Tag Archives: Creation vs. Evolution

Who, Me….???

So, once again I have really lapsed with writing on the ol’ blog, but today I hope to try and explain a bit about why that has been the case, and share a little about the curious position I am now finding myself in at the moment.

For several years I was plugging away here on my blog, rather content with my relatively small amount of readers/subscribers, and appreciating the cathartic nature of being able to post about whatever I happened to find intriguing in the moment, all under the screen of my little WordPress pseudonym…

I had gone back and forth for some time, considering the idea of taking a stab at making videos and putting them up on youtube, and aside from a few that I had done on topics like CERN and “Transformational Festivals”, I really didn’t get that involved with until I found myself diving down the “Flat Earth rabbit hole”, and then suddenly I found myself furiously making videos discussing various “Flat Earth proofs”, as well as looking into the Biblical case for a flat, enclosed Cosmology.

When that began, I could count on one hand the number of Youtube subscribers I had on my little channel. Like I said, I have been accustomed to obscurity, and that has really been my preferred vantage point! Yet, as the months have passed, and the “Flat Earth Movement” has continued to expand and get more and more attention, so have my little videos, to the point where now not only does my “exposure” via YT far surpass anything I had previously experienced through blogging, but now it has also reached the stage whereby I am currently sitting on around half a dozen invitations to be interviewed by other Youtube channels/shows, or participate in discussion panels to talk about Flat Earth, Biblical Cosmology, etc.

the-truman-show

And frankly, I’m terrified. It’s as though I’m inadvertently pushing the ever-shrinking line between remaining “safe” in my anonymity, and finally stepping across that line, into a realm where suddenly the human being has to step out from behind the internet avatar…

I have prayed about it. Agonized over it. Gone back and forth, again and again, between one day feeling like “Okay, I’m willing…” to then the next day feeling more compelled to simply pull the plug on everything altogether, and just get on with “real life”. I’m not trying to be anything remotely resembling an online “figurehead”. I never was. There are few things I dislike more in this world than the phenomena we often refer to as the “cult of personality”.

But then again… I find myself unable to pull myself away from continuing to explore this topic of the “Biblical Flat Earth”, and all the countless ways that it seems to fit in with all the various topics of Bible Prophecy, End-time Deception, New World Order agendas, and so much more, which I’ve already been navigating my way through over the past six years or so now. It’s almost like everything I’ve been learning up to this point has laid the foundation for now considering them all in this incredible “unified context” of a Cosmological model which I now have to confess appears to have been staring at me from the pages of Scripture the whole time. I mean, seriously, SO many things which I’ve written about over the past few years, whether it be interdimensional portals, or the Book of Enoch, UFO Deception, Genesis 6, the Occult, the Creation vs. Evolution debate, transhumanism, the fake moon landings, ancient megalithic structures, the infamous “Illuminati”, the tower of Babel, CERN, and on and on, now suddenly all “gel” in a way which before I never would’ve imagined…

Anyhow, so, this is my conundrum at the present moment. This is my crossroads that seemingly I can’t find a way around…

Another Christian FE Youtube channel by the name of “Celebrate Truth” recently finished a documentary he’s been working on for some time, called “The Global Lie”, and I was very privileged to be able to contribute several segments of content to the production. I’d have to say that the finished product is really quite superb and I hope everyone reading this is able find the time to watch it, as it really focuses on the connections between the Copernican system/cosmology and the Theory of Evolution (among other things). Several other fantastic researchers such as Rob Skiba are featured in the film, and it was truly an honor to be able to take part in this project. Here’s the full documentary:

Advertisements

Dear Dr. Hovind…

Recently in a video put out by Kent Hovind, he made a rather flippant comment/question posed to “Flat Earther’s”, regarding how ships supposedly disappear over the horizon, hull first, supposedly proving the curvature of the Earth…

I’m sure he will no doubt be flooded with responses, but here is mine.

Biblical Proof of the Flat Earth: THE GREAT FLOOD…

Anyone who has ever debated Creation vs. Evolution has almost certainly encountered the incredulity of the Evolutionist when it comes to the topic of Noah’s Flood.

While some Evolutionists might concede that perhaps there WAS at some point in the past a very significant flood event, due to the fact that so many ancient writings and oral traditions around the world refer to one, they almost inevitably insist that such an event would have had to have been merely some kind of localized occurrance, regardless of how cataclysmic it may have felt to the people at that time.

Why do Evolutionists have such a difficult time entertaining the possibility of Noah’s flood? When we look at the Biblical text it becomes fairly easy to see. In Genesis 7, starting in verse 11, it reads:

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.”

Believers in Evolution, and it’s assertions that the Earth took billions of years to form, with various stages and ice ages and such, understandably scoff at the idea that water filled the entire Earth could have been covered with water for a 150 days, especially to the degree that it covered the highest mountains on Earth, surpassing them by 15 cubits (roughly 20 feet).

But if one holds the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, as a reliable and accurate account, then this is precisely what must be upheld if one wishes to hold to a position of literal Biblical interpretation, and not start sliding down the slippery slope of trying to make the text conform itself to our own modern assumptions about what is and isn’t possible.

Now, the reason I bring all this up, is because as I was thinking about this recently, I started to ask myself just how much water that would have actually required, to completely cover the entire Earth, over the tops of the highest mountains…

After a little googling and a little multiplication, this is what I came up with…

According to current models of the alleged Globe, the surface area of the earth is around 510 million square kilometers. Everyone knows that the highest mountain peak on Earth is Mount Everest, and if that is indeed the case, it’s elevation is purported to be 8.848 kilometers above sea level. When we multiply the two, we get the figure of 4,512,480,000 cubic kilometers. That’s how much water it would require to cover the top of Everest, if we are talking about how much water would be needed in ADDITION to the amount of water already present in all the oceans/lakes/rivers in the world today.

Now, I do recognize that this is a crude calculation, because it is not accounting for the amount of dry land that is above sea level, which would be cutting into that amount of required volume, however, it is also not accounting for the fact that in a globe model such a calculation really shouldn’t be made in a way that assumes a rectilinear volume, so in fact, if the Earth WAS a ball, the amount of required water would in fact be MORE than 4 1/2 billion cubic kilometers, (because the surface area of the top of the Flood waters would naturally be greater than the surface area of present day sea level, the required volume increasing the higher in elevation you fill, and so on). That being said, I am basically letting these two factors cancel each other out, since the whole point is really just to get a ball park idea of how much H2O we’d really be talking about anyway…

Because here’s the kicker: according to the USGS, (if we believe their statistics) the TOTAL amount of water, both saltwater and freshwater, in the entire Earth, amounts to somewhere around 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers…

global-water-volume1

Now, assuming that the topography of the Earth was generally similar, both before and after the Flood, (and that’s a big assumption, I admit) then the total Flood waters would have been the present-day 1.386 billion cu km, PLUS the 4.5 billion cu km, bringing it to a total of 5.886…

But the bottom line is, if we are talking a different of 4.5 BILLION cubic kilometers of water, from the current amount that is on, above, and below the surface of the entire Earth, then the glaring question arises…

WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER COME FROM, AND WHERE DID IT ALL GO AFTERWARDS….?

global-water-volume2

I mean, we are talking about a total difference of about 4.2 TIMES the amount of all the water supposedly on the Earth right now. And that, is a lot, of liquid…

For some time, many advocates of Biblical Creationism proposed the so-called “canopy theory” in attempt to explain this. The idea was that the flood waters were being held in a canopy of water vapor above the earth, and so this would have meant there were radically different atmospheric conditions between pre-flood and post-flood eras, as well as giving some effort into explaining the verses in Genesis which speak of the “waters above the Firmament”. However, many Creationist organizations and teachers have been shying away from the Canopy model in recent years, for very understandable reasons. Namely, it just doesn’t give you nearly enough water!

canopy-theory

As we have seen, the amount of water required, in LIQUID form, to cover the tops of the highest mountains, is a phenomenal, mind-numbing amount. For that much water to have been up in the atmosphere, is gaseous form, would provide a whole host of other problems to your model. Would sunlight even be able to get through at all? Would it even be able to say in a gas form, if being pushed that far out into the upper edges of the atmosphere, and not turn to ice from the cold? Not only this, but I have even read an article from Answers in Genesis, the renowned Creationist organization, where in explaining why they have moved away from the canopy model, they mention that it also proves problematic, because if the “waters above the firmament” were actually this whole water vapor canopy idea, it would mean that the sun, moon and stars were inside the atmosphere…(!)

Which, of course, I can’t help but see the irony there. Because, truly, when you allow yourself to stop, take a step back, and re-examine the same model of the Earth/Cosmos that was held by the very same individuals who WROTE Genesis and the other books of the Bible, you suddenly no longer have any of these problems, which inevitably arise when trying to conform the Bible, and accounts such as that of the Great Flood, to the heliocentric Copernican model.

Beyond this, even if we were to grant the possibility of the Flood waters coming from a “vapor canopy” above the globe, this STILL wouldn’t explain the simple question as to where all that water went as the Flood waters receded, because even advocates of the Canopy Theory have to concede that the canopy is no longer present. Did all that water, (remember 4.8 billion cu km MORE than the 1.86 we can supposedly account for on the Earth today) somehow seep into the bowels of the spinning globe Earth? To try and argue such a thing would mean having to stand in opposition to the very same geological models of the Earth structure which the Copernican model asserts is established fact. You have to then start assuming the existence of MASSIVE fissures and caverns in the Earth’s oceanic and continental crusts, which overall is another interesting example of the problems which inevitably arise when trying to simultaneously conform the Biblical model to the models provided by modern Scientism, and yet also disregard them, whenever you need to need to force something to fit. How does such an approach know when to accept the official data, and when to dismiss it…?

However… If the Firmament isn’t some confusingly convoluted concept of the sky, and/or the atmosphere and/or “outer space”, but instead some kind of literal dome above our heads, then yeah, the “waters above the Firmament” could be of such a vast quantity that our tiny human brains couldn’t even fathom it. We no longer have to ignore or allegorize verses such as the ones that speak of the “floodgates” or “windows” of heaven, nor the ones that speak of the “fountains of the deep”.

jtot_genesis_cosmology

It really is the only way to honestly render a literal interpretation of what Genesis has been plainly saying for thousands of years.

It is not difficult to understand why so many people, even those professing to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, would have such a difficult time accepting the idea that the globe model is false. Not only are there the intellectual obstacles of accepting the massive deception required to perpetuate things like the fake moon landings, Mars Rover, ISS, etc., but it would affect so many things which we assume to understand, about not just the “heavens” or outer space, but about our own atmosphere, the subterranean world, and even things as fundamental as the “water cycle”.

Psalm 148
1 Praise the Lord from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
2 Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
3 Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all you stars of light!
4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!

Funny How the Atheists Have No Problem Recognizing Biblical Support of a Flat Earth…

I keep bumping into examples like this recently, and it really does strike me as ironic, and a little funny, but a little embarrassing too. Some of the BEST compilations I have encountered of Bible verses describing a Flat Earth, have been put together not by Biblical scholars or theologians, but by Atheists! And the thing is, I very much now have to agree with them, in that, whatever what one might want to believe about the true nature of the Universe, it’s pretty inescapable to see what the Bible itself actually does say

In the end, it’s really an issue of neither side wanting to end up with egg on their face. One side inevitably will. Most people believe that it’s been soundly decided and proved. But has it really…? (After all, the same folks will tell you that Darwinian Evolution has been soundly decided, and proven as “unquestionable scientific fact”…) Either the Bible was wrong, and Christianity has simply been trying to sweep all these “scientifically ignorant” claims of the Bible under the rug for the last several hundred years, OR… The Bible is right, has always been right, and a good deal of what you’ve been told your whole life is simply a ridiculous lie…

Here is an article titled: Why Don’t Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Also Think the Earth Is Flat?

The creationist crowd is in a tithy lately. First there was “Cosmos” — on Fox, no less! —  giving short shrift to everything they hold dear. Then, adding insult to injury, for those paying close attention, long-awaited evidence of the Big Bang arrived.  It’s been a rough few weeks.

But really, if you’re a biblical literalist, it’s been a rough few centuries, or millennia, actually. You see, according to the Bible, the earth is both stationary and flat. Most pointedly, there are at least two passages in which a single point is visible to the whole world (Daniel 4:10-11 and Revelation 1:7), and one (Matthew 4:8) in which the whole world can be seen from a single point — an obvious impossibility unless the earth is flat.

Although the Catholic Church had forced Galileo to recant his work questioning the immobile earth in 1632 — and only pardoned him in 1992 — they did so in part because they were certain the earth was a globe: a globe around which the sun, moon and all other heavenly bodies revolved. Such was the Ptolemaic system, which had dominated Western views for more than a millennium. And yet, the Bible itself reflects a radically different view of the cosmos, one shared by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, in which the earth is both stationary and flat. And there is a wide range of scriptural passages to prove it.

The late Robert Schadewald made this point conclusively in “The Flat-Earth Bible,” an article posted on the Web back in 1995.  Schadewald was a former board member and president of the National Center for Science Education, a leader in the fight against creationism and other forms of pseudo-science being pushed into schools. But he was as much an enthusiastic student of fringe or “alternative” science as a source of endless fascination as he was a critic of swallowing it whole.

“When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible,” Schadewald begins his piece. Easily the most influential work is “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe,” by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Its first, 16-page pamphlet edition, in 1849, predated Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” by a decade.

“The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages,” Schadewald explains. But he starts with the much more direct, explicit Bible statements about an immobile, geocentric earth. It’s a logical starting point, since he notes, “The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions.” There are hundreds of such passages, according to geocentrist James N. Hanson, who spoke to Schadewald at the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, but these are “a few obvious texts” that Schadewald chose to cite:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast …”

It’s remarkable enough that most of today’s creationists, wedded to biblical literalism andinerrancy, rarely mention such passages, particularly given the history of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. But then there are these, as well:

Daniel 4:10-11: [Nebuchadnezzar] “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth … reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him …”

A single point cannot see to or be seen from everywhere on a globe at once. For these words to be literally true, the earth must be flat, end of story.

These are only a few passages, of course. To really comprehend the Bible’s flat-earth cosmology, you have to know what you’re looking for — the other elements of the flat-earth world. That’s why Schadewald noted, “As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology.” He went on to document what he meant. In addition to the passages above, he cited passages concerning the nature of the heavens, the order of creation, and the diminutive nature of the sun, moon and stars. All are relevant to the claim of a flat earth, because all are parts of a coherent flat-earth worldview similar to that of Egypt and Babylon’s: The earth is flat; the heavens are a solid dome, fashioned of metal; the sun, moon and stars are relatively small object inside the dome of heaven.  As for the order of creation, Schadewald wrote:

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The orderof creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void (Genesis 1:2).” On the second day, a vault the “firmament” of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

Regarding the heavens, he noted that the word “firmament” is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, meaning the “visible vault of the sky,” and coming from riqqua, “beaten out.” “A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl,” Schadewald pointed out. “Thus, Elihu asks Job, ‘Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?’” He went on to cite a number of passages supporting the view that the vault of heaven is “a solid, physical object” and thus “a tremendous feat of engineering,” as well as passages from Isaiah [40:22], Job [22:12, 14], and Ezekiel [1:22-26, 10:1], which “complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome,” not merely an illusion that looks like a dome.

Regarding celestial bodies, Schadewald first noted, “They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven,” but added, “Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still ‘in Gibeon’ and the moon ‘in the Vale of Aijalon.’” He then cited a number of passages presenting celestial bodies as “exotic living beings,” somewhat similar to how various polytheist religions represent them. And, of course, stars can fall from the skies (Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13-16).

While the Bible itself contains no explicit cosmological description, the Book of Enoch, a highly regarded source that influenced the Bible, does. Schadewald pointed out that Jude 14- 15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, attributes prophecy to Enoch, and thus “confers inspired status upon the book.”  He went on to say:

Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.

This includes trips to the ends of the earth, a detailed description of solar and lunar motion, including six openings in heaven for them to emerge from when they rise and another six to pass into when they set, according to the season, and  more information about stars, including their punishment for transgressions.

Some might be inclined to think that Schadewald was overstating his case. That’s understandable. Skepticism is good. So they should consider what a true believer had to say. In “Earth Not a Globe,”  Rowbotham first presented a series of secular arguments on a wide range of specific issues, but in the end he resorted to wide-ranging, detailed arguments from scripture, in which moral, religious and physical arguments were all jumbled together with extensive quotations from the Bible.

At one point, for example, Rowbotham cited more than two dozen passages, such asPsalm 103, 11, “For as the Heaven is high above the Earth,” to argue that “If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate above a thousand miles an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious.” “Up” and “down” are meaningless, he argued, if the place you point to as “up above” you is millions of miles away by the time you’re finished speaking. This may seem like a bizarre position, but it actually accurately reflects a consistent, literal-minded, stationary geocentric worldview — if not an exclusively flat-earth perspective. It simply shows how much scriptural evidence one can find, depending on the set of assumptions one begins with — which in turn shows just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to change the minds of true believers.

In another passage, Rowbotham argued about the nature of celestial bodies, further illustrating how his viewpoint produces a proliferation of scriptural support. First, he rejected the notion that the moon shines with reflected light, quoting Genesis 1, 16-17,“He made the Stars also; and God set them in the firmament to give light upon the earth,”and 10 other passages, before concluding, “Nothing is here said, nor is it said in any other part of Scripture, that the sun only is a great light, and that the moon only shines by reflection.” Then he argued that stars are not sunlike objects vast distances away, but rather are lights in the sky created to give light to the earth at night. These clearly mattered to him because of the entire worldview they are part of — precisely the point that Schadewald made.

Not incidentally, in making his point about the stars, Rowbotham misrepresented the scientific view by claiming, for example, “[T]he modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great distance from it.”  Here, and throughout his argument, he confuses the matter of starlightreaching the earth, so that we can see the stars, with the matter of starlight illuminatingthe earth, so that we can see other objects by the light of the stars. The two are entirely different matters, but Rowbotham, for all his careful attention to words when it suits him, never seems to notice. In the end, however, he makes a claim so wild, it seems to make everything else irrelevant. He says that travelers report that in many other parts of the world, starlight is “sufficiently intense to enable them to read and write.”  Yet, the confusion of terms in his argument is vital to setting the tone for this final, preposterous assertion — all of it, firmly rooted in scripture as he reads it.

Again, this may seem far removed from the idea of a flat earth. But for Rowbotham, our inability to see the connection is but further proof of how little we understand. And he had a point. The world as he envisions it is so radically different than our own that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine what he takes for granted. But if the earth is flat, covered by a physical dome that contains the stars, then the descriptions he offers do make sense — and for Rowbotham, reading the Bible as he did, it’s impossible to separate one part of that cosmology from any of the others.

Rowbotham also made a further argument about the stars that goes to the subject of moral confusion and relativism — neatly anticipating the anti-Darwinians who would follow him. If, he argued, the stars are “not simply lights, as the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds,” then there arise all sorts of theological conundrums — Are the worlds inhabited? If so, have the first parents be tempted? Have they fallen? Been redeemed? Does each world have a separate redeemer? Or is Christ the redeemer for every world? If so, was his suffering on earth sufficient for all the other worlds? And what of Adam’s fall?  Did it implicate the inhabitants of all other worlds? “The Christian philosopher must be confounded!” Rowbotham exclaimed. “If his religion be to him a living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty!”  What a relief, then, to know that it’s all garbage, that earth is the only world ever created!  How strikingly similar, then, his rejection of secular astronomy was to the creationists’ rejection of secular biology.

This is but part of a larger family resemblance, as Schadewald explains in “The Evolution of Bible-Science,” a chapter he contributed to the 1984 volume, “Scientists Confront Creationism“ (adapted version here). In his introduction, Schadewald wrote:

“For two thousand years, various groups of dogmatists have tried to force the universe to fit their interpretation of Scripture. They have judged and rejected evidence and explanations according to the standard of their own religious beliefs. On scriptural grounds, some have rejected (and continue to reject) the sphericity of the earth, the Copernican system, and the evolution of life on earth. In the last two centuries, flat-earthers, geocentrists, and creationists have adopted a label for their dogmas: Bible-science.”

It’s obvious why creationists would not want to be associated with flat-earthers, but it’s not at all obvious why we should let them get away with it, given how similar their arguments, assumptions and purposes are.  In discussing the internal divisions of Bible science, Shadewald wrote:

“Though flat-earthism is as well-supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers….

“[Y]oung-earth creationism closely resembles the flat-earth movement. In fact, young-earth creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate, and conservative branches of the Bible-science tree. The intense hostility expressed by the scientific creationists toward the flat-earthers does not extend to modern geocentrists, who hover on the edge of respectability among creationists. Indeed, though the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, the geocentrists have combined forces with liberal creationists to cast the flat-earthers into outer darkness.”

And, indeed, the similarities are much more basic than the differences, as he quickly went on to note. In an earlier, 1981 article, he explained more fully:

“Despite their internecine warfare, Bible-Scientists are in broad agreement on a number of issues. They agree on the usefulness of the Bible as a scientific text, the weakness of mere theories, the duplicity of conventional scientists, and the impossibility of reconciling conventional science with the Bible. The creation and flat-earth movements have similar foundations and histories, and both have used similar strategies to propagate their beliefs. Indeed, both believe they are battling the same behind-the-scenes opponent.”

Today, more than 30 years after Shadewald wrote those words, belief in the “weakness of mere theories” and “the duplicity of conventional scientists” now extend well beyond Bible science, into the far reaches of the culture war as conservatives see it, including the field of global warming, where conservatives openly parade their contempt for scientific theories, and their suspicion (if not conviction) that scientists are involved in an elaborate deception (“climategate,” anyone?).  In this same article, Shadewald quoted Rowbotham:

“Let the practise of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.”

And he went on to say:

Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists “liars” and “demented dope fiends” and claims that the entire space program is a “carnie game.”

With these sorts of venomous sentiments now infusing not just Bible scientists, but the wider conservative audience for global warming denialism, birtherism, groundless claims of “death panels” and massive voter fraud, etc., it seems high time that progressives stop playing defense and start going on offense. Asking Christian conservatives to defend flat-earthism any time they open their mouths would be an excellent place to start. The Bible, after all, is far, far clearer in supporting a flat earth than it is in opposing abortion, much less birth control.

So, thank you, Atheists. Nice work! A fair enough challenge indeed. Unfortunately, science might not be coming down on the side we’ve all long assumed after all…

The Spiraling Fingerprints of God…

Yesterday I read such an exhilarating post by Insanity Bytes: Synchronicity is Such a Lovely Thing, where she included the following video:

As usual, she has such a marvelous way of parsing out the contemplative quirks surrounding the question of whether or not things that seem connected truly are, or if we’re just seeing them because we want to see them. Like her, I have long held a deep yet largely inexplicable affinity for spirals, for the contour of a cresting wave, so much so that many years ago I got a tattoo of a design I made based off an abstract ocean wave, in a spiraling sort ofspiraltattoo presentation, with three “spokes” also meant to represent the Trinity. Of course, most people don’t see a wave until I explain the design’s intention, they usually ask if it’s supposed to be a volleyball or something. Grrr. Suffice to say, such interactions are largely why I decided to stop getting tattoos…

But the Fibonacci spiral/sequence is still something that truly fascinates me, and the more I learn about it and realize just how prevalent it is throughout Creation, the more I think I appreciate just how rich with meaning and symbolism it actually is.

spiral1

To me, it really speaks to the reality of how God has no beginning, and no end. He is the “Alpha and the Omega”, because He is outside of everything, and gives everything it’s beginning and end, the Definer of all that is. The spiral goes ever outward, and ever inward, and I think this also speaks beyond just the dimensions of time, but space as well, whereby God is not confined with the macro or the micro. He holds the Universe in the palm of His hand, yet knows what teeny tiny quarks and every other sub-sub-sub atomic particles look like, and are doing…

When I was in art school, we learned about the “Golden Ratio”, and how much of good layout/design adhered to the basic precepts of this concept discovered way back in ancient times. However you may choose to explain it, it has been long accepted that we as human beings have a discernable esthetic preference towards that which visually falls in line with this particular dimensional ratio. Quite similar to this concept is what is known as the “principle of thirds”, whereby people tend to find a picture or visual subject more pleasing and “balanced” if the main focal points lie upon divisions of thirds within the frame. It’s a sort of “asymmetrical symmetry”, but nevertheless, we seem to be hardwired with it…

spiral2

Beyond just the symbolic and esthetic considerations, the mathematical “code” of the Fibonacci sequence is itself enough to seriously confound the notion that Evolution and natural selection could have accidentally been responsible for the appearance of this specific formula appearing throughout the natural world, both in biological and non-biological examples, time, and time, and time again…

It is a calling card for “Intelligent Design” if ever there was one, and we see it every time we look at a snail in the garden or a photo of the Milky Way galaxy. This “code”/sequence/image, which so perfectly depicts the full spectrum of the micro to the macro, and back again, and everything in between, can also itself be found to be embedded in nature from the micro to the macro scale. How perfectly poetic…

spiral3

In the end I find it such a refreshing and invigorating reminder, especially in light of so much of what one inevitably comes across when researching the innumerous strains of the anti-Christ influence upon this fallen world. At times it can almost make one feel as though things like symbolism and visually-encoded communication with many layers of meaning and such are all part and parcel to the realm of the esoteric and the Occult. In reality, the devil only knows how to steal and corrupt the ideas of the True Creator, in order to use them for his purposes of deception and destruction, and his twisted use of God’s embedded symbolism in nature is no different. There was even a time where in the midst of first learning about certain aspects of witchcraft and secret societies, etc., and how their related symbolism so saturates the cultural palate all around us with most of us completely unawares, I actually began to think that a symbol like a spiral was inherently evil and tied to the demonic. It is, after all, used a fair amount in many shamanic and magikal traditions to represent various occult concepts. But then again, the more you learn about such dark things, the more you start to realize that there are really very few things from God’s Creation that Satan has not taken and usurped in some way or another as a symbol or sigil or form of idolatry in his pantheon of Luciferian roads to ruin.

spiral4

The sun, moon, and stars, the male and female genders, human sexuality, trees and plants and all sorts of animals, architectural concepts, the constellations, you name it… All have been used by the Enemy to supposedly represent some false teaching, or false god, or false whatever. But they were all Created by the Alpha and the Omega FIRST, and as He was the first one to conceive of them all, (and imbue so much of it with embedded symbols like that of the spiral….), He will also get the Final say when it comes to redeeming everything back to it’s original and true significance, restoring all of Creation back to the place where it is recognized by everyone as showing how “God’s invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature” are clearly seen…

spiral5

“Domestic Terrorists Of The Paper Kind”…

image201364024159Back in November, I wrote a post about the unfolding legal situation of Kent Hovind, as the news of the new set of charges he is facing was first coming into my purview. I haven’t written anything else on it since, aside from a random comment thread here or there. I just didn’t feel the time was yet right. I had to let it sit. Percolate I suppose. During this period I have been able to observe a fairly wide cross-section of the various reactions and attitudes towards Kent’s case held by both fellow Christians and people with quite opposing world views. Then suddynly, this last week it would seem that I have suddenly found my convictions reignited as to the urgency of this whole matter, and the broader application it truly has to the Body of Christ as a whole…

The most stirring new piece of discussion I found was in a recent blog post by Peter J. Reilly, a tax pundit of sorts who has been following Kent’s case for several years. The interesting bits weren’t so much in the post itself, which is fixated on some new “revelation” of letters which basically are being used in an attempt to (once again) make Kent out to be guilty of either perjury, stupidity or both, but instead manifested in the comments. I believe the sentiments expressed in these comments really do go a long way in illuminating so much of what is truly at the heart of this issue on the whole.

Firstly, we read:

Making examples of scofflaws is part of the legitimate ends of law enforcement. And if the regular media ever pick up on the story, this is an ideal time to give the tax cheatin’ sovereign citizen movement some “noise and light”; with emphasis on those domestic terrorists like Kent and his people who insist on using God to cover for their criminal antics. In case you haven’t heard, Kent’s crimes are pretty serious, despite your efforts to diminish them. They don’t all get caught and the Government hasn’t the resources to prosecute them all and has to pick and choose their cases carefully. One of the legitimate goals as to the use of such cases as are chosen is to discourage others from acting out like Kent has.

The current charges are not because Kent and Paul conspired to file lis pendens. The current charges are because Kent and Paul conspired in a scheme that would be a violation of a court order and such criminal contempt for a court order is a most serious matter and it doesn’t really matter if you want to opine that it is not so.” (emphasis mine)

And then further down:

Sovereign citizens are domestic terrorists of the paper kind and on up to the murderous kind; it’s a spectrum disorder and we might get a very good display of the spectrum depending on who shows up in Pensacola for Kent’s trial if it goes forward.

Fascinating.

The reason I would suggest that these kinds of statements are even worth noting is because they aren’t just coming from any random Joe on the internet. These are the words of a person who is without much question Kent’s most vociferous online detractor, and if you spend any time at all reading Peter J. Reilly’s material you are bound to be familiar with this fellow. It would be hard to overstate the significance of such diatribes, especially when compared to other instances where Kent is described as a “common tax cheat”. So which is it then? If Kent is in fact nothing more than a “common tax cheat”, then that would hardly be anything new, or unique, or by necessity tied to the so-called “sovereign citizen movement”, and it certainly wouldn’t rank up into the sphere of “domestic terrorism”! Yet there it is, and I really don’t believe this is just an application of hyperbole here, no, he truly means it. If that doesn’t raise an eyebrow or two, then hmmm, how so?

Ok. So those are some of the views expressed by an individual who vehemently dislikes Kent Hovind, prides himself on being a tax expert who fights the Constitutionality of tax benefits for pastors (something I’d actually agree with him on…) and as a staunch online apologist for Evolution holds a most visceral animosity towards Biblical Creationism. (Gee, no conflict of interest at all in his objectivity towards a man such as Kent, is there?) 😉

But what about other Christians? There are definitely a sort of “remnant” who are not afraid to voice their support, there is a large percentage who are largely agnostic or simply don’t quite know what to make of the whole affair (which is quite understandable really, as the convolutions are plentiful), and there are still yet a good many others who essentially come down on the side of completely throwing Kent under the “Romans 13 bus”. Another comment I read recently really summed this type of reaction up quite well:

I think scripture is quite clear in numerous locations regarding living under the authority of the government in which you are subject to – “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” also probably covers that angle, not just tithing. The Soveriegn Citizen movement is a bit of a sad, misguided lot and riddled with bad information and incredibly poor, naive interpretations of law. The fact that Kent has been even somewhat associated with their ideology is going to wreak havoc on his credibility if/when he decides to get back into the faith-debate realm – being associated with such a naive ideology takes him out of consideration [to many non-believers looking for legit answers] from the moment it is mentioned. Having a Social Security Number doesn’t mean you’ve taken “the mark”, nor does it mean you’re not subject to the laws of the land b/c of some back-woods, legal mumbo-jumbo you’ve heard that you thought sounded good. The Mark will be obvious, there will be a clear claim of allegiance required that is clearly anti-Christ. Is there the imprint of the beast-system being implaced throughout many parts of the world? Sure, the ground work is being laid, but there are many other countries that currently have it much worse than America now, particularly 8 years ago (unsure of conviction) or even farther back when he gave up his SSN (was it the 1970’s?). So not paying the proposer amount of taxes or reporting incomes and/or moving money around for the purpose of hiding/confusing does not make one a martyr in this current system. To get 8 years for a financial-related crime the evidence had to be substantial, recurrent and irrefutable.

So here again, we see Kent being tossed in with this “Sovereign Citizen movement”, and thus maligned for being rebellious, ignorant, paranoid, stubborn, disobedient to scripture, etc, while all kinds of blind (and in my opinion, very naïve) assumptions are being made, both about the evidence that “had to be substantial” in order to indict and convict Kent, and about matters of the “Beast system” as a whole and the eventual arrival of the Mark itself as well. (Ah, if only such faith was applied to God himself rather than fallen human systems…)

When you boil it all down, these are essentially the two basic criticisms of Kent Hovind as it applies to both his legal standing with courts, or his reputation amongst those who would call him their Brother in Christ. But is this really a true characterization of what it is truly at stake here? It is worthy of note that even Kent’s harshest opponents never go so far as to try and claim that he was trying to evade paying taxes for personal monetary gain (which is the typically assumed motive in most tax fraud cases, for obvious reasons!), and that is when and why allusions begin being made to the whole “sovereign citizen” movement, because in much the same way that the label “conspiracy theorist” has been gradually painted into being a very loaded and politically-charged term, “sovereign citizen” is now too a pejorative buzz word that conjures up all sorts of negative response. This is if course the intended reaction. You’re a “scofflaw”. A dangerous subversive, poisoning the minds of others with your insidious notions about the government just maybe not having the right to bureaucratize every aspect of your existence.

“Domestic terrorists of the paper kind”… Think about the significance of a concept like that being thrown around in the context of our modern “war on terror” cultural dialogue. This is not rare, inflammatory grandiloquence anymore. This is something people have been conditioned to actually buy into now…

But is Kent, and by extension his “Hovindicators” (as Reilly has now branded us), really a “sovereign citizen type”…?

I can’t speak for Kent, and Kent can’t very easily speak for himself, because Kent is still in prison. What I will say, is that as far as myself, I instead would have to call myself as being a part of the “Citizens of the Sovereign” movement. You might know it by a variety of other names. The Church. The followers of Jesus. The Bride of Christ. The true Israel…

In Christian circles and churches and pulpits, you will very often hear these familiar references to, and expansions upon, the “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” quotation. What has occurred to me of late, in a most profound way, is that what you don’t hear much expounding on is the other half of that line, the “and give to God what is God’s” part.

And so, after much meandering (I apologize), I would simply offer that this is the crux of it all. This is the point at which we have to stop and rethink a lot of our long-held assumptions, in believing that we’ve always had it all figured out in terms of what it means to live out our faith in the environment of a secular world and ruling government (and honestly, that’s fine, that’s how it should be…)

It is one thing to acknowledge that yes “Caesar’s face is on the coin” (or in the case of our American currency, perhaps another ‘deity’ altogether, but that’s a whole other tangent!) and accept that yes, if we are called to pay taxes, then ok, we pay those taxes. We obey the laws. We submit to the governing authorities. (Romans 13, right?) But what about if the governing authorities are mandating something which goes against that which God Himself has decreed? Didn’t Peter say something about “we must obey God rather than men”? Didn’t a bunch of guys get wind up being the “guests of honor” at a barbeque many centuries ago, because they wouldn’t bow their knee to something, or someone, who was in fact not God…?

So I leave you with this, and perhaps we can all continue to hammer this out and discuss it further as the conversation continues to unfold.

What if the real question at the root of all this is the honest and legitimate question of “What is Caesar doesn’t just want that which belongs to Caesar, but in fact really wants what is supposed to belong to God as well”…?

In other words, is the tax-collection infrastructure limited to simply being a benign mechanism which collects funds to pay for services that we all use (as in the simplistic model that we all agree with and consent to in theory), or can it also possibly be used as highly-persuasive means by which to leverage control and influence over the affairs of people, groups, etc., far beyond the matters of mere financial transactions and percentages owed to the State?

Is Kent’s “crime” that he simply didn’t want to pay taxes, or was it perhaps that he was audacious enough to first seek out, and then attempt to act upon, tangible means through which to limit the degree to which the government itself has political sway and financial muscle over one’s endeavors in the name of the Gospel…? For the vast majority of folks out there still operating under the tranquil reassurances of their 501(c)3 statuses, this is the kind of practical question that never materializes in their minds in the first place. Why would it? If you’re “following the rules”, and filling out the right forms, and filing the correct paperwork, then you’re “obeying God”, right? Does it really matter if the net result of all these financial regulations and corporate-structuring requirements that have slowly been eased upon the backs of churches over this past century is that at the end of the day, your church is corporation, an entity whose legal existence is wholly dependent upon the dictates of the government? In China and other places, we call those “State Churches”. The true Body of Christ in China, however, doesn’t darken their doors. They went “underground”. They don’t file paperwork, or report the amounts of their offerings to the State, or share all the information they have about their congregants with the government officials..(!) And yet, we don’t hear too many Christians in America scolding them, and preaching “Romans 13” across the Pacific, now do we…?

“Well that Communist China, Strange!” you say. And yes, I know. Communist China, where for decades Christians found to be part of the “non-sanctioned” underground church were usually simply jailed and beaten, but nowadays face more “sophisticated and multi-dimensional types of persecution than in the past“. Remember, according to Chinese authorities, there is no “persecution” of Christians in China, and all such talk is nonsense and the stuff of laughable conspiracy theory…. 😉

But what you? Brother, or Sister, who claims to believe and adhere to the Word which tells us “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”…? What are YOU prepared to face, to endure, if you found yourself in the position of realizing that “Caesar” really wasn’t just content to stay over on his ordained side of the aisle, collecting what God has stated is rightfully his, but has in has crept across a very sacred line, in a most subtle and beguiling way, and is in fact maneuvering to take “sovereignty” over that which is ONLY called to be subject to God alone…? How exactly does one go about re-delineating those arenas, whereby you strive to be obedient in terms of paying taxes on the one hand, but not inadvertently subjecting oneself to totalitarian control by the State in the process…? Many Christians are all too ready to completely disassociate themselves from Kent, because they’ve now seen the kind of concrete casualties that can result from trying to redraw that ever-blurring line, or even seeking to navigate backwards through a dizzying minefield of corporatocratic stanchions, while they themselves refuse to recognize that the minefield even exists in the first place, let alone venture a single toe into such uncharted and treacherous waters.
prison
So what about you, would you risk being deemed a “terrorist of the paper kind”, because you ultimately gave more authority to the words printed on the paper pages of God’s Word than things printed on paper by man…?