over 100 enzymes/machines needed to achieve this!
The energy to create the hydrogen ion gradient comes from photosynthesis and respiration of sugars.


This word is used instead of the words ‘similar to’ only to give the impression that they evolved. Similarity is not a valid argument for Evolution, because it is due to design constraints, required for good design.

This word is used where identical proteins or DNA segments are the same between two different kinds of species. It is used to give the impression that one kind evolved from the other kind. The correct wording would be to say the items are alike. To be shared, the same atoms must exist at the same time in both creatures, which would be impossible. The reason they are alike is due to design constraints, required for good design.

When the same protein, micro system or macromolecule appear in different kinds of life forms, evolutionists say they were ‘conserved’, meaning that they were passed on to offspring during their evolutionary history. This is dishonest, because it is claiming that evolution created them.

"Micro Evolution":
This term was invented by Julian Huxley to label all small non-evolutionary events as a means to trick people into believing that evolution has occurred. The correct term would be ‘small changes’ or ‘changes during normal operational science.’

"Theory of Evolution":
Evolution is not a theory for several reasons: 

First, no scientific reason exists that would support it. 
Second, no scientific theory has ever been formed to explain how it could be possible. No book even addresses the subject of how a theory could be formed to explain how evolution could occur. 
Third, it has been scientifically proven to be impossible. Nothing impossible can be a ‘theory’. It properly should be called ‘the LIE of Evolution’, ‘the RELIGION of Evolution’ or ‘the MYTH of Evolution.’ Please refrain from calling it a theory.

"Descent with Modification":
This term is meaningless, explains nothing, and is used only for painting an illusion in your minds that Evolution occurs.

Evolutionism requires that all parts, systems, mechanisms, etc. lived and operated at every incomplete step while being built during some unknown process

They create the illusion of this being possible simply by calling incomplete systems ‘primitive.’ No micro-system can function unless it is complete, and simply imagining that incomplete micro-systems can function by calling them primitive is both dishonest and unscientific.

"Building blocks":
Evolutionists try to give the illusion that if they call proteins ‘building blocks’, that all needed for life is for the so-called ‘building blocks’ to accumulate and ‘presto!’, life will exist [Note from myself, James Fire: the single human cell is enormously, staggeringly complex and deeply involved with processes and mechanisms that it would make the activity of a major metropolis seem inert by comparison! See the article at the link provided].

Evolutionists give the illusion that their philosophy/religion is not philosophy/religion by falsely using the word ‘science’. The philosophy of Evolution has been used to replace a belief in God since the tower of Babel. Anaximander wrote about it in 460 bc. In the 1800s, the evolutionists got the idea to call their religion “science” as a trick to get it accepted.


False definitions for Evolution:
A definition in science must be precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that include only the subjects of definition and exclude everything else. It cannot contain anything common to an opposing model.

Evolutionists use many different definitions so that they can equivocate anytime that they get backed into a corner. They will claim that everything exists because of Evolution, but if tell them that nothing could originate by chance, they’ll reply:

“Evolution is not about abiogenesis, its only about change.” Other times they’ll say the definition is only about a change in alleles over time. They’ll change the definition anytime to avoid giving answers. The only thing they will not do, however, is to give the honest definition of Evolution, the definition that fits the way the word Evolution is used and taught, which is:

“A [failed] belief that God can be replaced as The Creator.” This correct definition shows that evolutionism is atheism.

Vestigial Organs:

This argument claims that many of our organs are useless and were only used in the past when we were a different creature. One example is the appendix. For over 100 years, it has been taught that the appendix has no function, and had a different function in an evolutionary past. Since 1995, however, medical textbooks teach that the appendix is an important part of the immune system, especially for young babies. Today, we also know that the appendix is important to store important bacteria required for digestion during periods of diarrhea. Here are some quotes:

“….the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.” Hartenstein, Roy, Grolier Encyclopedia, 2002, Grolier Interactive Inc.

“The appendix contains masses of lymphoid tissue that may serve to resist infection.” Van De Graff & Fox, Concepts of Human Anatomy & Physiology, 1999, p. 837

“The appendix is densely populated with lymphocytes and is a significant source of immune cells.” Saladin, K., Anatomy & Physiology, McGraw Hill, 2001, p. 974.

“The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and the appendix’s primary function is an organ of the lymphatic system.” Martini, F., Fundamentals of Anatomy & Physiology, Prentice Hall, 1998, p. 899.

Another example is the coccyx. The evolutionists call it a tail bone and say that it proves we evolved from apes. The coccyx, however, is the last vertebrate and is required for the attachments of nine required muscles, two of which are required for the elimination of waste. They used to promote over 100 examples, but scientists today have revealed their functions. There is no excuse today for the evolutionists to use this fraud today.

False Examples:
This list is almost endless. Every example is always either losing information, which would be the opposite of evolution, or is outright invented fraud.

o Viruses: They don’t reproduce themselves, they are made by cells, and if the cell makes a mistake in the process, the immune system does not recognize them. They do no evolve, they remain viruses and they gain no complexity.

o Bacterial resistance: The resistance is always the result of either using existing information or losing existing information. Here are some examples:















o Sickle-cell anemia: Caused by a mutation replacing one amino acid in the hemoglobin, greatly reducing the amount of oxygen it can carry. This is the opposite of evolution, as it has lost information and function.
Even if losing information might be beneficial in some circumstances, it is still not Evolution, which is required to explain the origin of everything and not the decay of them.

Theological Arguments:

These arguments consist of saying “God would not have done it like that.” This is not scientific, but is inserting one’s world view opinion into the issue. These include imaginary faults in design or examples of destructive mutations due to the curse after the fall. Examples include:

o Blind spot in our eyes. This is the area where the optic nerve leaves the eye, but each eye compensates for the other eye, so that no loss of vision actually occurs.

o Eyes wired backwards. This is often falsely claimed, even by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins who has devoted his life to attacking God, but in reality the eyes are built in the only way possible to get 100% perfection. The inverted human retina is a superior design for vertebrates. Each design is perfectly suited for the environment the organism normally lives in. The facts are too numerous to mention, but any different design would be destructive. See the following link to show the above two assertions of evolutionists are false.

All arguments about imagined inferior designs are due either by ignorance or intentionally to get people to doubt God.

Strawman Arguments:

These arguments use as their basis false interpretations of the evidence that Creationists use. The intentionally misrepresent the Creation model in every area. Examples are:

o Genesis flood: They falsely say the flood of Noah's time would have mixed all sediments and fossils together completely before laying them down, and since the fossils are not fully mixed, then the Genesis flood could not have occurred. 

They also falsely say that millions of animals needed to be on the ark, when in reality only a few thousands would have been needed. They falsely say that Noah could not have gathered together all animals for the ark, but God said that He brought all of them to the ark. They falsely say that the ark was not large enough, when in reality studies have shown that the ark was very adequate for the all creatures and also for all needed feed.

For an excellent video about Noah's ark and the credibility of this biblical event, see the following by Living Waters ministry:

o Presenting a picture of our Almighty God in a horrible way. (such as “a white-haired old man spoofing everything into existence). I refuse to repeat the other horrible ways they describe our God.

o They falsely accuse Adam and Eve’s family of incest. No marriage is incest unless it is forbidden by God, and God did not put the repulsion of sibling marriages in our conscience until the days of [Moses and the giving of the Law], thus, sibling marriages before them were normal and not incest. 

In the beginning, everybody had rich gene pools and no mutational load, thus, no harm in close marriages. Only after the gene pool became more depleted and the mutational load increased was it necessary for God to instill in our consciences the repulsion of sibling marriages. Remember, Evolutionists cannot be against incest, because it would be required after every evolutionary addition, since the remainder of the population had to be eliminated.

Outright Fraud:

Every statement ever used by Evolutionists to promote the lie of Evolution has been fraudulent, since no honest reason can be found to support it. They intentionally misrepresent fossil [record], intentionally falsify drawings and intentionally use old arguments which have been falsified for years.

Vicious Attacks and Slander against Creationist Scientists

Early scriptural geologists: Granville Penn (1761-1844), George Bugg (1769-1851), Andrew Ure (1778-1857), George Fairholme (1789-1846), John Murray (1786?-1851), George Young (1777-1848), William Rhind (1797-1874).
All were highly qualified scientists in geology, but were the most attacked and ignored.
Charles Lyell: He was the most influential, and led the attacks by saying of them: “wholly destitute of geological knowledge”

“incapable of appreciating the force of objections, or of discerning the weight of inductions from numerous physical facts.”

“they endeavor to point out the accordance of the Mosaic history with phenomena which they have never studied”
“every page of their writings proves their consummate incompetence.”

Andrew White said that these scriptural geologists believed that geology was “not a subject of lawful inquiry,” “a dark art,” “dangerous and disreputable,” and “a forbidden province.”
William Williamson, professor of botany in Manchester, described the work of George Young, the most geologically competent scriptural geologist, as “prejudiced rubbish.”
Others ever since: The scriptural geologists have been described as “scientifically worthless,” “scientifically illiterate Bibliolaters,: and “obscurantists.”

Thomas Chalmers: In 1804, a prominent evangelical Scottish Presbyterian theologian, at the age of 24, invented the so-called “gap theory” as an attempt to insert millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. He had no geological experience but out of ignorance, he joined in the attack against the qualified scriptural geologists Penn, Gisborne, and others.

Davis Young, A Christian geologist, progressive creationist, has falsely said that no scriptural geologist in the early to mid 1800s had any real knowledge of geology.

The Geological Society of London was established in 1807 by 13 wealthy, cultured gentlemen who lacked much in geological knowledge but was dominated by men who held the old age [of Earth] view.


Today it’s almost impossible to get scientific facts into the classroom that is against Evolution. The 14 major textbook publishers have stated that they will not even read the manuscript for a textbook if written by a Creationist. Teachers will be removed if it is found out that they are teaching any scientific fact that is against the lie of Evolution. Colleges today follow what they call the “ABC” rule—anything but a Christian. Students known to be a Creationist will usually be denied a PhD degree. Tenure, grants and promotions are usually restricted to Evolutionists.


Evolutionists want no debates, no discussions and no publicity about this issue. They do not want people to know that a large number of scientists do not believe in Evolution. They always lie and say that all scientists believe in Evolution.

They put pressure on the News-Gazette to reject most of my letters now. They have a rule nationwide to never debate a Creationist. Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education Defending The Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools, urges Evolutionists to avoid debates with Creationists, as they will lose.

She then says that if you do debate a Creationist to don’t try to defend Evolution, but instead to attack the Creation model, then she lists fraudulent strawman arguments.

Use Liberal Preachers:

This has always been one of evolutionist’s strongest weapons. They get apostate preachers to testify for them against Creationists which is very effective.

Under these various disciplinary schools, both Secular Humanism (S.H.) and Biblical Christianity (B.C.) have their points of view: they are listed here for your consideration-

Under the disciplinary school of Theology:
S.H. - Atheism B.C. - Theism

Under the disciplinary school of Philosophy:
S.H. - Naturalism B.C. - Supernaturalism


S.H. - Relativism B.C. - Absolutes

S.H. - Evolution B.C. - Creation

S.H. - Self-Actualization B.C. - Spirit-Mind/Body

S.H. Non-traditional Family B.C. - Traditional Family

S.H. - Positive Law B.C. - Biblical & Natural Law

S.H. - World Government B.C. - Justice, Freedom

S.H. - Socialism B.C. - Stewardship of Property

S.H. - Historical evolution B.C. - Historical Resurrection
(revisionism) (documented artifacts)

For your further consideration please feel free to explore these web sites dealing with Creationist ideology as they pertain to Biblical truth and documented evidence as it appears in nature:

One last note to make (from myself, James Fire):

If the Restorationists and Dominionists have their way, all the world will be Christianized (the thesis), which doesn't necessarily mean the world will be converted to Biblical Christianity, merely that the Christian church will become so dominant that everyone will adhere to Christian principles of living.

If on the other hand, Atheists and Humanists have their way, all the world will become rationalistic in their world view, and abandon religion and religious books altogether (the anti-thesis); science and the rule of man over mankind will be the standard of life.

Yet scripture teaches us that in the last days, the Beast will rise to power and people will worship him as "God". This idea of 'worship' and 'God' contradicts the hopeful world view and the prospects of atheists. At the same time, what will be worshipped will be a man indwelt by Satan, the very "father of lies" that scripture speaks of, hardly a 'Christianized' world (including lies such as evolution [or as I am fond of spelling it 'evilution']).

What will transpire in the last days will be a synthesis of these two opposites:

THEISTIC EVOLUTION - That is, God using evolution as the means to prompt the creationary process. By this means, the fulfillment of Satan's promise to mankind of acheiving 'godhood' remains intact by such supposedly evolutionary processes, yet at the same time, he can claim supreme godhood himself and coerce the worship of this world's citizens.

May we stand boldly for the TRUTH in all things, and may the LORD Jesus bless our efforts by His Spirit.

~~ brother James

UPDATE- 11/14/09 -

November 13, 2009

The Demise of Another Evolutionary Link: Archaeopteryx Falls From Its Perch

[Excerpts] A few days ago we saw Ida fall from her overhyped status as an ancestor of humans. Now some scientists are claiming that Archaeopteryx should lose its status as an ancestor of modern birds.

Calling Archaeopteryx an "icon of evolution," the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) borrows a term from Jonathan Wells while reporting that "[t]he feathered creature called archaeopteryx, easily the world's most famous fossil remains, had been considered the first bird since Charles Darwin's day.

When researchers put its celebrity bones under the microscope recently, though, they discovered that this icon of evolution might not have been a bird at all" (Hotz, "Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch," The Wall Street Journal, page A1, October 23, 2009).

According to the new research, inferences about growth rates made from studies of Archaeopteryx's ancient fossilized bones show it developed much more slowly than modern birds. While the WSJ is reporting these doubts about Archaeopteryx's ancestral status as if they were something new, those who follow the intelligent design movement know that such skepticism has been around for quite some time.

Archaeopteryx isn't the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we've seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs.

Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology. As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published: But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

"Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about," Ruben said. "But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of science" ("Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links,"

ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009).

The above article was taken from an email sent by The Berean Call

Let us end this article with yet another LIVING WATERS production,


Other Links of Interest -

Genetic Engineers Unwind Species Barrier -
Definitions of 'Evolution' - SIU Department of Zoology
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting The Theory Of Intelligent Design - The Discovery Institute
November 30th ID v. Evolution Debate - Beverly Hills - The Discovery Institute
Studies On Creation and Evolution - Koinonia House

Monday, October 19, 2009


UPDATE: 9/28/11 To learn more about how these supposed extraterrestrial/extra dimensional beings are fitting into and even molding the shape of this new world order that is upon us, please watch this film: Age of Deceit video for this 2.5 hr. video (Note: This author does not necessarily agree with everything on this video).

ALSO - For any who believe that they have been the victim of such 'alien abductions' and want this nightmarish horror to end, please know that there IS HOPE! Review the pertinent information found here on this web site: CE4 Research Group

~~ end of Update

UPDATE 5-06-11: One World Religion, UFO's and The Evolution Connection Brannon Howse addresses these issues in this video and interviews Gary Bates, author of the book ALIEN INTRUSION. Also see the following book review on The RED PILL CONSORTIUM - Reviewing ALIEN INTRUSION: by Gary Bates (part 1).

~~end of Update

UPDATE 11-28-10: Before proceeding with this last segment, I want to include an update with this article including multiple video that pertains to the "Nephilim", alien abductions and our prophetic future. 

~~end of Update.

Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, General Douglas MacArthur: all three men suggested the idea that an "outside threat" could stand to unify the people of the Earth in an act of global solidarity against a common enemy.
This tactic has long been used by rulers, who desired to forge a sense of patriotism, unity, and support from the people: create an enemy, rally the people in a "just cause" and thus bring order and submission among the population and distract them from any underhanded domestic business being perpetrated by a people's own leaders.

As mentioned before, there was another who suggested this sort of thing:

John Dewey, and if you know who he is, you'd find his assertion quite compelling!

He is known as the father of our modern American educational system; also an atheist, a humanist, an evolutionist and also a socialist.

The plan to create an artificial extraterrestrial threat to the Earth was first mentioned by the Marxist, John Dewey.

Here is what he had to say:

"Some one remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and purpose." John Dewey, New York 1917.

As mentioned in the previous article, the quotes from Reagan, Kissinger and MacArthur as well as the contrived radio play War of the Worlds and those behind its creation, would indicate that something may well be afoot in the near future.

Before we get to that however, a little review might be useful regarding terrorism on US soil. Yet, before we talk about this, its important to bring up the incident of Hitler's Reichstagg Federal Building.

Its a reasonably well documented fact that Hitler wanted more power than was legally afforded him and so he instigated an event, orchestrating his own loyal military, and burned down the Reichstagg Federal Building, then blamed it on the Communists, and insisted he be given a broader spectrum of power to combat the threat, lest Germany be overtaken by 'alien' forces.

Read the following:

"[Of] the German Reichstagg - it is said (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) that Hitler burned his own capital building in order to coerce the Germans into giving him a totalitarian state. The Nazis burned their capital building, the Reichstagg, in 1933 only a few months after taking power. They used this catastrophe to fuel the sentiment to start a war on terrorism. In Germany in 1933 the terrorists were the Communists."

Also read these excerpts -

"On February 22, Göring set up an auxiliary police force of 50,000 men, composed of the SA and SS. . . Nazi storm troopers now had the power of police. Two days later, they raided Communist headquarters in Berlin. Göring falsely claimed he had uncovered plans for a Communist uprising in the raid. Göring and Goebbels, with Hitler's approval, then hatched a plan to cause panic by burning the Reichstag building and blaming the Communists. The Reichstag was the building in Berlin where the elected members of the republic met."

". . .there was also in Berlin a deranged Communist, an arsonist named Marinus van der Lubbe, [who] had been attempting to burn government buildings to protest capitalism and start a revolt. On February 27, he decided to burn the Reichstag building."

"The exact sequence of events will never be known, but Nazi storm troopers under the direction of Göring were also involved in torching the place. They had befriended the arsonist and may have known or even encouraged him to burn the Reichstag that night. The storm troopers, led by SA leader Karl Ernst, used the underground tunnel that connected Göring's residence with the cellar in the Reichstag. They entered the building, scattered gasoline and incendiaries, then hurried back through the tunnel."

"At first glance, Hitler described the fire as a beacon from heaven.
'You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in German history...This fire is the beginning,' Hitler told a news reporter at the scene."

Read more about the above incident here. 

Even more material is found here for any one interested in tracking this down further. Also consider this profile on Adolf Hitler and his mind set in orchestrating the Nazi regime.

Shortly after this tragic incident, Hitler had this to say:

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland"
-- Adolf Hitler, proposing the creation of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany

Reichssicherheitshauptamt - Department of Homeland Security

The Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) was the main division of the Nazi SS, and the parent organization of the Gestapo. The German word "Reich" is untranslatable, but you couldn't come closer in contemporary English than the emotionally-laden Bush-era term "homeland." "Sicherheit" is always translated as "security," and "Hauptamt" literally means "main office," which could be reasonably translated as "department." The Department of Homeland Security
I'm sure that phrase has a certain ring of familiarity to it for you all. Coincidence?

Is there a parallel between Hitler's diabolically conceived 'terrorist plot' and a grab for power over the German people, and our own American, contemporary policies created in The Patriot Act (I and II), The Department of Homeland Security and an ever-increasing Federal government that seems determined to create a 'New World Order'? 
Check out this web site and compare events in WW II Germany and the recent goings on in America at the turn of the millennium!

Meanwhile history marched onward, and in our own nation, we had other villains at large, those who were apparently guilty, but subsequently the affairs revolving around the Murrah Federal Building, in Oklahoma left us with FAR MORE questions than answers . . .

Oklahoma City Bombing

Multiple bombs at Oklahoma City?
The idea of a fertilizer bomb inside of a truck, blowing out a building to the depths of which the Murrah building suffered is not at all feasible to demolition experts.

Visit this web site and read up on this issue at the multiple links provided; then YOU decide!

There was always some speculation about a third culprit involved in this bombing, in addition to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, a 'John Doe' apparently of Middle Eastern descent. . . interesting.

'Patriots' and militia were vilified in those days, and any anti-government sentiment was discouraged as being "militia-like".

Then there was the incidence of the World Trade Building

Bomb Informer Active in 1991, Authorities Say
Published: Thursday, July 15, 1993

"A new Federal indictment revealed yesterday that the Government informant who broke up a bombing plot last month had infiltrated a conspiracy to blow up targets in the New York City area in November 1991, more than a year earlier than has previously been disclosed.

"The new charges also link Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny, a cousin of the man tried in the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane, to the plot to bomb the United Nations, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels and 26 Federal Plaza. He was named as the 11th suspect in the case.

"The indictment suggests, and one law-enforcement official confirmed, that the informant, Emad A. Salem, was working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation since at least November 1991. The revelation that Mr. Salem was in contact with the Federal Government that long ago raises new questions about why the F.B.I. was unaware of the plot to bomb the World Trade Center on Feb. 26."

There was definitely an escalation of evil notoriety in the targets selected between these two incidents: the Federal Murrah Building, and then the World Trade Center.

There was even greater notoriety and an escalation of terrorism in the infamous events surrounding 9/11.

Here I would like to explain a bit of the reason WHY I've gone out on such a bizarre limb in expounding with seeming longevity about this insane notion of a potential so-called "Alien Invasion".

Suppose someone had proof that Islamic terrorists using two jet liners didn't actually have anything to do with bringing down the two towers at the WTC on 9-11, and they had evidence to suggest it was an inside job, and this evidence was in their possession on say, Sept. 1. 2001?

What sort of difference would that have made once such information was disseminated among the American (even global) population?

Is there evidence AFTER the fact to support such allegations?


"Professor Steven Jones presented evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently; 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a "slam dunk" on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

"Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.

"Jones attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.

"The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.

"The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction."

The quintessential film that explores the minutia of this maniacal plot is LOOSE CHANGE 3rd Edition: 9/11 Truth

See also:

It seems that every time a major terrorist strike here in America occurs, there is a grab for power after it happens, all in the name of 'security'. We all remember that question, don't we? 

"Are you willing to give up some of your freedoms for more security?" When the government declared a war on terror, and they began to talk about increased 'security', what is meant is (as in any military engagement in any war situation) "control". Ordo Ab Chao in redundant fashion!

That puts a slightly different spin on that question, doesn't it? Let's ask it again:
"Are you willing to give up some of your freedoms for more governmental control?"
That hardly sounds appealing at all, right?

Certainly after 9/11 we have witnessed a lot more control over the American population by the Federal government, haven't we? They are even attempting to force a Federally controlled Health Care plan on all of us; as well as making a swine flu shot mandatory, with any refusals punishable by fines and imprisonment? Hello?

What's more there are plans afoot to dismantle the United States of America, along with our Constitution in favor of creating a supra-national Socialist State called the North American Union!?

What sort of staged-terrorism might that involve in order to get the people of our country in line?

Some have suggested: none! All they need to do is break the American dollar, and create another Depression the likes of which haven't been seen, even in the early 20th century. And this may well do the trick!

OK, so what about the formation of a One World Government (the next stage after all the world has been 'regionalized' into supra-national 'Unions')? The timing of this event, biblically speaking, is uncertain, but if we summarize what we've looked at in these 4 segments to this article what do we see? Here is my own hypothesis:

As stated previously in this four part article:

1) There seems to be a supernatural element to UFO's and the so-called 'aliens' that 'pilot' those vessels. They are also intent on abducting humans for some sort of hybridization program: creating a human/alien hybrid. This harks back to the Genesis chapter 6 phenomenon where fallen angels and human females co-habitated to create nephilim or "giants", or "mighty men of renown". What goal could possibly be achieved by this agenda? A powerful contingency military force that would be used to enforce and keep a one world order in power perhaps?

2) This is also hinted at in Daniel ch. 2 as referred to in the first article in this series. Yet the prophecies of that scripture have to do with our future, not our past! Judging by our current global predicament, it would seem that this would entail our not-too-distant future.

3) There are many mystical elements to these UFO's and the (deceitful) messages received from the Ascended Masters/Space Brothers (no Sisters?) that coincide with New Age/New Thought philosophies and religious convictions of those who believe a one world government is the only viable solution for peace on Earth. Could we expect a 'GOOD COP/BAD COP' routine from these 'aliens'? The first group being the Predators, the second being our Protectors from the first group?

4) That one world government, as mentioned by such men in this (and the previous) article would come about far more easily if we had a common foe to face: "an alien threat from beyond". What greater measures of 'security' would be forced upon the global population in such an event?

5) What sort of technology do we have to create such an elaborately staged event? Ultra-technical holographic imaging systems? Bizarre Orwellian means of using technologies to broadcast a universal message to the people of the Earth as whispered by some of the more extreme fringe elements of conspiracy theorists like in Projects "Blue Beam"? The use of suitcase-sized, and micro-nukes in tandem with holographic alien ships to simulate such an attack?

I don't know about you, but I've often wondered, why was it necessary to make it a law that every one get a digital converter for their television sets? If analog systems would no longer work, one would think that because people want their television programs, they would naturally migrate to the digital converter boxes (or their equivalents) of their own accord.

And have you also noticed how sophisticated CGI (Computer Graphic Imaging) is becoming in such films like Transformers I and II, and The LORD of the RINGS?

How much more sophisticated does it have to get before the 6 o'clock news has 'live footage' that is totally fabricated and can easily propagate a lie . . . (doing visually what Orsen Welles' War of the Worlds radio program did audially) such as a mass UFO sighting? Such a fabrication would not be convincing enough if viewed on an analog television, right?

For any who would find themselves in a 'real, live' War of the Worlds situation, as staged as, but far more sophisticated than, that old radio broadcast of over 70 years ago . . . know who your real enemy is.

If the German people recognized who the guilty culprits were that destroyed the Reichstagg building in order to grab power, and those who witnessed the downing of the WTC understood who the guilty parties were in that atrocity and thus acquired the powers we are witnessing today, then they should understand that a potential scenario in which supposed Extraterrestrial Terrorists are a mere smoke screen for the real enemies, who hide in secrecy and control the world with invisible strings that would bind us all the more tightly.

And this is not to say that the spiritual dynamic of fallen angels posing as extraterrestrial aliens won't play a factor in the last days deception, on the contrary, I believe that this ultimately will be the PRIMARY factor in it, giving credibility to evolution, panentheistic spirituality, occultism, and the need for a universal world order to preside on planet Earth.

Lastly, for your consideration, please set aside some time to watch this video presentation UFOs IN THE NEW AGE: EXTRATERRESTRIAL MESSAGES OR DOCTRINES OF FOURTH DIMENSION DEMONIC SPIRITS?

Is all of this true? Are things portrayed in this RED PILL Consortium series an elaborate and satanic plot being promulgated by pernicious minds (angelic and human alike) for the seductive delusion that will migrate the Earth's population into a unified global community who will believe the dogma of Extra Terrestrials? Who knows . . . we will WAIT and "WATCH and PRAY"! And WARN those susceptable to such 'Alien' wisdom!

Keep your eyes on the skies and don't believe the lies, the LORD JESUS reigns on high! And returns SOON!