Twitter Follow Me

Does God Have to Obey a Higher Law?

(中文這裡)

This is something I left out of my last article Fathers, What Are You Teaching Your Children? because it was getting too long.

Part of this section was prompted by a conversation with a friend who seemed to be saying that God had to obey the universe and that he was still learning on the job.

** ** ** **

So it seems like God has the authority to set the standard for good and evil for at least two reasons so far:

1. Freedom of Association (the terms on which he will not withdraw his presence from you in the day of judgment).

2. The right of the Creator to do what he wants with his creation.

But you might say, “No, just because I create my own children doesn't mean I have the right to torture them as soon as they are born. There is a higher law that trumps my position as creator. Furthermore, if I as creator have to obey some undetermined-by-me idea of Good, then so does God as Creator have to obey some Universal Idea of Good higher than him.”

First of all, your right of Creator over your own children would still be limited by the right of the Creator of All, God, to tell you it is wrong to torture your children just because you created them.

But even if we run with this idea that even Creators, whether high or low, have to obey a law outside themselves, that God is not The Good himself, that goodness does not derive from God's being, but is some mysterious force or law that derives from the texture of the Universe that even God has to obey (as one friend claimed) ... the problem is that before that Universe existed, God spoke the Universe into existence, and thus presumably any so-called moral “Law of the Universe” would still be only a creation and derivative of God. A thing would still only be “good” because God said “Goodness is me, I am What-Is-Good”, and then created a universe that operates on his laws.

So technically, God is higher than any so-called law of the universe, because he existed before the universe and then created the universe and...

Practically, God is higher because even if you want to say that goodness only exists through some perceived construct of the universe, the universe itself was constructed by God, so God still remains the de facto constructer and arbiter of good.

And he communicated that good to us through Jesus:

“He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)


** ** ** **

Other posts you might be interested in:

Fathers, What Are You Teaching Your Children?

God's Changes

Have You Considered This Evidence?

Does God Have to Obey a Higher Law? 神必須遵守一個比祂高的律法嗎?

This is something I left out of my last article Fathers, What Are You Teaching Your Children? because it was getting too long.

這是我從上一篇文章 父親們,你在教孩子們什麼 所遺漏的內容,因為那文章已經太長了。

Part of this section was prompted by a conversation with a friend who seemed to be saying that God had to obey the universe and that he was still learning on the job.

本節的一部分是由於與一位朋友的交談而引起的,似乎在說神必須服從宇宙,而他仍在學習這份工作中。

** ** ** **

So it seems like God has the authority to set the standard for good and evil for at least two reasons so far:

到目前為止,看來神有權制定是非善惡的標準的原因至少有兩個:

1. Freedom of Association (the terms on which he will not withdraw his presence from you in the day of judgment).

1. 結社的自由(就是在某日他不會跟你永遠隔絕的條款)。

2. The right of the Creator to do what he wants with his creation.

2. 創作者有權根據自己的創作做自己想做的事情。

But you might say, “No, just because I create my own children doesn't mean I have the right to torture them as soon as they are born. There is a higher law that trumps my position as creator. Furthermore, if I as creator have to obey some undetermined-by-me idea of Good, then so does God as Creator have to obey some Universal Idea of Good higher than him.”

但是你可能會說:“不,僅僅因為我的孩子是我所生的並不說我有權力酷刑他們。有一條更高的律法凌駕於我作為創作者的地位。 如果作為造物主的我必須服從某個比我高的善良觀念,那麼作為造物主的神也必須服從一些高於他的善良觀念。”

First of all, your right of Creator over your own children would still be limited by the right of the Creator of All, God, to tell you it is wrong to torture your children just because you created them.

首先,你對自己的孩子的創造者權仍然會受到全人的創造者(神)的權利的限制,告訴你僅僅因為你創造了孩子而折磨你的孩子是錯的。

But even if we run with this idea that even Creators, whether high or low, have to obey a law outside themselves, that God is not The Good himself, that goodness does not derive from God's being, but is some mysterious force or law that derives from the texture of the Universe that even God has to obey (as one friend claimed) ... the problem is that before that Universe existed, God spoke the Universe into existence, and thus presumably any so-called moral “Law of the Universe” would still be only a creation and derivative of God. A thing would still only be “good” because God said “Goodness is me, I am What-Is-Good”, and then created a universe that operates on his laws.

但是,即使我們懷著這樣的觀念來說,即使是創造者,無論高低,都必須遵守一個他們之外的律法,即神不是善良本人,即善良並非源於神的存在,反而是來自宇宙的構造的某種神秘的力量或律法,甚至連神也必須服從(正如一位朋友曾經說過),問題在於,在宇宙存在之前,神就說話讓宇宙存在,因此,任何所謂的“宇宙的道德法則”仍然僅僅是創造物, 神,的衍生。一件事仍然只能算是“善”,因為神說,「善良是我,我就是善良的定義」,然後他創造了一個遵循他的法則的宇宙。

So technically, God is higher than any so-called law of the universe, because he existed before the universe and then created the universe and...

所以從技術上講,神比任何所謂的宇宙法則高,因為神在宇宙之前已經存在,然後就是他創造了宇宙,並且...

Practically, God is higher because even if you want to say that goodness only exists through some perceived construct of the universe, the universe itself was constructed by God, so God still remains the de facto constructer and arbiter of good.

實際上,神是至高的,因為即使你想說善良僅通過所感知宇宙的構造或法則而存在,宇宙本身乃是神所構造的,所以神仍然是善良的建構者和仲裁者。

And he communicated that good to us through Jesus: 而他通過耶穌向我們傳達了這善良的標準:

“He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)

「要藉著他所立的人,按公義審判天下,並且使他從死人中復活,給萬人作一個可信的憑據。」 (使徒行傳 17:31)


** ** ** **

Other posts you might be interested in:
您可能感興趣的其他文章:


Fathers, What Are You Teaching Your Children?

父親們,你在教孩子們什麼?

God's Changes

Have You Considered This Evidence?

Fathers, What Are you Teaching Your Children?

(Click for English / Chinese bilingual version 中英版這裡)

I do try to give my own thoughts on things, not just re-post the news I've been reading.

This event: Who Protected Epstein for Decades, and Why? and this earlier event: The Truth Dies In Darkness see also Belgium's silent heart of darkness , sparked this article.

** ** **

Some people say, “How could there be a God that allows bad things to happen to little children?” Other people say, “How could there be a God that puts people in hell for all eternity?”

Some people say, "How can a loving God not step in?" but then castigate him when he does step in.

God cares about everything that happens to children. Jesus said:

“... but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! (Matthew 18:6‭-‬7 NASB)


Some people say, “What about the Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresas? What if Mother Theresa had a twin as selfless and sacrificial as herself, but the twin was Buddhist or atheist. How can God put her in an eternal hell along with the child molesters just because she is not a christian?”

A Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresa is saying, “I am going to do this good deed because I am the one who decides what is good and evil, and not my Maker. And if I decide that something is good that the Maker considers evil, that will I do.” Therefore, the good that the atheist Mother Theresa decides on will only arbitrarily and accidentally coincide with what God considers good.

She herself is not a child molester, but every time she tells someone they can decide what is right and wrong apart from God, she opens up the pathway to child molesting. And that is why God sees her, if not as culpable, still as an inexcusable accomplice, inasmuch as she set aside God's right to set the standard.

Only God can set the standard of right and wrong, because all men are equal. I can not set the standard for you and you can not set the standard for me.

I cannot set the standard for you even if I persuade 99% of mankind to agree with me. What if I persuaded everyone to take up cannibalism, or ritual pedophilia (like India's temple child prostitution), would that make it right?

But how can you tell me I am wrong, if all men are equal?

So there is no way to appeal to right and wrong unless it comes from something outside of man, something that is higher than our individual opinions.

Everything in the universe is morally equal to everything else in the universe ... unless ... the Creator of the universe exists, then he would be higher.

If God exists, and he gave us an objective standard, along with PROOF that he gave us that objective standard...

“God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30‭-‬31)


Then... I can say, “Pedophilia is wrong.”

And you say, “Who says?”

And I say, “God says.The God who said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The God who says that you will be excluded eternally from his presence (libertarian freedom of association), in what will feel like a lake of fire and brimstone to you in an eternal hell of outer darkness. So yes, you're not a robot, but neither is God. You can choose to not follow his standard, but he also can choose to completely withdraw his presence from you in the day of judgment, if you don't choose to walk in the light as he sees it.”

If you reject the right of God to set the standard, you essentially reject all appeal to right and wrong, because no one can decide for another what is right and wrong.

So back to our original premise: The Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresa herself is not a child molester, but every time she tells someone they can decide what is right and wrong apart from God, she opens up the pathway to child molesting. And that is why God sees her, if not the main perpetrator, still as an inexcusable accomplice, inasmuch as she set aside God's right to set the standard.

The Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresa did not choose to molest children with her repudiation of God's authority to set the standard … but others will … others will certainly so use this freedom. She has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

...Because they have transgressed My covenant and rebelled against My law....With their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves, that they might be cut off... For they sow the wind and they reap the whirlwind.... (Hosea 8:1‭-‬5‭, ‬7)

I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts...(Isaiah 65:2)

I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps. (Jeremiah 10:23 NASB)


And you, gentle reader. Perhaps you are otherwise a good father to your kids, but you never told them about their Heavenly Father, and God's right to set the standard, and how he expects them to learn that standard and follow in his steps, if he is to be able to welcome them into his presence on the day of judgment.

Have you allowed your children to grow up assuming they can know what is good on their own, when in reality a person's sense of right and wrong is to a great extent an accident of upbringing:

Cannibal children grow up thinking cannibalism is the order of life, North Korean children grow up thinking whatever North Korea wants them to think, children of alcoholics often grow up to be alcoholics, children of idol worshippers, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Catholics, and other denominations often grow up to be whatever their parents were.

So you, oh gentle father, may be allowing your children to grow up like an atheist Mother Theresa, with their sense of right and wrong eroding from generation to generation under the winds of change, until your grandchild or great-grandchild becomes a moral Frankenstein in God's sight, one of those who destroy the earth and its children in a great way instead of the usual small and insidious ways.

If that happens, will not God hold the great-grandfather partially responsible who knew God's standard but chose not to lead his children in the Way?

God, the father of fathers, expects all earthly fathers to pass on his standard and the knowledge of him to their children, to the next generation.

“You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7 NASB)

For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” (Genesis 18:19 NASB)


If one of your great-grandchildren becomes a child molester, will not God hold you partially responsible, who chose not to read God's Word to your children from the cradle?

“For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!”


As a father you can many times make or break your child's relationship with God, because how your child experiences his earthly father, will color how he sees his Heavenly Father.

You represent God to your children, before they are able to come into their own relationship with him.

And if up to now you didn't realize the consequences of neglecting God's standard, yet you have cultivated a good relationship with your children, then you still have something that is very precious in the sight of God, and on which you can build a different future for your family.

We were born into this world in order to leave it and meet our God. Have you told your children about their Heavenly Father? Do you patiently teach them to follow him? Are you preparing them to meet their God?

Have you thought what it must feel like for God to see each baby born pure and innocent and then watch the outside world gradually darken their minds? Are you a part of the darkening or the lightening? How many times has he had to watch that with every human born since the beginning of the world? His longsuffering and lovingkindness must be vast. And how dear to him must be those who hold fast to what is good.

Other posts you might be interested in:

Does God Have to Obey a Higher Law?

Fathers, What Are you Teaching Your Children? 父親們,你在教孩子們什麼?

I do try to give my own thoughts on things, not just re-post the news I've been reading.

我嘗試對時事發表自己的觀點,而不是僅有轉發新聞。

This event: Who Protected Epstein for Decades, and Why? and this earlier event: The Truth Dies In Darkness see also Belgium's silent heart of darkness , sparked this article.

在閱讀了這篇文章: 《 誰保護了Epstein 十年了,為什麼? 》 與稍早的: 《 真理在黑暗中死亡 》 以及 《 比利時沉默的黑暗之心 》 之後,讓我開始寫這篇文章。

** ** **

Some people say, “How could there be a God that allows bad things to happen to little children?” Other people say, “How could there be a God that puts people in hell for all eternity?”

有人說:“神怎麼可以讓壞事發生在小孩子身上呢?” 也有人說:“神怎麼會讓人陷入一個永恆的地獄?”

Some people say, "How can a loving God not step in?" but then castigate him when he does step in.

有人說:“一個有愛心的神怎能不作什麼呢?” 但當神作了什麼的時後,人們又譴責神的作為。

God cares about everything that happens to children. Jesus said:

“... but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes! (Matthew 18:6‭-‬7 NASB)


神關心孩子發生的一切的事。耶穌說:

「凡使這信我的一個小子跌倒的,倒不如把大磨石拴在這人的頸項上,沉在深海裏。 這世界有禍了,因為將人絆倒;絆倒人的事是免不了的,但那絆倒人的有禍了!(馬太福音 18:6‭-‬7 CUNP-神)

但無論誰使一個信我的小弟兄犯罪,倒不如拿一塊大磨石拴在他的頸項上,把他沉在深海裡。 “這世界有禍了,因為充滿使人犯罪的事。這些事是免不了的,但那使人犯罪的有禍了!(馬太福音 18:6‭-‬7 CNV)


Some people say, “What about the Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresas? What if Mother Theresa had a twin as selfless and sacrificial as herself, but the twin was Buddhist or atheist. How can God put her in an eternal hell along with the child molesters just because she is not a christian?”

有的人說「那,身為佛教(或無神論者) 的特蕾莎修女呢?假設有人像她一樣無私奉獻,但卻是佛教徒或無神論者。神怎能只是因為她不是基督徒將她跟著猥褻小孩的人一起陷入一個永在的地獄呢?」 ( 德雷莎修女這裡的語意我推測應該是要表達:神是否僅僅因為一個人不是基督徒而將他陷入地獄──即使他為人像德雷莎修女一樣無私奉獻 )

A Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresa is saying, “I am going to do this good deed because I am the one who decides what is good and evil, and not my Maker. And if I decide that something is good that the Maker considers evil, that will I do.” Therefore, the good that the atheist Mother Theresa decides on will only arbitrarily and accidentally coincide with what God considers good.

蕾莎修女說:「我將做這件善事,是因決定善惡的人是我,而非我的創造主有權柄來命令我的。所以,倘或我認為某一件事是好的,即便造物主認為那件事是邪惡的,那我還是會照自己的意思來作。」 然而,特蕾莎修女所認為的善,只是形似神所認定的善。 

She herself is not a child molester, but every time she tells someone they can decide what is right and wrong apart from God, she opens up the pathway to child molesting. And that is why God sees her, if not as culpable, still as an inexcusable accomplice, inasmuch as she set aside God's right to set the standard.

每當她宣揚人們可以不透過神而自行決定對錯,便是為猥褻小孩的人開路———即便她不是一個猥褻小孩的人。從神的角度來說 即使她不是罪魁禍首,也仍然承擔同謀或幫兇的部分責任———因為她拋棄了神設定標準的權柄。

Only God can set the standard of right and wrong, because all men are equal. I can not set the standard for you and you can not set the standard for me.

只有神才能設定對與錯的標準。因為所有人都是平等的;我無法為你設置標準,你也無法為我設置標準。

I cannot set the standard for you even if I persuade 99% of mankind to agree with me. What if I persuaded everyone to take up cannibalism, or ritual pedophilia (like India's temple child prostitution), would that make it right?

即使能說服99%的人類認同我,我也無法為你設定標準。假使我說服所有人都接受食人症或攣童儀式———例如印度廟的兒童賣淫 ,也無法改變它的正當性?

But how can you tell me I am wrong, if all men are equal?

但是,如果所有人都是平等的,你怎麼能告訴我我不對呢?

So there is no way to appeal to right and wrong unless it comes from something outside of man, something that is higher than our individual opinions.

因此,除非是基於某些來自人類之外且高於我們的個人觀點,否則就沒有辦法訴諸對與錯。

Everything in the universe is morally equal to everything else in the universe ... unless ... the Creator of the universe exists, then he would be higher.

宇宙之間的一切,在道德上都是平等的。唯有宇宙的創造者能高於一切。

If God exists, and he gave us an objective standard, along with PROOF that he gave us that objective standard...

只要神存在,而他賦於我們一個認證的標準,例如…

“God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30‭-‬31)

「他卻吩咐各處的人都要悔改, 因為他已經定好了日子,要藉著他所立的人,按公義審判天下,並且使他從死人中復活,給萬人作一個可信的憑據。」 (使徒行傳 17:30‭-‬31)


Then... I can say, “Pedophilia is wrong.”

那麼... 我就可以說:“猥褻小孩是不對的。”

And you say, “Who says?”

然後你說:“誰說的呢?”

And I say, “God says.The God who said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The God who says that you will be excluded eternally from his presence (libertarian freedom of association), in what will feel like a lake of fire and brimstone to you in an eternal hell of outer darkness.

然後我就說:“神說的…就是那位說「 那些殺身體卻不能殺靈魂的,不要怕他們;倒要怕那位能把靈魂和身體都投入地獄裡的。」(馬太福音 10:28)說你將永遠從祂的面前被排除在外(自由注意的結社自由),在那外面的黑暗裡的永恆地獄中,對你來說就像硫磺的火湖裡中。

So yes, you're not a robot, but neither is God. You can choose to not follow his standard, but he also can choose to completely withdraw his presence from you in the day of judgment, if you don't choose to walk in the light as he sees it.” walk in the light as he sees it.” 

是的,你不是機器人,但神也不是。 你可以選擇不遵循祂的標準,不在祂所願所認為的光中行走,但是祂也可以選擇在審判日與你完全撤消祂的存在。” 

So if you reject the right of God to set the standard, you essentially reject all appeal to right and wrong, because no one can decide for another what is right and wrong.

因此,如果你拒絕神設定標準的權柄,那麼你實質上就是拒絕所有對是非的訴求,因為沒有人能為他人決定是非,善惡。

So back to our original premise: The Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresa herself is not a child molester, but every time she tells someone they can decide what is right and wrong apart from God, she opens up the pathway to child molesting. And that is why God sees her, if not the main perpetrator, still as an inexcusable accomplice, inasmuch as she set aside God's right to set the standard.

回到我們原來的前提:一個佛教徒或無神論者的特蕾莎,她本人不是一位猥褻兒童的,但是她每當告訴人他們可以決定除神以外的決定對與錯時,她都會開闢猥褻兒童的道路。 這就是為什麼神認為她,即使不是主要的犯罪者,卻仍然是必承擔部分責任的同謀或幫兇,因為她拋棄了神設定標準的權利。

The Buddhist or atheist Mother Theresa did not choose to molest children with her repudiation of God's authority to set the standard … but others will … others will certainly so use this freedom. She has sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

佛教徒或無神論者特蕾莎並沒有選擇用她拒絕神設定標準的權威來騷擾孩子……但是其他人會的……其他人肯定會這樣使用這個不必不遵循神的標準的自由。 她播下了風,將收穫旋風。

...Because they have transgressed My covenant and rebelled against My law....With their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves, that they might be cut off... For they sow the wind and they reap the whirlwind.... (Hosea 8:1‭-‬5‭, ‬7)

...因為這民違背我的約, 干犯我的律法。...他們用金銀為自己製造偶像, 以致被剪除。...他們所種的是風,所收的是暴風... (何西阿書 8:1‭-‬7 CUNP-神)

I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts... (Isaiah 65:2)

我整天伸手招呼那悖逆的百姓; 他們隨自己的意念行不善之道。(以賽亞書 65:2 CUNP-神)

I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps. (Jeremiah 10:23 NASB)

耶和華啊!我知道 人的道路是不由自己的; 人行走時,也不能確定自己的腳步。(耶利米書 10:23 CNV)


And you, gentle reader. Perhaps you are otherwise a good father to your kids, but you never told them about their Heavenly Father, and God's right to set the standard, and how he expects them to learn that standard and follow in his steps, if he is to be able to welcome them into his presence on the day of judgment.

你呢,溫柔的讀者? 也許你是一位好父親,但你從來沒告訴過你的孩子關於他們的天父,以及神設置標準的權威,以及祂希望他們如何學習這個標準,並遵循祂的腳步,如果他能夠在審判日歡迎他們加入祂的天家團員。 

Have you allowed your children to grow up assuming they can know what is good on their own, when in reality a person's sense of right and wrong is to a great extent an accident of upbringing:

你是否讓自己的孩子長大,讓他們一直以為他們可以自己來感受知道什麼算是絕對的好絕對的壞。而實際上,一個人對於是非的認定,很大程度上是透過教養形成的。 

Cannibal children grow up thinking cannibalism is the order of life, North Korean children grow up thinking whatever North Korea wants them to think, children of alcoholics often grow up to be alcoholics, children of idol worshippers, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Catholics, and other denominations often grow up to be whatever their parents were.

食人族兒童長大後,認為食人族是正常的生活,北韓的小孩長大後會相信北韓所教他們相信的什麼,醉鬼的孩子通常長大後成為醉鬼;拜偶像的,穆斯林,佛教徒,無神論者,天主教徒和其他教派的小孩都往往長大後就像父母一樣。 

So you, oh gentle father, may be allowing your children to grow up like an atheist Mother Theresa, with their sense of right and wrong eroding from generation to generation under the winds of change, until your grandchild or great-grandchild becomes a moral Frankenstein in God's sight, one of those who destroy the earth and its children in a great way instead of the usual small and insidious ways.

因此,你呢,溫柔的爸爸,可能目前正在讓你的孩子像一個無神論的特蕾莎一樣長大,他們的對與錯感在變革之風下代代的侵蝕掉溜走了,直到你的孫子或曾孫中有一位成為道德上的科學怪人在神的眼中,比一般的小而陰險的方式的人更嚴重的來迫害世界合世界的小孩。

If that happens, will not God hold the great-grandfather partially responsible who knew God's standard but chose not to lead his children in the Way?

如果發生這樣來的話,神會不會讓你這位曾祖父承擔部分責任,因為你知道神的標準,卻選擇不帶領你的孩子們進入那個道路中走?

God, the father of fathers, expects all earthly fathers to pass on his standard and the knowledge of him to their children, to the next generation.

神,萬父之父,預期你們爸爸們將祂的標準還有認識神的知識傳給下一代。

“You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7 NASB)

你要把這些話不斷地教訓你的兒女,無論你坐在家裡,或行在路上,或躺下,或起來的時候,都要談論。(申命記 6:7 CNV)

For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” Genesis 18:19 NASB

我揀選了他 ,是要他吩咐子孫,和他的家屬,遵守我耶和華的道,秉公行義,好叫我耶和華應許亞伯拉罕的話都可實現。” 創世記 18:19 CNV


If one of your great-grandchildren becomes a child molester, will not God hold you partially responsible, who chose not to read God's Word to your children from the cradle?

如果你的曾孫中有一位成為猥褻小孩的人,神會不會讓您承擔部分責任,因為你選擇不從搖籃裡時向你的孩子們宣讀神的話麼?

“For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!”

「絆倒人的事是免不了的,但那絆倒人的有禍了!」


As a father you can many times make or break your child's relationship with God, because how your child experiences his earthly father, will color how he sees his Heavenly Father.

作為父親來說,你可以建立或破壞孩子與神的關係,因為你的孩子如何體驗其塵世間的父親,將使他如何看待他的天父。

You represent God to your children, before they are able to come into their own relationship with him.

你的孩子與神建立關係之前的時候,你就向他們代表神。

And if up to now you didn't realize the consequences of neglecting God's standard, yet you have cultivated a good relationship with your children, then you still have something that is very precious in the sight of God, and on which you can build a different future for your family.

如果直到現在你還沒有意識到忽視神標準的後果,但是你已經與孩子們建立了良好的關係,那麼在神的看來,你仍然擁有一個非常珍貴的東西,而你可以在此基礎上為家人建立了一個不同的未來。

We were born into this world in order to leave it and meet our God. Have you told your children about their Heavenly Father? Do you patiently teach them to follow him? Are you preparing them to meet their God?

我們出生於這個世界是為了離開它並遇見我們的神。你有沒有跟孩子說到他們的天父? 你耐心地教他們跟隨祂嗎? 你是否準備他們好迎接他們的神?

Have you thought what it must feel like for God to see each baby born pure and innocent and then watch the outside world gradually darken their minds? Are you a part of the darkening or the lightening? How many times has God had to watch that with every human born since the beginning of the world? His longsuffering and lovingkindness must be vast. And how dear to him must be those who hold fast to what is good.

您是否想過神看到每個純潔無辜的嬰兒,出生後被環繞的世界逐漸變暗的想法,這對神會有什麼樣的感覺? 您是那變暗還是變亮的一部分? 自世界之初以來,當每個人出生,神必須多少次忍受這過程呢?祂的忍耐和仁慈一定是巨大的。 那些堅持善良的人必須對他多麼的珍惜。

** ** **

Article correction: “God cares about everything that happens to children” originally read “God sees all the children in dungeons” which left the erroneous impression the dungeons were mentioned in the Bible and not the news articles under discussion.

文章更正:“神關心孩子發生的一切的事”最初讀為“神看到所有綑在地牢裡的小孩”,這給人留下了錯誤的印象,即聖經中提到地牢而不是討論中的新聞文章。

Thanks to Sizkacoder for correcting the Chinese!
十分感謝Sizkacoder修改中文!


Other posts you might be interested in:

神必須遵守一個比祂高的律法嗎?

Transparency and Freedom

Transparency keeps you from being experimented on without your knowledge, and freedom gives you the power to make that transparency happen.

透明性可讓你避免不知不覺作為百老鼠,在沒有知識的情況下進行試驗,而自由賦予你實現透明性的能力。

You can refuse to be injected with something until it is transparent enough to your liking for you to feel comfortable making a decision on it, AND it is a good enough product to persuade you to use it of your own free will.

您可以拒絕注射某種東西,直到它透明到度足以讓你滿意地做出決定為止,並且它的品質是足夠好的,它是足夠好的產品能說服你隨意使用它。

When something is mandatory, when it is forced on you, it doesn't have to be good enough to win you over and pass your consent. I suspect that is true of almost everything in life. Think about that the next time you want the government to make a law about something.

當某些事情是強制性的時後,當它強強波你的時候,它不需要足以討你的喜悅而獲得您的同意。 我想生活的幾乎都是如此。 下次您想讓政府對某事制定法律的時時,請考慮一下。

Chinese Translation of the article “MEDICAL HORROR: Genetic sequencing of common vaccine finds entire male human genome from aborted human baby”

Following is a very rough translation of the article I mentioned in my last post Vaccines and Public School Are Being Made Harder To Ignore, For The Christian At Least I pretty much just used Google Translate. If you want to help fix any particular paragraph, put the English paragraph along with your preferred translation in a comment. I won't publish the comment but I will see it and change the article.

以下是我在上一篇提到的文章的非常粗略的翻譯只少對於基督徒來說,疫苗和公立學校正變得越來越難以忽視我幾乎只用Google翻譯。 如果要幫助修復任何的段落,請把你要改的英文段落和你修復的中文翻譯一起留言。 我不會破那言,可是我會看到,而拿來改文章。

You can read the original article in English by clicking on the title below:


你可以單擊以下標題來讀英文原文:

MEDICAL HORROR: Genetic sequencing of common vaccine finds entire male human genome from aborted human baby… “a complete individual genome” with abnormal, modified genes… 560 genes linked to cancer
Friday, October 04, 2019 by: Mike Adams

醫學恐怖:普通疫苗的基因測序從墮台的人類嬰兒中發現整個男性人類基因組… “一個完整的個體基因組”,具有異常,修飾的基因……與癌症相關的560個基因
作者:Mike Adams 星期五,10月4號



Vaccines are routinely formulated with aborted human fetal cells known as MRC-5 and WI-38. The CDC openly lists some of the vaccines that use these “human diploid” cells, including Twinrix (Hep A / Hep B), ProQuad (MMRV) and Varivax (Varicella / chicken pox). FDA-published vaccine insert sheets such as this one for Varivax also openly admit to the use of aborted human fetal cell lines such as MRC-5:

疫苗通常與被墮台的人類胎兒細胞一起配製,這些細胞被稱為MRC-5和WI-38。 CDC公開列出了一些使用這些“人類二倍體”細胞的疫苗,包括Twinrix(肝炎 A / 肝炎 B),ProQuad(MMRV)和Varivax(水痘/水痘)。 FDA發布的疫苗插頁(例如這個Varivax的插頁)也公開承認使用墮胎的人類胎兒細胞系(例如MRC-5):

The product also contains residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein and trace quantities of neomycin and bovine calf serum from MRC-5 culture media.

該產品還含有MRC-5細胞的殘留成分,包括DNA和蛋白質以及來自MRC-5培養基的痕量新黴素和牛犢血清。


Even this GlaxoSmithKline vaccine insert sheet openly discusses the use of aborted human fetal cells in its Priorix-Tetra vaccine (MMRV):

甚至這份葛蘭素史克疫苗插頁也公開討論了墮胎的人類胎兒細胞在其Priorix-Tetra疫苗(MMRV)中的使用:

Each virus strain is separately produced in either chick embryo cells (mumps and measles) or MRC5 human diploid cells (rubella and varicella).

每種病毒株分別在雛雞胚胎細胞(腮腺炎和麻疹)或MRC5人二倍體細胞(風疹和水痘)中產生。

Yet, amazingly, almost no member of the public is aware that aborted human fetal cells are routinely used in vaccines. The lying fake news media insists such talk is a “conspiracy theory,” even as the CDC, FDA and vaccine manufacturers openly declare the ingredient is being used in numerous vaccines. (See Vaccines.news for daily coverage of breaking news on vaccines.)

然而,令人驚訝的是,幾乎沒有公眾知道墮台的人類胎兒細胞通常用於疫苗。 虛假的虛假新聞媒體堅稱,這種說法是“陰謀論”,即使CDC,FDA和疫苗生產商公開宣稱該成分已用於多種疫苗中。 (有關疫苗最新新聞的每日報導,請參閱Vaccines.news。)

Now, a laboratory in Italy has carried out a complete genome sequencing of this MRC-5 cell line that’s deliberately inserted into multiple vaccines. What they’ve found is beyond shocking… it’s horrifying. As explained by Children’s Health Defense:

現在,意大利的一家實驗室已對這被故意插入多種疫苗中的MRC-5細胞系進行了完整的基因組測序。 他們發現的一切令人震驚。 如兒童健康防禦部門所解釋:

The Corvelva team summarized their findings as follows:

Corvelva團隊將其發現總結如下:

1- The fetal cell line was found to belong to a male fetus.

1-發現胎兒細胞係屬於男性胎兒。

2- The cell line presents itself in such a way that it is likely to be very old, thus consistent with the declared line of the 1960s.

2-細胞係可能以很老的方式出現,因此與1960年代宣稱的細胞系一致。

3- The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine.

3-該疫苗中所代表的胎兒人類DNA是完整的個體基因組,也就是說,疫苗中存在個體所有染色體的基因組DNA。

4- The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.

4-該疫苗中所含的人類基因組DNA無疑是異常的,與典型的人類基因組,即與健康個體的基因組存在重要的不一致之處。

5- 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.

5-測試了已知與癌症形式相關的560個基因,所有基因均進行了重大修飾。

6- There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.

6-有些變異的後果甚至是未知的,尚未在文獻中出現,但仍會影響誘導人類癌症的基因。

7- What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants.

7-顯然也異常的是基因組過量,顯示拷貝數和結構變異的變化。


560 cancer genes, abnormal DNA, genetic “modification” of potentially hazardous genes, yet mandated to be injected into every child

560個癌症基因,異常DNA,潛在危險基因的遺傳“修飾”,但仍被強制注入每個孩子

What’s clear from this genetic sequencing is that the vaccine industry is inoculating children with engineered cancer. As CHD explains, the vaccines are deliberately formulated with cancer-causing genes which have been specifically modified to promote cancer tumors:

從這種基因測序中可以清楚地看出,疫苗行業正在給兒童接種基改癌症的疫苗。正如CHD所解釋的那樣,疫苗是故意與致癌基因一起配製的,這些基因已經過專門修飾以促進癌症。

[I]nside the vaccines that have been administered for decades is the presence of a progressively more genetically modified DNA and uncontrolled quantities has been allowed…

在已經使用了數十年的疫苗中,存在著越來越多的基因修飾的DNA,並且允許不受控制的數量...

…[T]he DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC and that the guidelines to which the supervisory bodies are appealing are NOT ADEQUATE. Moreover, we are publicly denouncing a SERIOUS OMISSION in taking those PRECAUTIONAL measures which, on the other hand, are urgently requested for antacid drugs.

……這些疫苗中所含的DNA可能具有致癌性,並且監管機構所呼籲的指導方針還不夠。 此外,我們公開譴責採取嚴重預防措施,而另一方面,這些預防措施已經被制酸藥緊急的要求。


Not only is this cancer-ridden genetic code inserted into all these vaccines given to children, but the dose of the cancer-infected DNA is dangerously high. As CHD explains:

不僅將這種充滿癌症的遺傳密碼插入所有給兒童的疫苗中,而且被癌症感染的DNA的劑量也非常高。 如CHD所述:

…[T]he contaminant fetal DNA present in all samples analyzed in varying quantities (thus uncontrolled) is up to 300 times higher than the limit imposed by the EMA for carcinogenic DNA (10 ng/dose, corresponding to DNA contained in approximately 1000 tumor cells, derived from a statistical calculation, while the precautionary limit is 10 pg/dose), a limit that must also be applied to MRC-5 fetal DNA which inevitably contaminates Priorix tetra.

…存在於所有分析樣品中的胎兒DNA污染物的數量不同(因此不受控制),比EMA對致癌DNA的限制高10倍(10 ng /劑量,對應於約1000個腫瘤細胞中所含的DNA), 統計計算,而預防極限為10 pg /劑量),該極限也必須適用於不可避免地污染Priorix tetra的MRC-5胎兒DNA。


“Modifications” of genes associated with cancer tumors

與癌症腫瘤相關的基因的“修飾”

The genome sequencing also found that hundreds of genes linked to cancer tumors have been modified. As explained by the study authors:

基因組測序還發現與癌症腫瘤相關的數百個基因已被修飾。 正如研究作者所解釋的:

…[I]mportant modifications of genes known to be associated with various tumor forms have been identified, for all the 560 verified genes; furthermore, there are variants whose consequences are not known, but which, however, affects genes involved in the induction of human cancer.

……對於所有560個經過驗證的基因,已經確定了已知與各種腫瘤形式相關的基因的重要修飾; 此外,還有一些變種,其後果未知,但是會影響與人類癌症誘導有關的基因。


This indicates that the MRC-5 aborted human fetal cells appear to have been deliberately modified to make them more tumorigenic… i.e. more likely to cause cancer tumors in human recipients of the vaccine injections.

這表明MRC-5墮台的人類胎兒細胞似乎經過了故意修飾,使其更具致癌性,即在疫苗注射的人類接受者中更可能引起癌症。

This would, of course, ensure long-term revenues from the cancer drugs that are also manufactured and sold by the same pharmaceutical giants that manufacture and market vaccines. Repeat business, after all, is a very lucrative business model, and if you can lace vaccines with the genetic blueprints for long-term cancer, you can make sure that a very high percentage of today’s children are eventually diagnosed with cancer, after which they become lucrative customers for Big Pharma’s cancer drugs.

當然,這將確保從製造和銷售疫苗的同一家製藥巨頭也生產和銷售的抗癌藥物中獲得長期收益。 畢竟,重複業務是一種非常有利可圖的業務模式,如果您可以將疫苗與長期癌症的基因藍圖結合在一起,則可以確保當今有很高比例的兒童最終被診斷出患有癌症,之後他們 成為Big Pharma癌症藥物的豐厚客戶。

The genome sequencing of the MRC-5 “human diploid” cells used in vaccines is even described by researchers as, “anomalous” when compared to a healthy human being. From the study’s conclusion:

與健康人相比,研究人員甚至將疫苗中使用的MRC-5“人二倍體”細胞的基因組測序描述為“異常”。 根據研究結論:

The human genomic DNA contained in the Priorix lot vaccine. n. A71CB256A is evidently anomalous, presenting important inconsistencies if compared to a typical human genome, i.e. the one of a healthy human being. There are several unknown variants (not noted in public databases) and some of them are located in genes involved in cancer. What is also apparently anomalous, is the excess of genome that shows changes in the number of copies (CNV) and structural variants (SV), such as translocations, insertions, deletions, duplications and inversions, many of which involve genes.

Priorix批次A71CB256A疫苗中包含的人類基因組DNA。顯然是異常的,與典型的人類基因組(即健康人類之一)相比,存在著重要的不一致之處。 有幾種未知的變體(在公共數據庫中未註明),其中一些位於與癌症有關的基因中。 顯然也異常的是,基因組過多,顯示出拷貝數(CNV)和結構變異體(SV)的變化,例如易位,插入,缺失,重複和倒置,其中許多涉及基因。


This conclusion appears to confirm that MRC-5 cell lines used in vaccines have been genetically modified to make them more likely to cause cancer in vaccine recipients. Subsequently, vaccine mandates are actually forcing children to be injected with cancer genes so that they become future customers of Big Pharma’s for-profit cancer treatment “solutions” which are incredibly toxic to human health.

該結論似乎證實了疫苗中使用的MRC-5細胞系已經過基因修飾,使它們更有可能在疫苗接種者中引起癌症。 隨後,疫苗法規實際上迫使兒童注射癌症基因,以便他們成為Big Pharma營利性癌症治療“解決方案”的未來客戶,該解決方案對人體健康具有極大的毒性。

Human children, in other words, are being injected with the genetically modified DNA of another aborted human child in order to cause cancer on a nationwide scale, all to benefit the bottom line of the pharmaceutical industry that pushes total censorship about any criticism of vaccines or vaccine ingredients.

換句話說,正在給人類兒童注射另一個墮台的人類兒童的基因修飾的DNA,以在全國范圍內引發癌症,這一切都有利於製藥業的底線,從而推動對疫苗或疫苗的任何批評的全面審查 疫苗成分。

“Defective” vaccines that are “potentially dangerous to human health”

“對人體健康潛在危險”的“缺陷”疫苗


The upshot is that these vaccines which are deliberately contaminated with abnormal, cancer-infested human genes are “defective,” according to an analysis by CHD:

根據CHD的一項分析,結果是這些疫苗被故意感染了異常且受癌症侵擾的人類基因污染的疫苗具有“缺陷性”:

As a consequence, this vaccine should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health, in particular to the pediatric population which is much more vulnerable to genetic and autoimmune damage.

結果,該疫苗應被認為是有缺陷的,並且可能對人類健康,特別是對更容易受到基因和自身免疫損害的小兒科人群危害。


Watch this shocking video summary… a more detailed long-form video is coming next week

Here’s a summary of these findings, in a short video that will be expanded next week into a full lecture.

觀看這個令人震驚的視頻摘要…下週將有更詳細的長視頻

以下是這些發現的摘要,該視頻將在下週擴展為完整的講座。

https://www.brighteon.com/034ebfcb-5bf8-4bcf-abf2-ee106a2eecba

Vaccines and Public School Are Being Made Harder To Ignore, For The Christian At Least

The news that prompted this article:
提示本文的新聞:

MEDICAL HORROR: Genetic Sequencing of Common Vaccine Finds Entire Male Human Genome From Aborted Human Baby… “A complete individual genome” with abnormal, modified genes… 560 genes linked to cancer [Very rough translation in Chinese here.]

醫學恐怖:普通疫苗的基因測序從墮台的人類嬰兒中發現整個男性人類基因組……“一個完整的個體基因組”,具有異常,修飾的基因……與癌症相關的560個基因 [看粗略翻譯的中文版的原文章這裡]

So ironic. If you are going to take the easy way out and send your kids into the public school system instead of giving them a more eclectic education, if you are going to defer to the present default and just hope to help your children process it by talking about it in the crumbs of time left to you at home, between their smartphone and their homework, then ironically, the natural degradation of society produced by a godless system will eventually bring things to such a head that you have to take them out anyway.

好諷刺。你如果依賴簡便的方法,送孩子們去公里學校系統,而不是給他們一個比較折衷的教育;如果您要遵循當前的默認標準,而希望可以透過談論來幫助你的孩子來處理它,在他們的手機和他們的作業之間留給你的時間殘缺不全的情況下,那,諷刺意味的是,這無神系統導致的社會自然退化最終將把事情帶到了頭,以至於無論如何你還必須將孩子們離開系統。

It's hard enough to make a judgment call that vaccines are dangerous enough to risk your children going without them.

已經夠難判斷好疫苗是否夠危險,足以冒著孩子不接種疫苗的風險。

Now with the authorities tying vaccines to public school access your decision will have to include giving up public schooling as well. Are vaccines truly dangerous enough to warrant educating your children a different way if they can't get into public schools without them?

現在,隨著當局將疫苗作為上公立學校的必要條件,你的決定還必須包括是否放棄公立學校。 如果他們沒有疫苗就不能進入公立學校,疫苗是否真的足夠危險足以需要不同的方式教育你的孩子麼?

For most people this is the end of any further consideration of vaccine safety. Public school is so engrained in the public consciousness that people think they would be handicapping their children with a second-rate education if they homeschooled, not to mention they've never done it before, and maybe even never heard of it before. Perhaps they are relieved to find the vaccine decision so seemingly taken out of their hands.

對於大多數人來說,這是疫苗安全性進一步考慮的終點。 公立學校深深地迷住了公眾意識,以至於人們認為,如果他們讓孩子在家上自學的話,這樣會使他們的孩子受到二次教育的困擾,更不用說他們以前從未做過,經歷過,或聽說過這個家教自學的方式。 也許他們鬆了一口氣,以為從手中拿走了疫苗決定。

However, finding out that vaccines are being made with aborted baby tissue should make the decision a no-brainer, for christians at least, and may end up springing a whole generation of children free of both vaccines and the public school system in one blow, since they are so conveniently tied together now.

但是,如果發現正在用流產的嬰兒組織製成的疫苗,至少應該對基督徒來說,這個決定不費吹灰之力,並且可能最終導致一整代的孩子都可以一目了然地擺脫疫苗和公立學校的系統中,因為它們現在是如此方便地捆綁在一起。

But for the christian who finds himself tempted to compromise even with baby murder so that he doesn't have to leave his comfort zone, there is now one further consideration, that he will be injecting his children with “cancer-ridden genetic code”:

但是對於那些發現自己即使在嬰兒謀殺中也很願意妥協,從而不必離開舒適區的基督徒來說,現在還有多一個考慮,他將為他的孩子注入“癌症纏身的遺傳密碼”:

MEDICAL HORROR: Genetic Sequencing of Common Vaccine Finds Entire Male Human Genome From Aborted Human Baby… “A complete individual genome” with abnormal, modified genes… 560 genes linked to cancer

醫學恐怖:普通疫苗的基因測序從墮台的人類嬰兒中發現整個男性人類基因組……“一個完整的個體基因組”,具有異常,修飾的基因……與癌症相關的560個基因

Never heard of homeschooling? Here is how one busy father did it: 從未聽說過自學嗎?這是一個忙碌的父親的做法:

Robinson Curriculum

More news that prompted this article:
更多提示本文的新聞:


* In An Era Of Mandated Vaccination, Pediatricians Don’t Always Vaccinate Their Own Children According To CDC Guidelines

* Forced Vaccination

Edward Snowden's book Permanent Record came out last week.

You can also get it for free here or here.

Book blurb:

“Edward Snowden, the man who risked everything to expose the US government’s system of mass surveillance, reveals for the first time the story of his life, including how he helped to build that system and what motivated him to try to bring it down.

In 2013, twenty-nine-year-old Edward Snowden shocked the world when he broke with the American intelligence establishment and revealed that the United States government was secretly pursuing the means to collect every single phone call, text message, and email. The result would be an unprecedented system of mass surveillance with the ability to pry into the private lives of every person on earth. Six years later, Snowden reveals for the very first time how he helped to build this system and why he was moved to expose it.

Spanning the bucolic Beltway suburbs of his childhood and the clandestine CIA and NSA postings of his adulthood,Permanent Recordis the extraordinary account of a bright young man who grew up online—a man who became a spy, a whistleblower, and, in exile, the Internet’s conscience. Written with wit, grace, passion, and an unflinching candor, Permanent Record is a crucial memoir of our digital age and destined to be a classic.”

Learn English with the Gospel of John movie
用約翰福音的影片學英文

This first video is the Gospel of John movie with English subtitles. 這是有英文字幕的約翰福音影片。



This second video is part 1 of the same movie with Chinese subtitles (you have to turn on the Chinese subtitles in the settings.) You can find part 2-20 on Youtube. 這有中文字幕的約翰福音影片的第1部(要安CC選中文字幕)。Youtube 有2到20部。

To learn English 為了學英文:

Open the Chinese version in one browser tab, and the English version in another tab. Listen to one sentence in the Chinese version, then hit pause and listen to the same sentence in the version with English subtitles.可以用一個瀏覽器分頁打開有中文字幕的影片。用第二個分頁看有英文字幕的影片。聽中文版的第一句,或幾句,就換英文版跟著說。

This is my favorite Jesus movie because it's word-for-word what is in the Bible. Very powerful. 這是我最喜歡的耶穌影片,因為是一句一句跟從聖經所寫的,就很有力量。

A Cappella “Lamb of God” and “Awesome God” with lyrics

Artist: Keith Lancaster & The Acappella Company
Album: Awesome God: A Cappella Worship Christian & Gospel

Lyrics:
Your only Son, no sin to hide
But You have sent Him from your side
To walk upon this guilty sod
And to become the Lamb of God

Chorus:
O Lamb of God (Lamb of God)
Sweet Lamb of God (Sweet Lamb of God)
I love the Holy Lamb of God (Holy Lamb of God)
O wash me in His precious blood (wash me in His precious blood)
My Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God

Your gift of love they crucified
They laughed and scorned Him as He died
The humble King they named a fraud
And sacrificed the Lamb of God

Repeat Chorus

I was so lost I should have died
But You have brought me to Your side
To be led by Your staff and rod
And to be called the Lamb of God

Repeat Chorus (x2)

O wash me in His precious blood (wash me in His precious blood)
My Jesus Christ the Lamb of God

Scriptural Reference:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'" John 1:29


Artist: Keith Lancaster & The Acappella Company
Album: Awesome God: A Cappella Worship Christian & Gospel

Lyrics:
Bass:
God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom power and love
Our God is an awesome God

Soprano, Alto, and Tenor (come in one round at a time, with each part continuing):
Our God is awesome
He reigns from heaven
With power and wisdom
Our God is an awesome God

Chorus (with four parts in background):
Our God is an awesome God
He reigns from heaven above
With wisdom power and love
Our God is an awesome God

Now when He rolled up His sleeves He wasn't putting on the ritz
Our God is an awesome God
There's thunder in his foot steps and lightning in His fists
Our God is an awesome God
And the Lord wasn't jokin' when He kicked 'em out of Eden
It wasn't for no reason that He shed His blood
His return is very soon and so ya'll better be believin'
Our God is an awesome God

Stepout (with four parts in background):
Yes we know that He's awesome
And He reigns with power and wisdom

Repeat Stepout

Now when the sky was starless in the void of the night
Our God is an awesome God
He spoke unto the darkness and created the light
Our God is an awesome God
The judgment and wrath He poured out on Sodom
His mercy and grace He gave us at the cross
I hope that we have not to quickly forgotten that
Our God is an awesome God

Repeat Stepout (x2)

Repeat Chorus (in unison)

Repeat Stepout (x2)

Our God is an awesome God
Our God is an awesome God
Our God is an awesome God

Scriptural Reference:
"Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God." Deuteronomy 7:21

Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends

Have You Considered This Evidence?
"Tying Up Really Loose Ends" - The Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review by Jeff Miller

I've been using the high school level Truth Be Told textbook with Bible students to address the creation versus evolution issue. But I found something even better to read with college level friends. And if you know of something that tops even that, please let me know in the comments.

Click here to jump straight to the whole article, so interesting you will read all the way to the end. Or keep scrolling to read the first few paragraphs.


Bill Nye/Ken Ham Debate Review: Tying Up Really Loose Ends

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Many have inquired about our thoughts on the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate that took place on February 4th in Petersburg, Kentucky. Of course, we strongly disagree with Bill Nye’s contention that evolution is a viable model of origins, and wholeheartedly agree with Ken Ham’s proposition that Creation is a viable model of origins. However, we were disappointed in creationist Ken Ham’s decision to allow so many of Bill Nye’s questions and comments to go unanswered, thus leaving the impression that Nye’s points have merit or are unanswerable. In light of so many evidences, undeniable truths, and critical responses that were not brought to light that evening, I asked A.P. staff scientist, Dr. Jeff Miller, to prepare a response to Bill Nye’s assertions. These three men of science are certainly qualified to discuss these matters: Ham received a bachelor’s degree in applied science from the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia and a diploma of education from the University of Queensland. Nye received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell University. Dr. Miller holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn University.]

In the debate on February 4, 2014, which is said to have been viewed by over three million people Tuesday night, and another two million plus on Wednesday (“Over Three Million Tuned In...,” 2014), Answers in Genesis creationist Ken Ham squared off against Bill Nye (known to many of us as “The Science Guy”). Nye challenged Ham with several questions which he believed to be pertinent to the Creation/evolution controversy (Nye and Ham, 2014). The debate topic centered on whether or not Creation is a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era. Without dragging the reader through a play-by-play analysis of the entire debate, we believe several of Nye’s questions and comments that were not addressed in the debate are worthy of attention. [NOTE: Ironically, although Ken Ham did not respond to several of Nye’s points, the Answers in Genesis Web site is replete with solid responses to the bulk of Nye’s arguments, as the references in this article will attest.]

Nye’s Defense of Naturalistic Evolution

First, we wish to highlight the fact that Nye inadvertently revealed some of the weaknesses and even impenetrable barriers that prohibit the naturalistic evolutionary model from being true. Keep in mind that, regardless of the legitimacy of any attacks on the Creation model, if naturalism contradicts the evidence, then the evidence remains in support of some form of supernaturalism. In truth, however, the evidence supports the Creation model.

Evolution is a Historical Science

While Ham did not adequately address many of Nye’s points, Nye was eloquently treated to a lesson on the difference between observational and historical science, proving that naturalistic evolution and origin studies fall under the historical science category. Nye was unable to refute this claim. Nobody has ever observed macroevolution (i.e., inter-kind evolution), abiogenesis (i.e., life from non-life), the spontaneous generation of natural laws (i.e., scientific laws that write themselves), a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter—all of which are necessary under the evolutionary model. This lack of observation proves that evolution does not fall under the definition of science, as stated by the National Academy of Sciences: “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). Evolutionists are notorious for reasoning that the Creation model should not be taught in schools since it cannot be observed and, therefore, is not “science,” based on the naturalistic definition of the term. The fact that naturalistic evolution is also unobservable highlights that evolutionary theory is “faith-based” in the sense that direct evidence is lacking for several of its fundamental tenets. Instead of refuting that argument, Nye’s response was, “Mr. Ham, I learned something. Thank you.” Our response: if you do not have an adequate response to that argument, and if Creation does not belong in the science classroom because many of its fundamental tenets were not observed, then evolution does not belong in the classroom either.

In truth, whichever model is the best inference from the evidence should be the one used in the classroom, even if all of its tenets were not necessarily “observed”: Creation or evolution (or some other model). There is, however, a fundamental difference between Creation and evolution. The evidence actually stands against naturalism, since we know from science, for example, that abiogenesis and the origin of matter/energy from nothing (or the eternality of matter) cannot happen naturally. Those phenomena are required by naturalism. One cannot be a naturalist and yet believe in unnatural things like such phenomena without contradicting himself. The component logical fallacy called contradictory premises (or a logical paradox) occurs when one establishes “a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise” (Wheeler, 2014). For example:

  • Premise One—Evolution is a naturalistic origin model.
  • Premise Two—Evolution requires abiogenesis and other unnatural phenomena.

If evolution is purely naturalistic, can it involve unnatural phenomena and still be consistent?

On the other hand, though the creation of the Universe and the Flood cannot be observed today, the evidence points to their historical reality indirectly. In the same way forensic scientists can enter a scene, gather evidence, and determine what happened, when it happened, how it happened, who did it, and many times, why he did it—all without actually witnessing the event—humans can examine the evidence and conclude that the Universe was created. Bottom line: it is clear, regardless of the model you choose, that something happened in the beginning that was unnatural, or as Nye insinuated, “magical.” How is Creation far-fetched, as the naturalists believe, in comparison to a model that espouses magic—with no magician?

Flawed Evolutionary Dating Techniques

Conflicting Dates from a Fossilized Forest

When the research of geologist Andrew Snelling was discussed as proof that uniformitarian dating techniques are fundamentally flawed, Nye was not able to offer an adequate response. In the research, fossilized wood from deep within the Earth under Australia was carbon dated to be about 37,500 years old, while the basalt rock encompassing the wood was dated using the K-Ar method to be some 47.5 million years old (2000), though both the rock and the wood should have been the same age. [NOTE: Carbon dating is used to date organic materials, while the K-Ar method and others are used to date inorganic materials (rocks).] Nye’s attempt to explain the problem using plate tectonics was quickly refuted by Ham when he pointed out that the basalt was not above the forest, but was encompassing the forest. Nye did not respond. Snelling’s research stands as evidence against the validity of evolutionary dating techniques which Nye could not refute. The Creation model has no problem with this research, since it does not rely on uniformitarian dating techniques. [NOTE: Uniformitarianism is the evolutionary assumption that “events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today” (McGraw-Hill Dictionary..., 2003, p. 2224). Creationists believe that catastrophism is a better model for interpreting the geologic column. Catastrophism is the idea that most “features in the Earth were produced by occurrence of sudden, short-lived, worldwide events” (McGraw-Hill..., p. 342).]

Assumptions and Evolution

Nye claimed that we can know with certainty the age of the Universe based on the present. The problem with that argument for the naturalist is that since no one was there at the beginning to observe what happened or when it happened, no naturalist can actually know, as Nye claimed. Instead, assumptions have to be made by the naturalist in order to try to surmise what may have happened—namely that conditions today were also present in the past (i.e., uniformitarianism). That is quite a presumptuous assumption to be sure. Creationists argue that assumptions such as uniformitarianism and those of radiometric dating techniques are faulty and disprove the validity of those techniques (e.g., Miller, 2013a; Morris, 2011, pp. 48-71). In response, Nye said:

When people make assumptions based on radiometric dating; when they make assumptions about the expanding Universe; when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria in laboratory growth media; they’re making assumptions based on previous experience. They’re not coming out of whole cloth.

First, we find it ironic that Nye so strongly supports evolutionary assumptions, arguing that they are valid because they are based on “previous experience.” Nobody has ever observed macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter, and yet these absurd notions are assumed under the evolutionary model. In the debate, Nye even verbally admitted that the evolutionary model has no explanation for how consciousness could come from matter. He said, “Don’t know. This is a great mystery.” In truth, of course he cannot know, because the evidence from nature says that it cannot happen naturally. His evolutionary model prohibits it (Miller, 2012b), and yet he ignores that evidence. Concerning the origin of matter, he also admitted, “This is the great mystery. You’ve hit the nail on the head…. What was before the Big Bang? This is what drives us. This is what we wanna know!” Again, the naturalistic model prohibits the eternality or spontaneous generation of matter (Miller, 2013b), though one of them had to happen under the naturalistic model. So of course it’s “a great mystery” how it could happen. In truth, it cannot happen naturally. Nature has spoken, and yet Nye and his colleagues reject the evidence in favor of their closed-minded bias towards naturalism.

These are significant questions that evolution cannot answer and that cannot be brushed aside as he attempted to do. They must be answered by the naturalist before naturalistic evolution can even be a possibility—before it should even be allowed to be taught. Without a legitimate explanation, evolution is no different from a fictional story. Life had to come from non-life naturally in the evolutionary model, and matter had to come from somewhere, and yet the evolutionist ignores those problems as though they are irrelevant and assumes there’s a naturalistic explanation for them without any evidence substantiating that assumption.

In truth, all “previous experience” in science says that none of those things (i.e., macroevolution, abiogenesis, the spontaneous generation of natural laws, a cause-less effect, or the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter) can happen. The questions that Nye and his colleagues consider “a mystery” are not really mysteries. Science has spoken on those matters and concluded that they are impossible under the naturalistic model. There are scientific laws which prove that truth (see Miller, 2013c). Accepting those things as possible flies in the face of the scientific evidence and is tantamount to a blind faith in evolution. Evolution is a fideistic religion that ignores the evidence. It has no foundation, since the evidence contradicts its foundational premises. The Creation model, on the other hand, has no problem with the evidence. The Creation model harmonizes with the evidence on all counts and only disagrees with the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence.

That said, we have no problem with the idea that present observations can be useful today and even useful in some ways for the past—but within careful limits. If it is true that, for example, the nuclear decay rates are not a simple constant, but instead are variable, depending upon environmental conditions which could have been significantly different in the past due to catastrophic events like the Flood, then it would be naïve and erroneous to make age estimates of any rock without considering the possibility of such fluctuations.
“[M]aking assumptions based on previous experience” would be incorrect since that “previous experience” did not include the Flood.

In his book, The Young Earth, Creation geologist John Morris documents modern research which casts serious doubt on several of the assumptions of evolutionary dating techniques, especially the assumption of constant nuclear decay rates (2011; see also DeYoung, 2005). For example, research by a team of scientists (known as RATE) that was presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2003, indicates that the nuclear decay rates have not always been constant (Humphreys, et al., 2003). The RATE team had several zircon crystals dated by expert evolutionists using the uranium-lead evolutionary dating technique and found them to be 1.5 billion years old, assuming a constant decay rate. A by-product of the breakdown of uranium into lead is helium. Content analysis of the crystals revealed that large amounts of helium were found to be present. However, if the crystals were as old as the dating techniques suggested, there should have been no trace of helium left, since helium atoms are known to be tiny, light, unreactive, and able to easily escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. The presence of helium and carbon-14 showed that the rocks were actually much younger (4,000 to 14,000 years old) than the dating techniques alleged. Since these zircons were taken from the Precambrian basement granite in the Earth, an implication of the find is that the whole Earth could be no older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. The results of the crystal dating indicate that 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay, based on the uniformitarian constant decay rate assumption, occurred in only a few thousand years. How could such a thing be possible? How can the two dating techniques be reconciled? By understanding that the rate of decay of uranium into lead must have been different—much higher—in the past. This research simply cannot be ignored by any serious, honest scientist. If the Creation model is true, then modern, historical science should be reconsidered and completely revised.

Concerning the creationist stance that nuclear decay rates were different in the past, Nye further said:

So this idea, that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now, I think, is at the heart of our disagreement. I don’t, I don’t see how we’re ever going to agree with that if you insist that natural laws have changed. It’s, for lack of a better word, it’s magical. And I have appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it’s not really what we want in conventional, mainstream science…. I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed just 4,000 years ago. Completely. And there’s no record of it.

First keep in mind that three significant assumptions that underlie dating techniques were mentioned by Ham to Nye, and Nye completely ignored two of them (i.e., that radiometric dating techniques assume a specimen was originally completely composed of a parent element, which would yield incorrect dates if daughter elements were present in a specimen from its creation. Such initial conditions would be predicted in the Creation model. The other assumption he ignored was that the specimen was completely isolated throughout its lifetime, and therefore unaffected by outside phenomena—a closed system. See Miller, 2013a for a discussion on these dating technique assumptions.). We believe they were left completely unanswered because they would be impossible for him to refute.

Second, it should be firmly understood that we would not argue that the natural laws of the past have changed. That, in fact, is a requirement of the evolutionary model, not the Creation model. The Law of Biogenesis, for example, would have to be “changed” in the past in order for naturalistic evolution to get started since all evidence indicates that life comes only from life in nature (Miller, 2012b). The Laws of Thermodynamics would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the origin of matter and energy, since all of the scientific evidence indicates that energy cannot be eternal and/or cannot spontaneously generate (Miller, 2013b). The Law of Causality would have to be “changed” in the past in order to account for the Universe not having a cause (Miller, 2011b). It seems that we should be challenging Mr. Nye instead: “I encourage you to explain to us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed billions of years ago. Completely. And there’s no record of it. It’s, for lack of a better word, magical.”

The creationist does not argue that the laws of nature changed in the past regarding decay rates, but rather, that decay is subject to a more complex law or equation than the one being assumed today. If nuclear decay rates fluctuate based on conditions resulting from certain catastrophic events, then if all of those conditions were met today, we would argue that the same results would still occur today. In other words, the “law” for decay rates is still the same today, but is merely misunderstood and needs to be modified to be more robust. It should be able to account for the unusual effects of catastrophic activity before applying it to the past. [NOTE: While the creationist does not argue that scientific laws have ever “changed,” he would argue that laws have been temporarily suspended in the past during God’s supernatural activities (Miller, 2003). The evolutionists, however, are in the unenviable position of having to explain, not only how a law could come into existence, but how it could be re-written without a Writer.]

Energy from the Sun for Evolution

The audience asked Nye the question, “How do you balance the Theory of Evolution with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?...

News Commentary: American Apocalypse - The Government’s Plot To Destabilize the Nation Is Working. Article by John W. Whitehead.

I don't agree with the last sentence of that article. If anything it should read something like “Let the one foot in another country begin.” Did the early Christians join a revolution? No, they scattered, taking the gospel with them. (Acts 8:4)

Want scattering not to be such a hardship? Take baby steps before you have to. Are you retired? Even better. Research how you can volunteer to help teach Bible classes, taking students through a Bible course for instance, in other mission fields around the world for a few months at a time. Enlarge your comfort zone. It'll help stave off dementia. And you might even find that your retirement check goes further in another country.

Want to brush up on your Bible knowledge? Check out http://thebible.net/video/ and WVBS. Even more ambitious? Go to Bible school. That'll really sharpen your brain.

Revolution just gives the government a chance to try out its most horrifying weapons. Keeping enough of your savings out of the country and feeling free to move to wherever freedom is, lets you vote with your feet.

Video: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?

Please! Watch this video first...



... and read what I wrote about it here, before you watch this next video and come to a conclusion on it.

Also, I don't like the 7:35-8:40 segment of the video below. I think it is a distraction from his otherwise tight logic.



Be sure to keep watching after the credits.

Related Posts:
Video: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ (According to Eusebius)
Video: The Curse of Jeconiah

Sunday night, May 19

A sister's father-in-law passed away last week, and six of the brethren in Hualian came down to see the family, and stay the night with us afterward.


Jared and Tracy, and my mom next to her, Brother and Sister Wang (Mei-zhu we call her, but she's not in the picture), and her sister, Sister Mei-Luan, and Sister Liu Ah Yi (Auntie Liu we call her.)


There's Sister Mei-zhu, Brother Wang's wife. Liu Ah Yi is cooking spaghetti for breakfast and Mei-zhu did the sauce.


Brother and Sister Qiu dropped in to see everyone. Once again I take a photo of everybody just as they've got that first bite of food in the mouth. My relatives can commiserate.

Glad to know the gospel meeting flyers I passed out a few months ago had SOME effect!

I was getting ready to leave the market, fishing out the key to my scooter, when a man walked by and said, "YOU'RE far from home!” We got talking about my scooter and scooter prices in general and how long I'd been in Taiwan and how my dad was a preacher and I was embarrassed thinking I ought to know him, and told him I was so sorry, but who was he? and he said, “You passed out a flyer.” He still had our number and address. I said, “Well, drop in and check out our services sometime!” It turns out he goes to the Lin Yang Tang denomination. I told him we try to do only what's in the Bible. Found out he'd been immersed. I told him that was very good. But we didn't have time to talk more.

86 year-old lady at the secondhand store

One thing I like about Taiwan is all the older people out and about and doing things. So many times I wish I had my smartphone camera mounted on my scooter so I could tap the screen at things I see in front of me.

On market street this morning, this 86-year old lady arrived at the secondhand clothing store with her walker/chair and pink clip-on fan. She most likely walked from wherever her house is.



The chair has nice roller wheels and handlebar brakes, with storage under the seat. The lady added a pink battery-operated clip-on fan, and her umbrella is hanging from one handlebar.

Any suggestions as to what I should tag posts about Taiwan's awesome oldsters? Please let me know in the comments.

What happened on Monday


My brother Jared helps teach Bible in Mandarin Chinese

Jared helping to teach Bible in Taiwanese

Jared and Brother Wang baptizing one of the gentlemen.





Folding up the baptistry.


Lunch on Sunday with three generations of the Qiu family :)

Did he ask me if I wanted another 4,425 satellites blocking my sunshine?

Please, the smog is bad enough in Kaohsiung.

Elon Musk posts photo of rocket stacked with 60 satellites that will launch tomorrow in SpaceX bid to beam high-speed internet to the world

The company recently filed plans with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch 4,425 satellites into orbit above the Earth - three times as many that are currently in operation.


And what about the rare people who have intense nerve pain anywhere there is good cellphone reception? Will there be no more pockets of dead space for them to move to?

“Musk compared the project to 'rebuilding the internet in space', as it would reduce reliance on the existing network of undersea fibre-optic cables which criss-cross the planet.”


It wasn't blocking the sun down there.

Now it's only one more step to using satellites to block the sun on purpose:

Scientists will copy effects of a huge volcano eruption to fight global warming in £2.3m study

“As part of a £2.3million ($3million) experiment partly-funded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates, a team from Harvard University will spray tiny chalk particles into the atmosphere 12 miles above the Earth to reflect some of the Sun’s rays back into space.”


That was saved under my "there-it-is" tag. Fans of the “Searching for Bobby Fischer” movie will understand.

And now this just yesterday:

Cambridge scientists are building a new research centre to develop radical ways to ‘save the Earth’

“Among such schemes being considered are the spraying of salt into clouds in order to make them reflect more warming sunlight back into space.”


Remember the 5-year Agricultural Plans when the government (I forget which one) thought central planning could feed everybody and they all starved?

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

Video: “How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt?”

Some videos make such an impression you remember them often through the years.

Nathan Hoffman has done four videos I think are brilliant, two of which cleared up Bible mysteries for me.

For instance, a few years ago I asked a visiting preacher how Moses' mother could be Levi's daughter Jochebed if the Israelites were in Egypt for 400 years. I forget how I got this number but wouldn't she have to have been at least 250 years old before she bore Moses? And they weren't living that long at that point. Jochebed's great-great-grandfather Abraham died at 175 and it was already a big deal for him to have Isaac at 100. Her uncle Joseph died at 110.

I remember the preacher was in a hurry and simply said that it might have been a different Jochebed, which was not Biblically possible because the Bible says exactly whose aunt she is, which makes her Levi's daughter (see Exodus 6).

To try and fudge that is like saying it wasn't literal 24-hour days in Genesis but millions of years, when the Bible takes the trouble to specifically define each day of the creation week as one evening and one morning.

Nathan Hoffman did a video “How Long Were the Israelites in Egypt?” that has a very Biblically satisfying explanation as to how Moses' mother was definitely Levi's daughter Jochebed. As he demonstrates, there's no getting around the math of the ages of Moses' father, grandfather, and great-grandfather which the Bible took a lot of trouble to put clearly on record as well.



And please remember, the Bible missing a phrase in certain copies and not other copies is normal and not an issue of accuracy and reliability.

Just because SOME of the copies of the old Bible manuscripts are missing the last few verses of Mark doesn't mean the Bible isn't reliable, it just means they used scrolls back then and the ends often frayed off.

And when some of the copies have a whole Bible passage missing between two identical words, it just means that sometimes when the copyist turned his head to dip his quill in the ink pot and then turned back to resume copying, he resumed at the wrong same word a few lines further down.

Does It Matter What the Other Hand Is Doing?


If this is true, then why do people still sign up for the military?

I always assumed that if a German christian soldier had found out about the concentration camps back in the 1940's, the proper thing to do would be to resign from the military, go awol, emigrate, flee the country, do whatever you had to do, to not be part of an apparatus that was committing atrocities.

Questions about the morality of serving in the military aside, it's like, government, as long as you're being open, transparent and aboveboard, I'll participate, but any time you venture into corruption and atrocities, expect a loss of propping up.

We'll even keep paying taxes since the Bible said to, but it didn't say we had to be the arms and legs of corruption. If Walmart was doing it, I wouldn't say, well I'm not working in the torture department of this corporation, I'm just a lowly cashier.

If you had the means, it's not even a mortal sin to change one's nationality. It certainly isn't advocating revolution and bloodshed (so easily co-opted) to fix problems.

I'd like to ask good people in the military, if you had a very comfortable lifestyle as an electrician or a plumber, if money to feed your family was not an issue, would you still on principle leave your job to serve in the military? Would you feel like, this is where God wants me to be to do the most good?

This is where I feel homeschooling didn't go far enough. 40 years ago, having a good foundation in the basics, reading, writing and arithmetic, seemed to put you ahead of what was coming out of the public schools, but it's not enough to stay afloat with homeless under bridges and the economy bubbled and popped at every turn to put people on the military plantation. Now your children need to learn to be electricians and plumbers, and makers of "tiny houses" (the Apostle Paul was a tentmaker too!), on the side, to have more choices in choosing an ethical career that doesn't conflict with Biblical duties.

One person told me that in Acts 10, there is no record of Cornelius, the Roman centurion, leaving the military when he became a Christian. Is that a sign that God would want a German christian young man to sign up for the military in the 1940's (assuming he somehow knew about concentration camps at that time)? Setting aside the question of leaving, surely Cornelius's example is not commanding us to sign up if we're not yet in.

God commanded us to pay taxes, I'm assuming he nowhere commanded us to either join or leave the military.

Who would work for Walmart if it had the same exit policies as the military?

You can resign from Walmart without threat of prison if its policies conflict with morality.

If you resign from entities like the military and the mafia, on the other hand, you almost have to go awol or be prepared for persecution.

Hmm, I wonder which scenario God and common sense would have me pursue.