Friday, December 08, 2006

Declaration of Independence from the Two Party System

by Constitution Party National Committee
Concord, New Hampshire

Whereas, The Constitution (which limits power with specific roles for each of the three branches of the Federal Government), has for decades been largely ignored by those in the Two Party System within these branches who have sworn by their oath of office to protect and defend it; and

Whereas, The Sovereignty of the US is being threatened by a President who has unconstitutionally bypassed the treaty process and has unilaterally made agreements with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada, for example the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), North American Union (NAU), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Super Highway without first submitting proposals through Congress. There

Resolved, We the people declare our Independence from the Two Party System and have joined together in a Third Party, The Constitution Party, for the purpose of returning our Nation to its roots of greatness; back to monetary soundness; back to the status of an Independent Sovereign Nation status with liberty and justice for all.

Monday, November 27, 2006

The Corporation

Documentary that looks at the concept of the corporation throughout recent history up to its present-day dominance. Please Donate!

The Future of Food

The Future of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past decade

Friday, November 10, 2006

Supermarket Secrets - Dispatches part 1

How and what we eat has radically changed over the past few decades with the all-consuming rise of the supermarket. But what price are we paying for the homogenised, cheap and convenient food that supermarkets specialise in? In a two-part programme, journalist Jane Moore investigates how supermarkets have affected the food on our plates and reveals the tell-tale signs that the food we buy may not have been grown in the way we think.

Using a combination of undercover filming and scientific analysis, Supermarket Secrets investigates whether the food on supermarket shelves is really as good as it looks, whether prices are as good as they seem and what happens behind the scenes in the production of supermarket food.

This documentry is in two parts.
This first part deals with Factory Farming, chickens, and general quality of supermarket food.
The second part deals with Cows milk, food standards, food waste, pesticides, food globalization, and loss of quality of our produce.

A very important watch for everyone, gives you facts about the meat and food you eat. After watching you will have more of an understanding of the rational behind Vegetarian, Vegan, Organic, and grass-root eating practices.

Supermarket Secrets - Dispatches part 2

How and what we eat has radically changed over the past few decades with the all-consuming rise of the supermarket. But what price are we paying for the homogenised, cheap and convenient food that supermarkets specialise in? In a two-part programme, journalist Jane Moore investigates how supermarkets have affected the food on our plates and reveals the tell-tale signs that the food we buy may not have been grown in the way we think.

Using a combination of undercover filming and scientific analysis, Supermarket Secrets investigates whether the food on supermarket shelves is really as good as it looks, whether prices are as good as they seem and what happens behind the scenes in the production of supermarket food.

This documentry is in two parts.
The first part deals with Factory Farming, chickens, and general quality of supermarket food.
This second part deals with Cows milk, food standards, food waste, pesticides, food globalization, and loss of quality of our produce.

A very important watch for everyone, gives you facts about the meat and food you eat. After watching you will have more of an understanding of the rational behind Vegetarian, Vegan, Organic, and grass-root eating practices.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Why Dating is Wrong, Love only in Marriage

Some people wonder if their can be a such thing as Christian "kissing". I believe that there is a much deeper issue that first needs to be addressed.
The root problem with kissing outside of marriage is that people desire love outside of marriage. Which is why dating is wrong. Love should only be in the context of marriage. As a result, kissing, hand-holding, etc. should also only be in the context of marriage.

Song of Solomon 1:2
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

Song of Solomon 2:4-5
4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.
5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love.

Proverbs 5:18-20
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

Song of Solomon 4:9-11
9 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.
10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!
11 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.

"[W]hy wilt thou" "be ravished with a" stranger?

Friday, October 20, 2006

God's in control, not man

Several websites contain information concerning fears of the government implanting tiny microrobots that can control your attitude, actions, and/or thoughts. There are others still reporting that government is using magnetism to control people's actions and thoughts. However, that is simply impossible.

Romans 8:38-39,
[38] For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
[39] Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is clear that nothing, not even death or torture can separate us from the love of God. Only we can choose leave him.

Also it would mean that no man would be responsible for his own actions but another would be contradicting scripture. God holds all men accountable for their sin.

As Ezekiel 18:20 says,
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Also in Revelation 20:12-13, we see that all men are judged according their works.

Revelation 20:12-13,
[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
[13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Jesus tells us in Matthew 16:27,
[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Every man shall be judged according to his works. Every man.

If you are not a Christian, click on the following link to learn how you can become a Christian and have everlasting life:

How to get to heaven/eternal life

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Zionism versus the Bible

"Much of our Christian emphasis on foreign policy in the Middle East today is based on the promise that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

The first half of this verse is a promise that God made to just one person, Abraham. The original Hebrew is in the second person singular, meaning that God is speaking only to Abraham. The King James Version correctly reflects this grammatical construction, since "thee" is singular, referring only to one person, whereas "ye" would refer to multiple persons.

Matthew Henry’s commentary states of Genesis 12:3a that "This made it a kind of league, offensive and defensive, between God and Abram."

Of the second half of the verse, Matthew Henry says, This was the promise that crowned all the rest; for it points to the Messiah, in whom ‘all the promises are yea and amen.’ Note, (1), Jesus Christ is the great blessing of the world, the greatest that ever the world blessed with."

Recently Genesis 12:3 has been spiritualized by Christian Zionist preachers, who say that this verse applies not just to Abraham, but also to Abraham’s descendants, specifically to the modern state of Israel founded in 1948. Supposedly, it means that evangelical Christians as individuals, and America as a nation, are bound to provide unquestioning support, financial and otherwise, to the state of Israel. It is said that if America fails to back up Israel in every way possible, financially, militarily and otherwise, then God will be through with America and will have us nuked.

When it is pointed out that the various Arabs nations, including Palestine, are also descended from Abraham, the Christian Zionists say that the promise of Genesis 12"3 applies only to the descendants of Isaac. (Of course, there is no mention of Isaac in Genesis 12:3. They often misquote the verse, saying it refers to "blessing Israel," but Israel is not mentioned in the verse, either).

Zionists say, based on their non-literal, speculative, spiritualized interpretation of Genesis 12:3, that we are to give total, unquestioned support to some of Abraham’s children, while others of Abraham’s children are to be hated, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, bombed back into the Stone Age, maybe even nuked..."

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Are You Surprised the Average American Home Has More TVs Than People?

Are You Surprised the Average American Home Has More TVs Than People?: " Are You Surprised the Average American Home Has More TVs Than People? Taking into account the epidemic of obesity along with the frightening exercise debt that's harming America's health, it's no surprise to me, based on data reported by Nielsen Media Research, the typical home has 2.55 people and 2.73 TV sets. Some sad numbers about America's obsession with their TVs: Less than 20 percent of American households own a single TV, while half own at least three. The average person watches 275 minutes of TV per day, longer than it takes watch two movies of average length. A TV set is turned on -- regardless if someone is watching it or not -- more than eight hours a day, an additional hour over the previous decade. Just 30 years ago, only 11 percent of American households owned at least three TVs. Here's the scariest number of them all: Because Nielsen is now using a sampling formula called the People Meter, that eight hours a TV set is on during the day may repres"

Another Ridiculous Energy Drink Called Cocaine

Another Ridiculous Energy Drink Called Cocaine: " Another Ridiculous Energy Drink Called Cocaine Considering one soft drink maker's very deceptive ploy to promote 7-Up as 100 percent natural, companies will do anything to grab the attention of consumers, particularly teens. So much so, a Las Vegas firm has labeled its newest energy drink Cocaine, even though it contains absolutely none of the ingredients of the illegal drug. Although a visit to the product's Web site reminds people to consume Cocaine responsibly (along with the expected legal disclaimers warning children and pregnant moms not to drink it), various news accounts say the energy drink is being advertised as a 'legal alternative' to the real thing. Far from the 'real thing,' however, the only kick in a can of Cocaine is 280 milligrams of caffeine, still less than you'd ever get after drinking an expresso. Understanding its main competition is Red Bull, Redux Beverages claims their new and improved energy drink is '350 percent stronger,' hence, I suspect, where the origin of that ridiculous name came from... "

The Antifederalists Were Right

The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. Gary Galles writes that they feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But that does not mean they were wrong.

read more | digg story

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

More Evidence of the Benefits of Full Spectrum Lighting

More Evidence of the Benefits of Full Spectrum Lighting: " More Evidence of the Benefits of Full Spectrum Lighting

In another sign conventional medicine is beginning to come around regarding the health benefits of full spectrum lighting, scientists have discovered a new receptor in the eye that, among other things, monitors our biological clocks.

Apart from the other photoreceptors in the eye that allow people to see, this 'third eye' responds differently to light by sending signals to your brain's hypothalamus, thus regulating the production of melatonin your body's circadian rhythms.

With the help of big-time manufacturer Philips, scientists experimented with lamps emitting different wavelengths of light on workers toiling in the high-stress environment on one floor of a health insurance call center. No surprise, in comparison to co-workers on other floors, patients felt more alert and the quality of their work improved too.

Although an hour's worth of unfiltered sunlight -- helping our bodies create vitamin D naturally -- is so essential to optimal health, many of you"

Some Colleges Starting to Get It About Food!

Some Colleges Starting to Get It About Food!: " Some Colleges Starting to Get It About Food!

Just as some hospitals in America are transitioning to organic foods, universities are slowly making the switch too. The difference-maker: Demands made by a growing number of 'nutritionally wired students' raised on 'Whole Foods diets.'

In the case of Yale University, the switch from pre-made foods to preparing scratch meals from more wholesome sources has taken five years, because most schools never spent money on food before and don't know how, according to one expert, without a lot of help.

Today, some 50 percent of the 15 million American students attending college have access to organic food, probably accounting for a goodly portion of the industry's 20 percent yearly growth.

As one might expect at an Ivy League school, Yale's nutritional goals -- serving 100 percent sustainable and organic food -- are high but doable. That's a far cry from just four years, when organic foods were served in just one dining hall on campus.

If your searches for organic food"

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Do You Want Your Tax Dollars Funding a ''Better'' FDA?

Do You Want Your Tax Dollars Funding a ''Better'' FDA?: " Do You Want Your Tax Dollars Funding a ''Better'' FDA? Considering commerce -- specifically the financial health of mega-drugmakers -- is of greater urgency to the FDA than your health, why would anyone want to throw more money after bad into that failed icon of faulty medicine? Unfortunately, that's precisely the recommendation being made by consumer and patients groups, the industry, previous leaders of the Health and Human Services Department and even the Center for Science in the Public Interest. I'm not surprised this announcement comes days after the Institute of Medicine issued a scathing report calling for changes in the way the FDA regulates drugs. Despite the diverse interests of this group, former associate FDA director William Hubbard says, all believe the FDA 'has to be strengthened or we're all going to suffer.' What would more money really mean to the FDA? Severing its ties with the drug company cartel? Approving more deadly drugs? Calling a halt to the silencing of brave whistleblowers within the age"

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects

High insulin levels is the culprit of degenerative disease. Dr. Joseph Mercola in his comment to the article states, "Sugar and grains cause your body to produce insulin and high insulin levels are the single largest physical cause of accelerated aging. If you want to slow down aging and stay healthy then you need to change your grains."

read more | digg story

America Spends More For Mediocre Health Care Than All Other Nations

America Spends More For Mediocre Health Care Than All Other Nations: " America Spends More For Mediocre Health Care Than All Other Nations

If you're wondering why medical mistakes like the one I described yesterday are being reported with greater frequency, you'll want to review the Commonwealth Fund Commission's first-ever National Scorecard on U.S. Health System Performance.

Compared to other nations, America scored a D (66), based on pitifully low scores taken from 37 different benchmarks. Even worse, the United States spends 16 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, higher than the other 22 nations evaluated in the report.

Among the benchmarks cited in the report with the correspondingly low U.S. scores:

Infant mortality = 39.
Needless emergency room visits that could've been treated in an office visit = 23.
Adults receiving recommended screenings and preventative care = 61.

If America closed all the statistical gaps cited in the Commonwealth Fund report, the nation could prevent as many as 150,000 deaths annually and save up t"

Fox Fires Reporters For Telling the Truth About Milk

Fox Fires Reporters For Telling the Truth About Milk: " Fox Fires Reporters For Telling the Truth About Milk

You may recall a report I posted two years ago that Monsanto was slowing down sales of its bovine growth hormone (BGH). Shortly before the slowdown in the production of Posilac, however, a pair of investigative reporters lost a legal battle with the Fox Network, simply for telling the truth behind a dangerous and needless food additive, so persuasively described in this interesting video.

The conflict stemmed from a 1997 report to be aired by a Fox TV affiliate in Florida about the dangers of BGH until lawyers for Monsanto sent letters promising 'dire consequences' if the story aired. After attempts by Fox to bribe the reporters to keep quiet failed, the station agreed to air a revised version of the report. Eighty-three edits later, the report was shelved and the courts took over.

Although a lower court ruled in favor of the reporters for some $425,000, a Florida appeals court denied them whistleblower protection, claiming Fox, and the media in gen"

Friday, September 22, 2006

Wal-Mart Promotes a Distorted View of Organic Foods

Wal-Mart Promotes a Distorted View of Organic Foods: " Wal-Mart Promotes a Distorted View of Organic Foods

When Wal-Mart made hay in the press earlier this year with its announcement about doubling its organic foods sales, I cautioned you to be skeptical about the source, and it seems my concerns are well-founded, according to this awesome New York Times piece.

Case in point is Wal-Mart's private-label brand of organic milk (Great Value) produced by Aurora Organic Dairy (which, by the way, also supplies Costco, Target, Wild Oats and Safeway). Some competitors and food retailers argue Aurora and Wal-Mart are selling substandard organic dairy products produced at facilities that barely adhere to the principles of organic agriculture.

To produce milk more cheaply, experts report, Aurora cuts corners as cows spend no significant time grazing on fresh grass. Instead, cows only eat grass when they aren't being milked or at the end of a lactation cycle which amounts to only three months at most each year. The rest of the time, cows survive on a high-grain diet. That's partly respo"

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Our Money & Our Freedom: What Government Is Doing to Both

Sound money and freedom go together. So long as we do not want freedom, we can never achieve the goal of sound money. For what government is doing to our money is nothing but a microcosm of what government is doing to our freedom. To institute sound money is to put a lock on the door so that the burglar of government cannot get in to steal from us.

read more | digg story

Creation: Facts of Life: Human beings

Creation: Facts of Life: Human beings: "Sometimes people ask Dr. Parker how virtually all the evolutionists in the world could be so wrong about such an important issue as human origins. Answer: it wouldn’t be the first time."

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The Insane Recall of Organic Spinach

The Insane Recall of Organic Spinach: " The Insane Recall of Organic Spinach Hard to believe all the overreactions surrounding the insane recall of organic spinach in the press late last week, needlessly panicking Americans and forcing grocers to get rid of perfectly healthy food at the risk of other pressing health concerns like obesity. Federal officials certainly have some handle on the problem. Almost three-quarters of the fresh spinach grown in America comes from California. Moreover, FDA and state officials have been monitoring lettuce farms in the Salinas area that have been the source of eight E. coli outbreaks since 1995. And Natural Selection Foods, the California company responsible for the problem, claims its organic produce has been cleared of contamination, although the FDA disagrees. Here's the most curious part of the problem that makes no sense: The most virulent strain of E. coli (O157:H7) originates from animals through bacteria from their tainted feces, so it's hard for me to imagine why state and federal officials can't find it. Heaven forbid, let's hope this ruckus isn't merely a "

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Parents: The Weakest Link in the Childhood Obesity Epidemic

Parents have a monumental effect on their children's health. The problem is that many young parents have learned their eating habits from the fast food culture and pass them down to their children. Parents should do their part in fixing the obesity epidemic by teaching their children sound, healthy lifestyles.

read more | digg story

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Reversing Diabetes Naturally

Six McDonalds-munching Americans eat 100% vegan live foods for a month. Medical results are fantastic. Doctors and experts are interviewed including Gabriel Cousens, MD and David Wolfe.
Raw for 30-Days

Raw for 30-Days will document the journey of five Americans suffering from Adult Onset Type II Diabetes, who undergo a radical 30-day diet and lifestyle change in the hope of reversing or reducing their insulin dependence. The film will show the eating habits that led to the development of this disease and will posit an alternative approach to living and eating, one in which foods can heal and hold the potential to reverse Diabetes. We will recruit subjects who have been subsisting on a standard American junk food diet and who are now insulin dependent and Diabetic. Those selected will journey to the Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center in Arizona to undergo a 30-day health regimen consisting of 100% raw organic living foods that are purported to heal Diabetes. We will select a diverse group of subjects, representative of the different segments of the population most affected by this epidemic. Examples include a Native American from a Reservation, an African American from an urban Northeast city, a Mexican American living in the western US and a Caucasian person from the mid-west or a Southern city such as Chattanooga, TN.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

The Scofield Heresies Part 1

This article contains information on the heretical views of Dr. Scofield as mentioned in his 1917 reference notes.

First the idea of dispensationalism is utterly ridiculous. No flesh was EVER saved by works; not before the old testament not during the old testament nor under the new testament.

Dr. Scofield incorrectly states in his notes on what he has termed the ADAMIC covenant (extra-biblical terminology, whatever happened to Sola Scriptura?) that

The Second Dispensation: Conscience. By disobedience man came to a personal and experimental knowledge of good and evil--of good as obedience, of evil as disobedience to the known will of God. Through that knowledge conscience awoke. Expelled from Eden and placed under the second, or ADAMIC COVENANT, man was responsible to do all known good, to abstain from all known evil, and to approach God through sacrifice. The result of this second testing of man is stated in Genesis 6:5 and the dispensation ended in the judgment of the Flood. Apparently "the east of the garden" Genesis 3:24 where were the cherubims and the flame, remained the place of worship through this second dispensation. See for the other six dispensations:

There are serious problems with his theology. He says that the ADAMIC covenant ended with the judgment of the Flood, implying either that conscience of sin ended or that man was then saved by works. We know that sin did not just suddenly disappear at the Flood and we also know that no flesh was ever saved by works as that is impossible. So we have that Dr. Scofield (and his followers) are willingly ignorant of the truth of the scriptures.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

No "right and wrong" in English classrooms

No "right and wrong" in English classrooms: "The concept of a hidden curriculum is a recognition that pupils learn far more from their teachers than knowledge, understanding and skills. This includes the concepts of right and wrong."

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The Existance of God

This article is from a purely logical standpoint. Note: This is only a partial proof. I intend on updating the article to add additional proof. Some people have asked me, "Where did God come from?" To which I replied, "He always existed." I did some thinking about how God could always exist. If we say that God came from something or someone, where did that something come from? Now, there is a serious logic flaw. That something or someone would also have to have an origin and that origin would also have to an origin and that... Get the gist?! So we resolve that someone or something must have always existed. I believe "In the beginning God.." and evolutionists believe "In the beginnning dirt..." Now that I have proven the eternal existence of God, will you believe God existed from everlasting or matter existed from everlasting? It is impossible for matter to exist eternally and produce the order we now have because it would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Ephesians 3:9 says, "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:".

Hebrews 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Monday, July 03, 2006

Gail Riplinger - New Age Bible Versions

Gale Riplinger's exhaustive six-year collation of new Bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscripts, editions, and editors is culminated by this video. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion. The emerging new Christianity - with its substitution of riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation - is shown to be a direct result of the wording in new versions. Gale exposes new version editors' in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy in mental institutions, s??ance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials, and most shocking of all; denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Script for converting FLV to AVI, MPG, etc

I found some information at Convert Google Video FLV’s into AVI, MPG, etc…in LINUX on converting videos from flv to other formats. So I decided to automate the process a little so I wouldn't have to type in the command constantly. My script accepts two parameters separated by a white space character: the video you wish to convert & the destination file. Here's my code
ffmpeg -i $1 -ab 56 -ar 22050 -b 500 -s 320x240 $2

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Essential Oils Feel Great!

I am currently rereading The Maker's Diet by Jordan Rubin. I flipped to the section on essential oils, read a little, and then decided to anoint myself with some essential oils I have. I put about 5 or 6 drops of Garden of Life's Clenzology tooth and gum solution (contains coconut oil, peppermint oil, spearment oil, thyme oil, sweet marjoram oil, myrrh oil, and clove) on the palm of my right hand. Then I rubbed the fingers of my left hand on the palm of my right hand and afterwards rubbed both of my palms together. I then ran my palms and fingers through my hair. I have this awesome fresh tingling feeling on my head right now and I also feel better. Essential oils are incredible!

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Pure Religion pt. 1

What is pure religion? In my own life, I am learning not just what is right but how to do what is right. I am learning how to live a different way.

The Bible says in James 1:19-27,
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:

24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

So pure religion is not just about a set of rules or regulations or "just not doing evil", it's about doing good also. Jesus Christ in Matthew 22:37-40 says,
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Deut 6:5, 10:12 Mark 12:30 Luke 10:27

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Lev 19:18 Matt 5:43 Matt 19:19 Mark 12:31 Rom 13:9 Gal 5:14 Jam 2:8

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Some people say that religion is about "dos" and "don'ts". Yet they fail to see that in their own lives, they do certain things and don't do others. The problem lies not in difference of pure religion but rather in that they don't see pure religion as the way they should live.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Rammed Down Our Throats

From Spilling the Beans, September 2005

"Jeffrey Smith travels this month to South Africa. Here is a reprint of a hard hitting interview with him by noseweek, an influential South African investigative magazine. noseweek has generously given permission for you to reprint this in whole or in part, by acknowledging them as the source. For commercial use in South Africa, please check with us first.

Click here for a PDF version of the formatted article.

Rammed down our throats

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, the best-selling book on genetic engineering, spills the beans to noseweek about the hidden dangers in the foods we eat and the way massive seed and agrichemical corporations such as Monsanto are manipulating governments and science to foist their questionable products on us. South Africa (along with Brazil and India) is one of Monsanto’s key targets.

noseweek: What motivated you to write ‘Seeds of Deception’?
Jeffrey Smith: In addition to having the inside scoop on many of the dangers of GM foods, I was also aware of several scandalous stories about the biotech industry that would make good reading. Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted. Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the 40 died within two weeks. The crop was approved. When a top scientist tried to alert the public about other alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit. The warnings of US government scientists were ignored and denied by the Food and Drug Administration, whose policy chief was a former attorney, and later vice president, for Monsanto. A University of California professor claimed he was threatened by a senior Mexican government official who allegedly implied, “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him to withdraw an incriminating paper from publication. And news reports about GMOs were cancelled due to threats from Monsanto’s attorneys.

I figured that these stories alone would be fascinating to readers. So I weaved the science and facts about the technology into the stories, and the book became the international bestseller on the topic.

What is your interest in Africa?
Many senior African officials I have met at various international conferences have confided that they have been pressurised by the US government and biotech companies, and have little access to the type of information that I have documented. I hope to pierce the biotech myths that advocates propagate, so that the public and Africa’s leaders can make decisions based on facts, not spin.

Scientists representing the biotech industry claim that GM foods have been extensively tested and are safe. They say that anti-GM campaigners like you are unscientific and base their arguments on emotion. Can you comment?A recently published linguistic analysis of biotech advocates concludes what many of us have observed for years. Using unscientific, emotional, and even irrational arguments, GM proponents attack critics as unscientific, emotional and irrational. In reality, critics demand more science, not less. We demand facts, not PR hype.

There are many ways in which a GM food could create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, or nutritional problems. The process of inserting a gene into a DNA can dramatically disrupt the normal genes. One study showed that as many as 5% of the natural genes changed their levels of expression when a single gene was inserted. Genes can get turned off or deleted, switched on permanently, scrambled, duplicated, or relocated. Gene insertion coupled with growing cells from tissue culture, creates hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. On top of all this, the inserted gene can get mutated, truncated, or blended with the crop’s natural gene code. And it appears that the inserted genes get rearranged over time as well. Any of these changes can create serous problems in themselves, or set in motion a chain of reactions that can lead to problems.

Tragically, the studies conducted on GM crops are not designed to identify the vast majority of possible problems. When scientists understand the dangers involved with GM technology and then discover what studies are actually conducted, they’re shocked. They realize the extent to which consumers are being used as guinea pigs, just so the biotech industry doesn’t have to spend the money doing the proper research. There are fewer than 20 peer-reviewed animal-feeding safety studies. And many of these are industry-funded and clearly rigged to avoid finding problems. No, GM crops are not adequately tested for safety. Part of my work is to bring that to the public’s attention.

In ‘Seeds of Deception’ you cite a study by a leading expert on genetic modification, Dr Arpad Pusztai, which showed that a strain of GM potatoes retarded the growth of rats and damaged their immune systems. But is there any evidence of GM foods harming humans?
First of all, let’s summarize the evidence collected from animals. Pusztai’s government-funded study demonstrated that rats fed a GM potato developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, partial atrophy of the liver, and inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles. Rats fed a GM tomato developed stomach lesions, and seven of 40 died within two weeks. Mice fed GM maize had problems with blood cell formation as well as kidney and liver lesions. Those fed GM soy had problems with liver cell formation, and the livers of rats fed GM canola were heavier. Pigs fed GM maize on several Midwest farms developed false pregnancies, sterility, or gave birth to bags of water. Twelve cows fed GM maize in Germany died mysteriously. And twice the number of chickens died when fed GM maize compared to those fed natural maize.

Remarkably, there have been no human clinical feeding trials, and no post market surveillance of possible health effects in humans. The UK’s Food Standards Agency had asked supermarket executives for the purchasing data from the 20 million consumers using loyalty cards, so they could see if those eating GM had higher rates of cancer, birth defects, or childhood allergies. When the study was made public, the embarrassed government cancelled their plans.

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Without follow-up tests, we can’t be sure if genetic engineering was the cause, but there are plenty of ways in which genetic manipulation can boost allergies. For example, the most common allergen in soy is called trypsin inhibitor. GM soy contains significantly more of this compared with natural soy.

I have also documented how one epidemic in the 1980s was caused by a brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan, which had been created through genetic modification. The disease killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5,000–10,000 others. The Food and Drug Administration withheld information from Congress and the public, in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech industry.

If GM foods do affect the human immune system, what are their potential risks in South Africa where we have a high incidence of HIV/AIDS?
If the foods were creating health problems in the population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause. The L-tryptophan epidemic provides a chilling example. The only reason that doctors were able to identify that an epidemic was occurring, was because the new disease had three simultaneous characteristics: it was rare, acute, and fast acting. Even then it took years to discover and was nearly missed entirely.

If GM foods affect the immune system, which has been shown in animal models, there are numerous ways that could manifest in humans, from mild symptoms to serious diseases. Certainly it could worsen existing diseases or create complications. Since no human studies are conducted, however, we don’t know. It’s best just to avoid eating GM products.

Critics of Monsanto demonise the company, but it has publicly pledged itself to the principles of ‘dialogue, transparency, sharing, sharing in benefits, and respect’. Doesn’t this indicate that their heart is in the right place?
Actions speak louder than words. Consider just a few of the facts about this company:

In 2005, Monsanto paid a $1.5 million fine to the US justice department for giving bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 Indonesian officials, trying to get their cotton approved without an environmental impact study.

Six government scientists testified before the Canadian Senate that a Monsanto official offered them a bribe of $1-2 million, if they approved the company’s GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH) without further study.

Legal threats from Monsanto resulted in the cancellation of a TV news series about rbGH, the cancellation of a book critical of Monsanto, and the shredding of 14,000 issues of a magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto.

Monsanto’s PR firm created the so-called “Dairy Coalition” in order to pressure major US newspapers to withdraw stories critical of rbGH.

Documents that were stolen from the FDA showed that when Monsanto researchers wanted to show that rbGH didn’t interfere with fertility, they allegedly added cows to the study that were pregnant, prior to injection.

Other researchers supporting rbGH had pasteurized milk 120 times longer than normal and even spiked the milk with huge amounts of powdered hormone, to try to claim that pasteurization destroyed the hormone.

Monsanto omitted incriminating data altogether from their 1996 published study on GM soybeans. When it was later recovered by an investigator, it showed that GM soy contained significantly lower levels of protein and other nutrients, and toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin that may block the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a major soy allergen. Monsanto named their study, “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans.”

In the feeding portion of the same study, they fed mature animals instead of the more sensitive young ones, diluted their GM soy with non-GM protein 10- or 12–fold, used too much protein, and never weighed the organs or examined them under a microscope. These and other flaws have made it the subject of peer-reviewed critiques, which exposed how GM food studies are designed in such a way as to overlook detection of even significant problems.

In July 1999, independent researchers published a study showing that GM soy contains 12-14% less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy’s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection – one that had been prone to highly variable results.

Documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that FDA policy on GM foods was deceitful. The policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any meaningful or uniform differences between GM and non-GM foods, and therefore did not require any safety studies. The disclosed memos showed, however, that the overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM crops were significantly different, and that they urged their superiors to require long term safety testing due to the possible presence of unpredictable toxins, allergens and new diseases. The person in charge of policy at the FDA who apparently ignored the scientists was Monsanto’s former attorney. He later became Monsanto’s vice president.

One FDA scientist arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of Monsanto’s rbGH. She had just arrived at the FDA from Monsanto.

Monsanto consistently reported increased yields on GM soy, canola and cotton, whereas independent studies show decreases. For example, scientists published a study demonstrating a nearly 80% increase in Indian cotton yields based only on test plot data supplied to them by Monsanto. In May, 2005, however, a study by the government of Andrah Pradesh found a decrease of about 18%. When they told Monsanto to pay about US$10 million compensation to the farmers, the corporation refused and was kicked out of the state altogether.

Monsanto has a long history of wrongdoings. They had claimed PCBs were safe, DDT was safe, Agent Orange was safe. They were wrong. In fact, court documents revealed that the company withheld evidence about the safety of their PCBs to the residents of the town that was being poisoned by their factory. On February 22, 2002, a court found Monsanto guilty of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. Outrage, according to Alabama law, usually requires conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

Monsanto’s detractors criticize the fact that the company has patented seeds and other genetic material. Surely they are entitled to protect their intellectual property, just like any other inventor?
There is enormous controversy about patents on life. Further, many believe that patenting genes is more about discovery than invention, and is therefore privatizing what should remain in the public commons. It’s also interesting how Monsanto chooses to enforce its patents. They have sued 150 farmers in North America and received more than $15 million in judgments. In one case, they sued a farmer who had the company’s seeds blow onto his land from a nearby farm and by passing trucks.

Have Monsanto ever tried to silence you?
Because my book is now influencing policy in many regions, I occasionally hear criticism from biotech advocates who try to dismiss the book as a whole. They don’t challenge specific details, however, since the book is carefully documented and has been through a thorough review by many senior scientists.

The website says that ‘there are exhaustive tests to ensure that any genetic change in a foodstuff does not increase the allergenicity of the food.’ If GM food is as questionable as you say, why have US regulatory authorities allowed products that contain GM material onto supermarket shelves?
The FDA’s own scientist Carl Johnson wrote in a memo, “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.” It is impossible to guarantee that a GM crop isn’t an allergen. People tend to develop allergies after being exposed to a substance over time. But the proteins newly introduced into GM crops typically come from bacteria and have never before existed in the human diet.

The World Health Organization developed a list of criteria designed to minimize the likelihood that a foreign protein from a GM crop will be allergenic. Unfortunately, the GM soy, maize, and papaya already on the market fail those criteria.

In addition, the process of gene insertion can disrupt the DNA and increase a known allergen or create a new unknown allergen.

Not only is there no comprehensive allergy testing before GM foods are released, remarkably there is no post market surveillance. When it was revealed that soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% after GM soy was introduced into the UK, it’s simply amazing that no follow up studies were conducted to see if GM soy was more allergenic.

You are clearly concerned about the way GM foods are being developed and marketed, but do you think the technology has any potential benefits?
The current technology used in GM crops on the market is based on science that is 40 years old. Many of the key assumptions used as the basis for safety claims have been overturned. We know very little about how the DNA functions, and our paradigms are being shifted every few months with new discoveries. I am not against DNA research. And perhaps in the future we can safely manipulate genes for crops or food. But at this stage, it is irresponsible to feed the products of this infant science to millions of people or release them into the environment where they can never be recalled.

My focus, by the way, is not on medical uses of biotechnology, which has an entirely different equation of risk versus benefit.

South Africa has authorized the growing of GM maize for human consumption. Do you know the nature of this modification? What is its intended outcome? The primary trait added to GM corn is the insertion of a gene that creates the Bt-toxin, which is a pesticide. The industry claims that Bt is safe, since it has been used in an organic pesticide for years. This is utter nonsense.

The GM Bt-toxin is engineered to be far more toxic than the natural spray

We are the only country in the world where a GM staple food has been authorized. How will this affect people where 80-90% of their diet consists of maize meal and fresh maize on the cob?
The GM Bt-toxin in maize is hundreds or even a thousand times more concentrated than the spray

The spray degrades in the sunlight in a few days, but the GM variety is produced by every cell of the maize, around the clock, and eaten by the consumer.

Mice exposed to Bt-toxin developed an immune response equal to that of cholera toxin, developed a greater susceptibility to allergies, and developed abnormal and excessive cell growth in their small intestines. Farm workers exposed to even the low dose Bt spray showed evidence of allergic sensitivity, and blood tests showed an immune response. Preliminary evidence found that thirty-nine Philippinos living next to a Bt maize field developed skin, intestinal, and respiratory reactions while the maize was pollinating. Tests of their blood also showed an immune response to the Bt. The only human feeding study ever conducted showed that genes inserted into GM soy actually transferred into gut bacteria. Imagine if the gene that produces the Bt-toxin were to transfer from the maize we eat into our gut bacteria. It could theoretically transform our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.

In the US, we eat only 3-5% of our caloric intake as maize. I dread to think what might happen to those eating GM maize as the majority of their diet. Some farmers who fed 100% GM corn to their livestock had catastrophes. Twelve cows died on a German farm. And about 25 farmers in North America say their pigs became sterile or had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water.

In the US, GM potatoes were withdrawn from the market due to consumer pressure, but in South Africathe Agricultural Research Council with additional funding from USAID are fast-tracking GM potatoes, ostensibly to benefit resource-poor small farmers. Will GM crops benefit Africa’s poor and starving?
The US decided to fast track GM food in 1992, because the Council on Competitiveness identified it as a promising area for increasing US exports and gaining control over the lucrative food supply. USAID has been trying to implement the US agenda in Africa, and many believe that they consciously use contamination as a means to promote acceptance of GM. In fact, University of Washington professor Phil Bereano reported in the Seattle Times in 2002 that Emmy Simmons, assistant administrator of USAID, “said to me after the cameras stopped rolling on a vigorous debate we had on South African TV, ‘In four years, enough GE [genetically engineered] crops will have been planted in South Africa that the pollen will have contaminated the entire continent.’”

There are many safe, sustainable, and life-supporting technologies that can benefit Africa’s poor and starving. Perhaps genetic engineering technology will progress to the point someday that it can also be a worthy candidate. But in its current version, I say, “Run away.”

There is an interesting feature about GM potatoes that makes them potentially more dangerous than most other GM crops. We know that the process of gene insertion combined with tissue culture typically results in hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. Many of these mutations can be corrected through the process of outcrossing – mating the GM crop with non-GM crops. Potatoes are not propagated through outcrossing, and the massive number of mutations created from the transformation process may theoretically remain intact in the GM potatoes on the market. Scientists typically don’t identify the genome-wide mutations before putting GM crops onto the market. It’s a form of gambling with every bite.

South Africa, along with the US, is one of the very few countries in the world that allow the use of genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) on its dairy cows. Is drinking milk from cows injected with rBGH safe?
There are a few known differences between milk from cows injected with rbGH and natural milk. Typically, rbGH milk has more pus, due to increased infections, more antibiotics, used to treat the infections, and more bovine growth hormone.

The hormone level that most critics are concerned about, however, is insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Natural milk contains IGF-1. Milk drinkers increase their levels of IGF-1. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women under 50 with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is also implicated in lung and colon cancer. Milk from cows treated with rbGH has significantly higher levels of IGF-1. (No comprehensive study has yet evaluated a direct link between rbGH and human cancer.)

Up to 30% of the soya grown in SA is GM. Soya is used as a protein source by many poor people and in infant formulas. It is also routinely fed to prisoners and mineworkers. What are the implications?
In addition to all that was said above, we know that:

GM soy has sections of its DNA that were scrambled during the gene insertion process. These might result in the creation of toxins, allergens, anti-nutrients, etc.

We know that the inserted gene appears to be unstable and can rearrange over time. This means that it will create a protein that was never intended or tested, and may be a toxin, etc.

The protein it was designed to create has two sections that are identical to known allergens, and therefore might cause dangerous allergic reactions.

Since the inserted gene transfers to gut bacteria, even if you stop eating GM soy for the rest of your life, you still might have this foreign protein being created inside of your intestines.

The promoter, which is inserted into soy to activate the foreign gene, also transfers to gut bacteria, and may switch on one of the bacterium’s genes at random. And this could create a problem.

These are only a few of the reasons why people should just say no to GM soy.

Science is supposedly objective, yet many university academics defend the use of GM crops while others condemn their introduction vigorously. Why?
What may come as a shock to people is the extent to which science is no longer independent and objective. Studies show that the source of funds has a lot to do with the research outcome. Industry-funded studies favour industry’s products. Many scientists admit to making changes in their findings to suit funders. In the field of plant biotech, practically all jobs are funded directly or indirectly by industry. We know of many examples of scientist who lost their jobs, or were threatened or penalized, after expressing concerns about GM products. Attacks on scientists can get quite vicious. As a result, those scientists who still dare to challenge biotechnology are often of retirement age and feel less vulnerable.

So-called independent panels and committees are often stacked with industry representatives. This is part of the industry’s plan, as revealed in leaked documents. They have been remarkably successful at this.

As the technology flounders, revealing how unsafe and unpredictable it is, the industry promotes their biotech myths more vigorously. It appears that they are trying to prop up the image of the technology so they can recoup their investment before the public and the regulators figure out what’s really going on.

Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey Smith is published by Yes! Books. His website is at


Jeffrey Smith has studied the issues around genetic modification for nearly 10 years. He has lectured on the subject, consulted with a nonprofit group trying to get GM foods labelled, run for US Congress to raise the public awareness about the issues, worked as the vice president for marketing communications at a genetically modified organism (GMO) detection laboratory, and has extensively interviewed scientists and experts worldwide. Over the past two years, he has toured more than 150 cities on five continents, debated with scientists, testified before various government committees, and interviewed activists, scientists, politicians, and farmers. He collaborates with numerous scientists on a monthly syndicated column and is preparing material for two more books on GMOs.


On May 23, 2003, President Bush proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. He also blamed Europe’s “unfounded, unscientific fears” of these foods for hindering efforts to end hunger. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded US exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed on from president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports and industry advertisement.

The message was part of a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world’s food supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a representative from Arthur Andersen Consulting Group explained how his company had helped Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. Monsanto executives described a world with 100% of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Andersen Consulting then worked backward from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

Integral to the plan was Monsanto’s influence in government, whose role was to promote the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, ‘The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender’.

From: Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to your readers at no charge, by emailing Individuals may read the column each month by subscribing to a free newsletter at

© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith. noseweek has granted permission to reproduce this in whole or in part, by acknowledging them as the source. For commercial use in South Africa, please check with us first."

Cloning is not equal to duplication

Cloning does not necessarily mean that you will have the same physical or, further more, behavioral characteristics. Texas A&M University produced a clone of a calico cat with "splotches of brown, tan and gold on white." However, the clone did not have the splotches. Instead the clone had "a striped gray coat over white"! Very interesting. Also the clone had very different behavioral patterns than the original. Goes to show that DNA does not define ones behavior and even those with similar DNA can have very different physical features. Time for a change in the textbooks...

For the article on the cloned cat see: Genetic copy of cat not a copycat after all

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Why the world loves The Chronicles of Narnia

Update: I have recently learned that there is more to the Narnia acceptance, witchcraft. To learn more see (not written by me) Trouble in Narnia

While there may be some truth in the recent Chronicles of Narnia movie, there are lies in there as well. One of the main ones is believing people just because they are family. The Professor in the movie tells Peter and his sister Susan to believe Lucy just because they are family! God never asks us to believe whatever family members say. He asks us to believe the truth.
Here's the excerpt quote from the Professor:

Well then, id your sister isn't lying and isn't mad then
logically we must assume that she is telling the truth. She's your
sister, isn't she? You're a family! It's high time you start acting
like one!

I don't know if this is in the book or not, but people should not take heed of this. Here's what scripture has to say about the topic of believing family (or anyone else) in Ephesians 4:14-15,

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

I am very wary of pagan companies publishing "so-called" Christian films. There has to be some catch. As Jesus said in John 3:20-21,

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Nanotechnology, Grey Goo, and Genetic Engineering

The grey goo scare was first created by Dr K. Eric Drexler, the "father of nanotechology, in his 1986 book Engines of Creation. Grey goo is the prediction that nano-robots will self-replicate, consume all living matter on earth, and thus cause the end of the world. The grey goo scare was reiterated by Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy. The concern of grey goo was that the self-replicating robots would be an accident. However Drexler and Chris Phoenix, Director Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), later point out that self-replication would not be likely to happen as an accident but as a design. Drexler's change of mind toward grey goo noted that self-replicating robots would not be used in nanofactories. While Drexler and Phoenix make it clear that grey goo will not be a major threat, there however other dangers of nanotechnology. Some of the potential dangers include unpredictable diseases resulting from consuming genetically engineered foods, internal espionage from restrictive regulations, nanotech arms race, and widespread environmental damage.

For more information see the links below:

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Marriage between different "colors"

It has come to my attention that some Christians have been deceived about "interracial" marriage. Some believe that it is wrong for a "black" man to marry a "white" woman. There beliefs have no scriptural background and thus must be dismissed immediately as other vain philosophies of men. There is no such thing as interracial marriage. The word race literally means people of common descent. All people are descendants of Noah and futher Adam. Genesis 1:24 defines marriage, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." So marriage is when a man and a woman cleave unto each other. Can it be when a man who skin is brown cleaves unto a woman who's skin is white? The scripture says "a man" and "his wife". Christians are forbidden to marry the heathen (non-believers) as it is written in 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"