Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - migl22

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
General / Britain is video surveillance capital of the world
« on: May 17, 2007, 08:12:31 AM »
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2006/12/britain_is_vide.html

Britain is video surveillance capital of the world

It is estimated that there are some 4.2 million Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) cameras in Britain, one for every 14 people. An individual might be captured by more than 300 separate cameras on an average day. Such all-pervasive video surveillance, combined with the ability to exploit the information contained in numerous government and private databases, enables the almost seamless monitoring of the population.--Richard Tyler

World Socialist Website
By Richard Tyler
6 December 2006

The list of places monitored by CCTV is endless. Most of Britain�s urban centres are under surveillance, as are motorways, hospitals, schools, banks, museums, shopping malls, sports facilities and travel hubs such as railway stations and airports.

CCTV cameras are operated by the police, the security services, various national and local government agencies and a myriad of institutions and private companies.

Their insidious spread has seriously eroded long-standing democratic rights. The routine recording of video footage in both public and private spaces represents a massive intrusion into individual privacy.

CCTV is increasingly being used to monitor so-called antisocial behaviour, including minor offences such as littering, urinating in a public place and drunkenness.

All demonstrations are now routinely recorded by specialist police video units on the ground, and from helicopters. Even if no crime or public order offence has been committed, the footage is kept by the police, providing evidence of an individual�s political stance on issues such as the war in Iraq, nuclear energy, pensioners� rights, hunting, etc.

In the 1990s, the Home Office spent 78 percent of its crime prevention budget on installing CCTV systems, and �500 million has been spent on CCTV infrastructure over the last decade. However, there is no conclusive evidence that crime has been significantly reduced�the main justification for its introduction. One Home Office study found that CCTV schemes �had little overall effect on crime levels.� Academic research has pointed to the �displacement effect��a reduction in crime in an area monitored by CCTV is accompanied by a rise in crime in neighbouring unmonitored areas.

Richard Thomas, Britain�s Information Commissioner�nominally charged with enforcing and overseeing the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000�recently published a 140-page �Report on the Surveillance Society.�

The document, prepared by the Surveillance Studies Network, an academic group, warns that �people�s lives will be monitored even more in the next decade by the government, the public sector, employers and big business.�

Advances in computer technology have also been applied to video surveillance. The digitisation of CCTV means that a new generation of �smart cameras,� or cameras linked to sophisticated computer systems, can now be used to recognise an individual person through �face recognition� software, or to read a vehicle�s number plate.

The deployment of this last application makes Britain the first country in the world to record the movements of all vehicles. In 1996, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) recorded just over 300,000 instances of vehicles exceeding speed limits. By 2004, the system was used more than 2 million times.

Thousands of existing CCTV cameras are now being converted to read number plates automatically night and day, providing 24-hour coverage of all motorways and main roads, as well as towns, cities, ports and garage forecourts.

This network of cameras automatically reads every passing number plate, storing the data for several years. No longer used merely to enforce speed restrictions, a central ANPR database has been set up alongside the Police National Computer in Hendon, north London. This can record details of up to 35 million number-plate �reads� per day, including time, date and precise location. This huge database of vehicle movements enables the police or security services to analyse any journey a driver has made.

There are plans to extend the database, increasing the storage period to five years and linking it to thousands of additional cameras. In this way, details of up to 100 million number plates could be fed into the central database each day.


National DNA Database

Not only is Britain the world leader in spying on its citizens, the National DNA Database, projected to have 3.7 million profiles by April 2007, is the world�s biggest DNA database.

Some 2 million people are arrested each year in England and Wales. Since the Criminal Justice Act 2003 became law, the police are empowered to record not only the fingerprints of all those arrested, but also to take and keep their DNA samples, regardless of eventual guilt or innocence. Once again, this data is accessible via the Police National Computer.

The National DNA Database was set up in 1995. By 2005, it contained some 3.45 million individual records, or roughly 5.2 percent of the population. If a comparable system existed in America with a similar level of recording, it would contain the DNA of some 15 million individuals.

Professor Alec Jeffreys from the University of Leicester, who pioneered �DNA fingerprinting� in the 1980s, recently told the BBC that the National DNA Database now contained samples from hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and was �skewed socio-economically and ethnically.�

�My view is that it is discriminatory,� Jeffreys stated.

The records contained in the database display a marked racial bias against those from ethnic minorities, with nearly 40 percent of black males and 13 percent of Asian males now being profiled.

The National DNA Database contains information on some 135,000 black males aged 15-34, estimated to be more than three quarters of Britain�s young black population. By contrast, only just over one fifth of young white males� DNA are recorded on file.

Prompted by widespread concerns at the potential for misuse of such information, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics is presently conducting a study entitled �Forensic use of bioinformation�ethical issues.�

DNA identification is not infallible: As the �Report on the Surveillance Society� notes, �whilst a negative DNA test seems to be a near perfect tool for acquitting the innocent, false negatives being very rare, false positives are surprisingly likely.�

Misidentification is a commonplace in other surveillance systems. Recently, the Criminal Records Bureau, routinely called upon to provide information about those seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults, revealed that 2,700 people had been wrongly identified as having criminal records, possibly costing them their jobs.

Moreover, the Police Inspectorate has noted that 22 percent of records entered into the Police National Computer at force level contained at least one error, even when they had been checked by a supervisor.

The Labour government is pressing ahead with its plans to introduce ID cards, linked to a National Identify Database that can identify every citizen with a unique reference number across multiple data sources�public and private.

The term �dataveillance� has been coined to describe the surveillance of a person�s activities through electronic data. Cross-referenced by an ID number, linked to a massive CCTV network employing face-recognition software and automatic vehicle registration, and by accessing numerous government and private databases, the British state is developing the means to monitor the movement and whereabouts of any individual at any time, virtually at the press of a button.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended this Orwellian state of affairs. Writing in the Telegraph at the beginning of November, he insisted, �We need ID cards to secure our borders and ease modern life.�

He continued, �I know this will outrage some people but, in a world in which we daily provide information to a whole host of companies and organisations and willingly carry a variety of cards to identify us, I don�t think the civil liberties argument [against ID cards] carries much weight.�

Such disregard for long-standing legal principles, such as the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence, is no surprise coming from a prime minister whose government has enacted a plethora of anti-democratic legislation under the guise of the �fight against terror.�

The arguments employed by Blair have been regurgitated by Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, who derided those who oppose such massive state surveillance for indulging in middle class hysteria. Disingenuously claiming that there is really nothing to worry about in the �surveillance society,� Toynbee described opposition to the destruction of civil liberties as �paranoid speculation about imaginary abuses.�

Denouncing those for whom she claimed �liberty is taking priority over equality,� she insinuated that those opposing the erosion of democratic rights were seeking to divert from more pressing issues.

�Why aren�t people as angry about the galloping inequality in living standards?� she asked.

Toynbee is a long-standing defender of the Blair government, whose big business policies are directly responsible for the increase in social inequality.

Her argument not only gives carte blanche to the government for its attack on civil liberties. It also seeks to conceal the fact that this offensive is intimately bound up with �galloping inequality.�

Under conditions in which the mass of the population live in economic security, and in which all the last vestiges of welfare reforms are being dismantled, the British state is resorting to the most repressive measures to deal with the resulting class tensions.


http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/02/uk-surveillance.html

When it comes to privacy rights, Canada ranks among the top defenders while Britain is considered one of the worst protectors, according to a new survey.

Privacy International, a watchdog group that studies government and business surveillance and privacy practices, rated 36 countries, including 25 EU member states, on 13 national practices.

The practices included statutory and constitutional protections, the use of ID cards and closed circuit TV cameras. The countries were given a ranking from one to five `” five points denoting no invasive policies, and one point for extensive surveillance.

Germany (3.9) was ranked the highest, followed by Canada (3.6). They were the only two listed in the category of "significant protections and safeguards."

The two countries were followed by Belgium and Austria (3.2), and Hungary (3.1).

Britain ranked alongside Russia and China as countries demonstrating "endemic surveillance" of its citizens.

China and Malaysia (1.3) ranked at the bottom, followed by Singapore and Russia (1.4), and the U.K. (1.5).

The U.S. scored a 2, putting it in the "extensive surveillance society" category. In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the U.S. was ranked the worst in the democratic world.

'Waking up to surveillance society'

"This is damning evidence that privacy is being destroyed by the very nations that proclaim to respect our rights," Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said in a statement.

The survey comes as Britain's information commissioner warns his country has become a surveillance society.

"Two years ago I questioned, 'Are we sleepwalking into a surveillance society,'" said Richard Thomas. "Now I have to say we're waking up to a surveillance society."

The primary source of that information is closed circuit television cameras, the CBC's Harry Forestell reported. The streets of British cities, towns and villages are monitored by 4.2 million closed circuit cameras `” one for every 14 people.

Every person, on average, is viewed by 300 cameras a day. Police use facial and licence plate recognition technology to track anyone who looks suspicious.

British police are also allowed to demand DNA samples from anyone they detain, even if they haven't been formally arrested or charged with a crime.

Authorities hold more than 3.5 million sub-samples `” the largest DNA databank in the world.

However, much of the information can be used for good, Forestell said. Video cameras have dramatically increased conviction rates for some crimes and DNA evidence has helped police solve a backlog of crimes.

2
General / Is business the real Big Brother?
« on: May 17, 2007, 08:08:39 AM »
Is business the real Big Brother?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5015826.stm

Monitoring and surveillance of employees and customers by big business is now commonplace.



It's increasingly a feature of our daily lives, because businesses have found that it makes good business sense. But is corporate snooping out of control?

In Britain, we are all familiar with the CCTV cameras that have sprung up across our city centres and transport networks.

We generally accept that they are there to counter crime and help monitor traffic flows on our busy roads.

But how many of us realise that when we travel about, each of us is captured, on average, 300 times a day on CCTV, and should we be concerned?

Of course, if we look up, we can see the CCTV cameras. We know they're there.

But are they just the visible tip of a much larger and more deep-rooted surveillance society?

'Surveillance capital'

Dr Kirstie Ball of the Open University certainly thinks so. She believes that most of the surveillance and monitoring of our movements is hidden.

"It's everywhere, absolutely everywhere," she says.

"As we move throughout cities, throughout our jobs and lives, there are technologies and devices everywhere which capture our movements, capture our activities, which are then stored on databases as evidence of what we've been doing."

She is far from being alone in this view. "In Britain, we are saturated in a world of surveillance," says Simon Davies, director of Privacy International and a fellow of the London School of Economics.



"Britain has to be the surveillance capital of the Western world."

For most of us, surveillance conjures up images of spies in trenchcoats standing in the rain on gloomy street corners, and of Big Brother government telling us how we should think and behave.

But the kind of surveillance that worries privacy campaigners today concerns us as customers of big business. Customers are constantly monitored and tracked, mostly without realising it.

Secret devices

Take the Oyster card, for example, which millions of us use each day to pay for our journeys when travelling on London's tubes and buses. Not only do the cards record payment, but they can also track travellers' journeys across the city.

At the RAC's national breakdown centre, callers can be accurately located within seconds, thanks to the signals transmitted by their mobile phones.

An RAC patrolman reveals that many hire cars are now fitted with secret tracking devices, allowing rental companies to follow the movements of their customers.

"It used to be that surveillance was a bolt-on feature of society," says Mr Davies. "Now surveillance is part of the infrastructure. It's a design component."

For business, monitoring can mean greater efficiency in the work place. Bosses can see what is happening in real time and thereby identify what can be improved - or even, if they choose to, which employees are doing their job well and which ones are not.

A prime example of the highly-monitored work place is the call centre, where sophisticated software is used to log and analyse every second of agents' working lives.

Rufus Grig - who runs Callmedia, a company that makes computer software for call centre operations - explains to the Money Programme the extent of workplace monitoring. The call centre, he says, "can be a terrifically highly-monitored environment".

Efficiency check

In the warehouse operations that supply products to shops and supermarkets, more and more workers are required to wear computers which instruct them on the tasks they need to perform, as well as monitoring and recording every step they take.

Wincanton, one of Britain's biggest logistics companies, uses computer technology in many of its big distribution centres across Britain.



The firm has found that if properly used, the technology can bring big benefits for the company and workforce. But this has not been the experience everywhere.

Eddie Gaudie, from the GMB union, explains that some businesses closely monitor the productivity of their workers all day long.

He says: "At any time of the day, it's monitored down to the last minute, even in seconds."

Companies insist that these tracking technologies help to boost efficiency and cut costs, which is all to the customers' benefit.

"You can buy this argument that this is all for our own good," says Mr Davies. "I don't. Because what I believe about surveillance is that ultimately it is used against individuals, not for them."

No privacy

One new technology could mean there will soon be nowhere to hide for any of us. The big high street retailers are experimenting with putting tiny computer chips in their merchandise.

These chips are called Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. Potentially, they could be used to track the products and the people who buy them, out of the shops and into their homes.



One day, RFID chips could be on everything we buy, and it may not stop there.

Similar chips are also being implanted in patients in American hospitals, to act as minute ID cards and to track them through the medical system.

A world where everything and everybody can be tracked at any time, day or night, is a prospect which fills some observers with horror.

"You won't be able to hide from the system by closing your door or closing your curtains or hiding behind a wall," says privacy campaigner Christopher McDermott.

"The X-ray eyes of the state and of big corporates will be able to see through those, and will be able to see right into your very personal and private life."

Has business become the real Big Brother?

The Money Programme: The Real Big Brother, BBC Two at 7pm on Friday 26 May.

3
Christian Rights being removed.

 The Sexual Oreantation Regulations and the Letter to my MP

Dear Jon Leech

I wanted to thank you for your letter, there are a few issues that I wanted to raise, you pointed out that as a Methodist you say that it is important for your to uphold the rights of all people of all religions, I disagree as a Methodist it is your duty is to uphold the stance of the church regardless of your personal or political view.

I am deeply saddened that people in the government who once held to the traditions and by the authority witch it once stood on, are now disregarding for the stance of the church values, the fact that you are supposed to uphold to the beliefs of the church and yet the letter you had written, shows that you are taking a very liberal view point, the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is both proud and unrepentant according to the God of the bible, the homosexual lifestyle about living a lifestyle in pride, and the Homosexual individual involved is proud and unrepentant of his/her sinful lifestyle, it is my belief that people who are reasonable would question the fact that the government is in favour of the regulations, who would also be in favour of Gay rights supporters, that would love nothing more then to see those welfare organisations offering public services that disagree with the regulations on the bases of a persons lifestyle to be close down, it is not only on the bases of religious charities but this will effect the freedoms of nursings homes, Teen Challenge a Christian Drug rehabilitation program, guest houses, and possibly this will also make street evangelists like myself be turned into a criminal overnight, the Sexual Orientation Regulations would also discriminate against church groups and individual Christians.


You wrote that the SOR coursed anxiety amongst many Christians as individuals and especially in the catholic faith and that you feel that this should not course conflict between the rights of Christians to practice their religion and the rights of others to be free from discrimination on account of religious beliefs, and that you talk about the catholic adoption agency's being made to allow Gay couples to adopt children under their care.

Firstly I wanted to point out that the SOR would course conflict amongst many conservative Christians, as the Bible dose discriminate on the grounds of sexual sin, to be free from discrimination this would mean you would have to ban copies of the Bible that speaks out against the homosexual life style and would have a pro-homosexual copy of the bible for that agenda, though the practice of the homosexual life style has been going on a lot longer then the Bible was written, in the context of conflict you talk about on the grounds freedom of discrimination, it is my view that to make allowances for children to be brought up in a homosexual life style as a normal upbringing, you would have to discriminate against Christian liberties and the freedoms Christians have to practice there faith.

You talk about that Catholic Based adoption agencies have a first class reputation for the care and professionalism, which they bring to adoption agencies, involving very vulnerable children, the fact that this bill was passed by the house of lords would mean that these agencies would be forced to close down, these groups that carry a strict morel and ethical code according to the bases of their faith, that I have a the view that a homosexual family unit is unstable because it dose not qualify to meet the spiritual well-being of the child, nether dose any none-married family unites could ever bring a child up in a stable environment for children to have any spiritual upbringing based on morel values according to the principals of the Bible, for Children to have a stable upbringing they must be in a family unit that consists of married couples, a Child needs both male and female roles.


Though you speak on behalf of your political party it is my view that there is a conflict of interest concerning the 2002 Adoption Act, amongst people in parliament, as people do not seem to learn from the past, this stance is nothing new on the part of political parties, its common interest is to live up to the view of society rather then any Christian faith based group, or any Christian values, the fact that society would love to rid it self of any Christian influence it has, if any in the UK today.


By supporting this Legislation the Liberal democrats dose fully discriminate against the freedoms that Christians have to practice their faith publicly and openly, a Christian based faith group should have the right to refuse a homosexual couple on the grounds that they are obligated to obey the Bible, why should we be singled out if a homosexual couple wishes, that they want to adopt then they should go to secular organisations where they can adopt, it is their fore, that curtain people in the government has an biased view point against Christians.
The SOR is worrying to me as it fails to accept that a persons faith in the bible on the bases of Matthew 5:16 that apply to the whole life of a Christian, Christians should be able to practice their faith out side the confines of the church meetings, to freely practice in faith according to the bible and biblical principals is not just the freedoms to practice a faith silently but to act on them openly in public.


You talk about Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.


My view is that the Equality act 2006 has laws outlawing discrimination on the bases of religion, and must protect religious practices of faith groups. If this is compromised and removed this would mean that every Church group in the UK would be illegal, it is my view because you make exceptions to sexual orientation in the liberal democrats and other political groups you are therefore indirectly discriminating against religious believers since the majority are most likely to believe that a homosexual practice is wrong.

The fact that this bill has been passed would mean that a large majority of religious groups would lose their rights to the SOR.

The fact that a majority of religious people disagree with the SOR amongst Jewish, Moslem and Christian groups etc. and believe that a homosexual practice and lifestyle is morally wrong, if you look for example at six of the Major world religions and they are opposed to the Homosexual life style and practice as being wrong, on the grounds of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Yet it makes no discrimination or object to the individual who faces homosexual temptation but resists it. A person who deals with their temptation is in the same boat as every one else, on the other hand if a person acts according to his temptation and acts on his/hers homosexual practice or reserves the right to do so then that person rejects the ethical teaching of the Bible.
I have heard many people say that Gay rights are needed because they are born Gay and Cant change, but this cannot be backed up as there is no evidence to support this claim homosexuality is not a fixed trait like race or sex.

For example, a 2003 study by a leading psychiatrist who supports gay rights found that homosexuals could become `˜predominantly` heterosexual through psychotherapy.
84% of the homosexuals and lesbians in the study became heterosexual by the end of the study.
Spitzer, R L, `˜Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?

200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation`,
Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 32(5), 2003, page 411 No amount of psychotherapy can ever change a person`s race. It is clear that the Bible teaches that Christians are to be a servant to others in every aspect of their lives, Christians are to love their neighbour and do good to even those who disagree with them or oppose them, Luke 6:27. But no-one has shown that there is a real problem that demands legislative investigation, why then are the regulations being enforced.


The Face that the agenda is clear for people who back the SOR the aim is to promote the homosexual lifestyle and that the regulations according to Biblical principals is allowing Immorality on that bases.

According to Census 2001: National Report for England and Wales Part 2, ONS, 2004, Table UV93, page 70 The 2001 census found that fewer than 0.2% of all households in England and Wales are headed by a same-sex couple.

Why are sweeping new laws being created for such a small number of people?
To me its not promoting family Values but quite the opposite it is destroying marital values and that it wants to remove any place for marriage in society. When promoting and celebrating a homosexual lifestyle when it comes to sexual relationships there is not right or wrong anymore.
Here are a few examples of where the freedoms of Christians in the UK are being removed and how the SOR will effectively go against Christian practices in public and I believe it will remove protection for Christian groups.

Bishop of Chester

Bishop Peter Forster was investigated by Cheshire Constabulary after an interview in which he mentioned research showing that some homosexuals `˜re-orientate` through
therapy. A gay rights activist had made a complaint and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement supported it. The police eventually concluded no crime had been committed. The Chief Constable made an astonishing public attack on the Bishop, even suggesting his remarks could lead to violence.

The Chester Chronicle, 7 November 2003; The Daily Telegraph, 10 and 11 November 2003; The Independent, 10 November 2003; The Times, 11 November 2003; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3257623.stm as at 6 April 2006

Ake Green

A Swedish pastor was charged with inciting hatred against homosexuals after a sermon urging Christians to show homosexuals `deep respect` and offer them the `grace of Jesus
Christ`. He called sexual immorality, including homosexuality, a `cancerous growth` in society. He was convicted and sentenced to one month in jail. The Swedish Supreme Court acquitted him on appeal.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040907aa.asp as at 6 April 2006; http:
//www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744.aspx?newsid=1163 as at 6 April 2006; Offi ce of the Prosecutor-General v. Green, Case No. B 1050-05, Supreme Court of Sweden, 29 November 2005

Violence at Parliament

In 1998 when the Lords voted against reducing the homosexual age of consent, gay rights activists outside Parliament became violent. Protesters scuffl ed with police and jumped
barricades in a bid to get inside and confront Peers. Some, including former Archbishop Donald Coggan, were insulted, jostled and threatened.

Christian campaigner, Baroness

Young, had to be protected by police. Outrage!, Press release, House of Lords Besieged by Gay Rights Protesters, 26 July 1998 and Daily Mail, 23 July 1998Lynette Burrows
Mrs Burrows, author and family values campaigner, took part in a radio phone-in where she disagreed with placing children for adoption with homosexuals. An offended gay rights
activist complained to the police. The following day a police officer telephoned Mrs Burrows to take issue with her `˜homophobic` views. The Daily Telegraph, 10 December 2005; The Sunday Times, 18 December 2005; Daily Mail, 12 December 2006Western Isles Council

Christian registrars in the Western Isles of Scotland refused to carry out marriage-style ceremonies alongside the registration of homosexual `˜civil partnerships`.

The Council backed their decision and, as a result, received hate-mail from around the world,
including a call for councillors to be `hanged from the nearest tree`. The Scotsman, 20 and 21 December 2005; The Daily Telegraph (Scottish edition), 21 December 2005Desecration of a church

Gay rights group Stonewall held a meeting in Newcastle upon Tyne at which an audience-member called for volunteers to take action against Jesmond Parish Church. A few nights
later the 19th Century church was daubed with gay rights slogans, obscenities, pornographic drawings and personal attacks on the vicar. The Journal, 23 October 1999; Evening Chronicle, 23 October 1999; The Daily Telegraph, 23 October 1999

Joe & Helen Roberts

A retired Christian couple were subjected to an 80 -minute interrogation by police after they complained to their local council about its gay rights policies. No criminal offence was committed and yet the police and the council refuse to apologise for their actions. The
Roberts are taking legal action. Daily Mail, 23 December 2005

Harry Hammond

An elderly street preacher was assaulted by gay rights activists and then arrested for holding a placard saying, `Stop Immorality. Stop homosexuality. Jesus is Lord`. At
his trial he was convicted and fined £300 plus £395 costs. He died shortly
afterwards. A posthumous appeal was unsuccessful. The Mail on Sunday, 28 April 2002; The Mail on Sunday, 5 May 2002; Hammond v DPP [2004] EWHC 69
In April as the bill will be enforced this could lead Christians to go to prison, this will cost the tax payer more money for a bill that only protects a small minority of people and ultimately would not solve the overcrowding of the prison population but make it worse.

The fact that this this bill has not been looked at, properly but seemed to be a quite obvious that it promotes more of a anti-Christian agenda..

Yours sincerely

4
General / Non Bios view of Both the Land of Israel and Palistine
« on: July 31, 2006, 11:14:42 AM »
Im just looking at Hezbollah who ranted on saturday that "kill every Jew, wipe them off the face of the earth"

Their were refaring not to Israel but to Non-zionist and Jewish familys.

Dont coment on this just look at the 2 sites and the history of Hadj Amin Al Husseini head of the Islamic council in Israel with Hitlar.

in respect to those who died and we honor those who lost their lives against the Nazi occupation in the 2nd world war, I earnestly with all due respect would like you to view these 2 web sites.

http://photospalestine.free.fr/

http://www.malas-noticias.com.ar/ManoenaltoHiHitler.htm#TERRORISTAS

This is not properganda but in the Jewish holocost museums they also have these pictures on the ww2 account.

But it is appropreate to pleade to you the very mornfull responce for both sides, both Islamic and Jews who have stated about this very group.

Im not simply trying to give a view point but please respectfully look at the photos.

5
9/11 / Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
« on: March 26, 2006, 12:00:32 AM »
Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers

http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html

Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.

Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.

"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.

"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."

Suspicious collapse of buildings

Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.

"I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"

Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.

Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 110 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104undergroundexplosions.htm

Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

The highly suspicious collapse of building 7 and the twin towers has previously been put under the spotlight by physics Professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.

Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.

"This is not you or I watching the videos and speculating on what we saw, these are gentlemen inside the buildings at the very point of collapse."

"If there's a problem with building 7 then there's a problem with the whole thing," said Sheen.

Bush's behavior on 9/11

Sheen then questioned President Bush's actions on 9/11 and his location at the Booker Elementary School in Florida. Once Andy Card had whispered to Bush that America was under attack why didn't the secret service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location?

By remaining at a location where it was publicly known the President would be before 9/11, he was not only putting his own life in danger, but the lives of hundreds of schoolchildren. That is unless the government knew for sure what the targets were beforehand and that President Bush wasn't one of them.

"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.

The question of how Bush saw the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried, an assertion that Bush repeated twice, was also put under the spotlight.

"I guess one of the perks of being President is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," said Sheen.

"It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."

The Pentagon incident

Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the physical evidence.

"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."

We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.

"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.

Sheen also questioned how the plane basically disappeared into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections.

Concerning how the Bush administration had finalized Afghanistan war plans two days before 9/11 with the massing of 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and in addition the call for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," as outlined in the PNAC documents, Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."

http://pnac.info/

"Coincidence? We think not," said Sheen and he called the PNAC quotes "emblematic of the arrogance of this administration."

A real investigation

Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.

Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"

"It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Charlie Sheen joins the rest of his great family and notably his father Martin Sheen, who has lambasted for opposing the Iraq war before it had begun yet has now been proven right in triplicate, in using his prominent public platform to stand for truth and justice and we applaud and salute his brave efforts, remembering Mark Twain's quote.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."


Charlie Sheen Talking about 9-11, on the Alex Jones Show

The commercial free interview can be listened to from this URL:

http://www.infowarsmedia.com/audio/200306sheen_comm_free.mp3




Huge Reaction To Sheen 9/11 Story
Linked on Drudge, later removed

http://prisonplanet.com/index.html

Yesterday's Charlie Sheen story, in which the actor went public with his grave suspicions about the official story of 9/11, received widespread interest across the Internet and was even linked on the Drudge Report for a time, a news website that gets more traffic than the New York Times.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

Our observations will now center around the question of if any mainstream outlets will pick up the story or seek to interview Mr. Sheen regarding his comments. The story is obviously big enough to be of interest to a wide readership but its context may cause establishment controlled media to shy away in journalistic cowardice.

Leading alternative website Rense.com graciously carried the story as did many others but who will be the first aside from Drudge to give the issue mainstream spotlight?

http://rense.com/

The story appeared on Drudge shortly after 6pm CST and our servers began receiving hits from millions of readers. A link from Drudge regularly overloads even medium sized mainstream websites and they go offline for hours. Despite a little slowdown, we managed to ride the wave fairly comfortably until Drudge mysteriously killed the link after 10pm CST.

We had even replaced our usual format page with a bare bones printer-friendly style version to ensure maximum speed and delivery of the page, so it is unlikely Drudge (pictured below) removed the link because of bottlenecked traffic. We speculated that another webmaster had posted the link and Drudge personally removed it upon seeing it.

Whatever the reason for the removal, the story still received huge traction and we expect it to again garner interest across the Internet today.

In many ways a Hollywood celebrity stepping forward and making these comments receives more attention than a former government official or physics professor because the information is wrapped in a package that is instantly recognizable to a wide audience.

The danger is that some are dangerously ill-informed, such as Madonna, who dismissed 9/11 as "ambiguous" yet focused all the attention on Hurricane Katrina and kept the argument firmly within a left-right paradigm prison.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/221105celebritybandwagon.htm


Charlie Sheen on the other hand took the time to educate himself thoroughly on the real issues of 9/11 before going public with his doubts about the official story.

There are several very high profile actors and film producers who are well aware of the entire New World Order agenda and have directed their artistic talents into exposing that agenda through the guidance of popular culture.

This is a real movement and it is growing, unlike the Madonna's and their ilk, who are simply riding a wave which will wash away as rapidly as their mock ego-driven political opinions when a Democrat gets back in the White House.

Our hope is that Sheen's stance, which is by no means a rarity for him or his family who have been politically engaged for decades, will encourage other high profile celebrities to use their platform to educate America and the world on the serious issues that face us and the real perpetrators of global terrorism.

Despite a huge reaction amongst the alternative media to Charlie Sheen's comments on 9/11, in part thanks to a brief link on the Drudge Report which was mysteriously pulled after a few hours, newswires and entertainment outlets have actively sought to impose a blackout on the story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

n our first conversation with the Associated Press they strongly indicated that they would be running a story on Sheen's comments, as they did with Carlos Santana's much weaker comments about the Iraq war. However, after talking with Jeff Williams of the LA Associated Press office it became clear what the policy was.

Williams' attitude was brash and arrogant in saying (to paraphrase), 'I know all about Charlie Sheen and I don't care what he says.'

Asked if the story was newsworthy in comparison with the milquetoast Santana piece, Williams responded by saying 'we're not going to run anything.'

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ats-ap_entertainment11mar21,0,3308280.story?coll=ny-entertainment-headlines

Asked again if the story would be newsworthy if it wasn't attached to the 9/11 information and was just Sheen criticizing Bush, Williams barked 'you're not gonna bait me!' and slammed the phone down.

Further attempts to contact the Associated Press were met with stern rebuttals of 'we're not talking to you'.

Subsequently we contacted the Hollywood Reporter and spoke to a polite individual who said that he did consider the Sheen story to be newsworthy and that he had flagged it up for a potential piece, but that he was later told by someone in a higher office that there was to be no story and it seemed unusual.

We then contacted another major newswire who indicated that they had seen the story but under no circumstances were they touching it.

Does this represent simple journalistic cowardice or should we pay attention to the fact that the government has been caught time and time again paying off reporters to produce fake news and http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/161205fake_news.htm

the Church Hearings of the 70's which concluded that the CIA has fully infiltrated newspapers and newswires with their agents across the country?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-33,GGLD:en&q=church%2Bhearings%2Bmedia%2Bcia

The mainstream media pour over stories about every detail of Mr. Sheen's personal life whether real or manufactured yet will they remain silent when Sheen actually discusses something serious?

George Bush can be an admitted narcotics user, have DWI's, frolic around with homosexual porn star Jeff Gannon,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

scream at staffers and have fits of anger,

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

lie naked in a coffin and masturbate as part of his skull and bones ritual, and engage in mock human sacrifice at Bohemian Grove, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD%3A2004-33,GGLD%3Aen&q=bohemian%2Bgrove

a place where gay male porn stars are bused in to 'service' the members', http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2004/220704gaypornstar.htm and yet we are attacked by hypocritical phony Christians by even having Mr. Sheen as a guest on the show.

Again, Carlos Santana is all over the news today for criticizing George Bush and the Iraq war yet Charlie Sheen has gone much further, if the media ignores this story it is proof positive of a cover-up.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ats-ap_entertainment11mar21,0,3308280.story?coll=ny-entertainment-headlines

If Sheen had gone way overboard on 9/11 or used a limited hangout in saying that the attack was a result of incompetence the media would have been all over it. It is precisely because Sheen is dead on target with the facts that they have to ignore the story because his argument is credible.

Reaction from delusional Neo-Cons, a dwindling rabble of ignorant government apologists, has been predictable. The sum of counter-arguments against the evidence carefully presented by Sheen amounts to comments like "Sheen is an idiot," or the following comment which we received via e mail.

"Since Charlie Sheen has been dead for twenty years don't know how you got him to comment on 9/11. Maybe you should have contacted Elvis, he is living in inner city Detroit running a rescue mission with Adolph. They are also writing a book on how the South won the war. What the hell are you democrats going to come up with next? Do you all have day jobs?"

So the best they can come up with is saying Charlie Sheen's comments are not credible because he doesn't exist! This is the most bizarre conspiracy theory of them all and yet it is this insane level of idiocy that constitutes a minority of the response we received. Most comments were supportive of Mr. Sheen and his brave action in going public with his stance.

We will not cease in our efforts to turn this into a massive story but we need your support. Get the story and e mail it out to every newspaper, newswire and TV news station in existence.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

The media's unwillingness to cover this issue only deepens the abyss that they find themselves in. Newspaper readership is plummeting as people flock to the alternative media because the mainstream's credibility lies in tatters as it repeatedly lies by omission and covers-up for its government handlers.

Google Caught Censoring Charlie Sheen 9/11 Story
Quickly re-indexes pages during live radio discussion

http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html

Google is again embroiled in a censorship scandal after being caught blocking information about Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments, despite the fact that every other major search engine had indexed the pages.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

For days, major search engines like Yahoo and others contained tens of thousands of web pages relating to Sheen's comments first broadcast on the Alex Jones Show on Monday afternoon. Last night CNN aired a piece on the issue and by early this morning both the New York Post and the Boston Herald ran articles.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306Sheen_CNN.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306attackssheen.htm

We first noticed that there were no search results related to the story on Google the day after we broke the Sheen story. At first we decided to be fair and wait another day for Google to index an article which was by now linked on thousands of other websites and blogs. By Thursday afternoon, and with the story receiving more traffic, Google still had not indexed any material relating to the Sheen interview, from Prison Planet.com or any other websites. This despite the fact that the Drudge Report had briefly directly linked to our article, sending it millions of visitors.

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2006/03/21/20060321_002201.htm

During a live radio discussion of this issue between Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson on Alex Jones' broadcast Thursday afternoon, Google, as if they had people listening to the show, immediately re-indexed the pages and a search for 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' now returns 111,000 results at time of writing.

Pictured below are screenshots we managed to cache shortly before Google re-indexed the pages with the search terms 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' and the entire headline "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story". As you can see, the Boston Herald story is linked from Google News (Google do not censor their affiliates) but the main search engine below returned no results. To stress again, this is three days after we broke this massive story. The usual index time for a story of this size is 12-24 hours and at the same time that Google returned no results whatsoever, tens of thousands were being carried by other major search engines like Yahoo.

To make it crystal clear, Google's web spidering process is automated and we have received high Google rankings in the past for nothing stories that get little traffic. The Sheen story was linked everywhere and to eliminate it from Google's search results would have required technicians to physically access the spidering control panel and exclude an enormous amount of varied search terms.

Google has a history of censoring websites it dislikes within the US. Google Inc. banned and removed a mainstream news website from all its worldwide search engines, seemingly due to the website's reports on China's geopolitical affairs and military technology.

Google has banned its users inside the US and the rest of the world from accessing the Space War website from its search engine. Space War speculated at the time that this was at the behest of the "boys from Beijing."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/240206worldwideban.htm

Space War is a reasonably tame mainstream website that focuses on geopolitical affairs and satellite and military technology advancements. It is based in Australia and carries articles from AFP and United Press International.

After a complaints campaign supported by this website, Google agreed to re-index the website.

Did our defense of Space War cause Google to impose a blackballing campaign on our major articles or is this just a response to the sheer magnitude and influence of the Charlie Sheen story?

To emphasize, Google is now carrying search results related to Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments, but only after it was exposed live on nationally syndicated radio that they had stonewalled this issue for three clear days even as it raged around the rest of the Internet as a viral story and broke into the mainstream yesterday and early this morning.

The floodgates on the Sheen story have opened, with CNN airing a balanced piece on the controversy. Meanwhile mainstream publications like Human Events, the New York Post, CBS and the Boston Herald used Sheen's comments to attack him and demonize anybody who questions the official line on 9/11. A round-up article of today's reaction to Charlie Sheen's comments will follow later tonight.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306attackssheen.htm

this is alex and sheens video interview

http://prisonplanet.tv/members/video/sheen_interview_net.wmv

6
General / Re: What exactly is 'Free Speech'?
« on: March 21, 2006, 12:35:43 AM »
here is a good article on free speach
 
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)


Quote
FREEDOM OF SPEECH

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." (George Orwell)

    All together, there are six (6) rights guaranteed by the First Amendment -- religion, speech, press, assembly, association, and petition -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Collectively, they protect what is known as the freedom of expression (technically consisting of assembly, petition, press, and speech). Association is a derivative right from speech, assembly, and petition. Religion has more to do with the freedom of conscience than freedom of expression. This lecture deals with the right to free speech, or what is more commonly referred to as freedom of speech. 

    First of all, no one takes the literal command "no" to mean no. Justice Hugo Black (1937-1971) was the last one to believe that "Congress shall make no law" means Congress shall make no law. Such an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment leaves no restrictions on obscenity, libel, or slander. More predominant interpretations look at speech as distinct from speech plus (speech plus other conduct, commonly called demonstration or protest), conduct, or the effects of speech.  Congress has every right in the world to control these things.  It's also possible to draw upon the social contract theories of the founding fathers to understand that the First Amendment was intended to serve several important social functions:

    (1) educational function (to advance knowledge and potential for self-fulfillment)
    (2) safety valve function (to speak openly without fear of government reprisal)
    (3) truth-seeking function (to determine truth thru debate and adversity)
    (4) social obligation function (to learn what is important to say)

    These social functions point out that the First Amendment is about protecting the public good rather than individual freedom. Freedom of speech in America has NEVER been absolute. Ever since The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, there have been a number of laws restricting scandalous, malicious, inflammatory or false utterances, particularly any attempting to defame or bring down the government, or help its enemies. Many First Amendment cases have dealt with the banning of Communist or Socialist expression (outside of the protected classroom context), but they have had wider implications by establishing various tests for all kinds of speech, as follows.

    During World War I, several cases challenged Selective Service and Espionage laws. The 1919 decisions in Schenck v. U.S. and Abrams v. U.S. established the Clear and Present Danger Test:

        The Clear and Present Danger test - The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It does not protect a man from uttering words that have the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words in such circumstances are such as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about evils the government has a right to prevent. The First Amendment exists to protect the public good as well as individual expression.

    In the 1920s, two cases, Gitlow v. New York (1925) and Whitney v. California (1927) established an even more conservative test - the Bad Tendency Test:

        The Bad Tendency test - The freedom of speech does not protect disturbances to the public peace, attempts to subvert the government, inciting crime, or corruption of morals. The danger is none the less real and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be seen. Just as with the offense of conspiracy, or other preparatory steps, the government need not wait until the spark has kindled the flame. It can act toward any threat to public order, even those that do so only remotely.

    It's important to note that the above made membership in any subversive organization punishable in itself. Tougher laws followed, such as the Smith Act, which made it unlawful to even joke about overthrowing the U.S. government. Literature was banned, such as the Communist Manifesto which simply said "Workers of the world unite." The 1920s, 30s, 40s, and 50s were also hard years for labor unions which protested working conditions. Free speech wasn't even considered a preferred freedom until 1938 with U.S. v. Carolene Products, and then, it was only mentioned in a footnote (which later became a basis for the strict scrutiny doctrine).

    Although the preferred freedom approach helped overturn a couple of cases, this liberal tendency was short-lived because, by 1951 in Dennis v. U.S., the Court was articulating a revised version of the clear and present danger test - the Clear and Probable Danger test:

        The Clear and Probable Danger test - In each case, we must ask whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger. Contexts too numerable to ponder exist and events are often too remote to foresee. Cases must be decided on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, considering that the government's reasons for regulation are compelling.

    The Dennis decision was significant for a number of reasons. It fueled McCarthyism and much of American's Cold War hysteria over Communist spies. It came close to allowing authorities to go after academics who taught Marxist-Leninist theories in the classroom (actually, New York did go after academics in 1952 with its so-called Feinberg laws). Dennis sparked dissent on the Court, and a couple of liberal dissents would form the basis for much of what followed in the more liberal 1960s.

    Once the Red Scare was over and with the advent of the liberal Warren Court Era (1953-1969), communists, labor unionists, and other so-called subversives enjoyed a few minor legal victories. The case that brought these victories to a head, and overturned the Bad Tendency test once and for all, was Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). It was a different kind of case for the Court, involving a KKK leader advocating the return of all blacks to Africa and all Jews to Israel. By unanimous vote, the justices defended the Klan's right to say such things at rallies as long as there was no incitement to action, to wit, the Brandenburg Test was developed:

        The Brandenburg test - Merely teaching or advocating unpopular ideas must be distinguished from teaching or advocating the duty, necessity, or propriety of acting on those beliefs. The right to speak and organize cannot be abridged no matter if the group's message and purpose are repugnant to American values (such as KKK speech). In order for government to intervene, the speaker must subjectively intend incitement (imminent evil), use words which are likely to produce action (imminent action), and openly encourage or urge incitement (suggesting, for example, it's a duty to commit a crime).

    Not only did the Supreme Court defend the right of repugnant groups like the KKK to express themselves, but a series of related cases in the post-1969 aftermath of Brandenburg presented a problem which has come to be known in Constitutional Law as "The Heckler's Veto." This problem scenario involves the possibility that some heckler in the audience could get the speaker to shut up (or more accurately, get the police to shut him up) simply by threatening a violent audience reaction. The Court came down on the side of defending the speaker in such instances - requiring police to protect speakers by rounding up such hecklers.

    In the 1960s and 70s, the issue was symbolic speech. Antiwar protesters were not so much saying things as doing things, like burning the flag, burning draft cards, holding sit-ins, love-ins, and the like. One of the first cases which considered whether symbolic speech such as this deserved constitutional protection was the 1968 case of U.S. v. O'Brien, hence the O'Brien Test:

        The O'Brien test - Governments must have a substantial government interest that is not related to suppressing the message before contemplating action restricting expressive conduct or symbolic speech. (e.g., it is unconstitutional to have a flag desecration law if the only reason for having it is that people should respect the flag; i.e., there must be other reasons such as noise, traffic congestion, trespass, disorderly conduct, breach of peace.)

    O'Brien stands as the most widely-used test. The Court was providing absolute protection to the message, but not the conduct. O'Brien involves some deep psychological issues as the critical test for separating message from conduct. The law is waiting for psychology to resolve thought/action and attitude/behavior controversies. Thought and belief are not subject to government control, but speech is often the link between thought and action. The current situation is that symbolic speech, like flag-burning, is constitutionally protected. In a narrow 5-4 majority with Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court upheld the right to burn the flag, regardless of its symbolism, as long as a disturbance of the peace does not occur. Oddly enough, two of the Court's conservatives (Scalia and Kennedy) voted with the majority, and the strongest liberal on the Court (Stevens) dissented. In the public uproar that followed, President Bush and Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was quickly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1990.

A CAVEAT ABOUT TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS

    As the preceding cases and tests illustrate, people who want to protest or express their views do NOT have a constitutional right to do so whenever, wherever, and however they please. There are time, place, and manner restrictions. We'll deal a bit later with place under the topic of forum analysis. For now, we shall distinguish between areas that are definitely beyond any First Amendment protection (unprotected speech) and areas that may be beyond First Amendment protection (semi-protected speech).

UNPROTECTED SPEECH

    The following areas represent some key areas where the Supreme Court has struggled with the idea of a balance between what might be called a right to be offensive or indecent and the government's role to regulate. As we shall see, there are few barriers to government interference or regulation, but there are some interesting tests and standards.  Some basics should be remembered at this point; to wit:  that the primary constraint on government is that officials must be engaged in a legitimate purpose (doing their duty), and the law to be enforced must not be too broad or vague (void for vagueness), and the law must be content neutral (not impinging upon a suspect class), and not intervene before the fact unless extraordinary circumstances exist (prior restraint), and not have a "chilling effect" (which makes people fearful of engaging in legitimate activities).

(1) OBSCENITY
    Despite having grappled with the definition of this term, the Court has consistently ruled that obscenity is not protected. The English common law definition is "anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence." For many years, this definition was taken to mean that the crime of obscenity consisted of distributing material to youth which might have an immoral impact. To this day, anything directed to, or involving youth (such as child pornography) brings down a quick, suppressive response from government. Organized pornography didn't start in America until the 1950s, and that's when the Court started to get involved (first in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 US 380 (1957) which held that language such as "tending to the corruption of morals" was overly broad).  The following cases illustrate the Supreme Court's shifts in thinking.

        The Roth test - from Roth v. U.S. 354 US 476 (1957) defined obscenity as material calculated to debauch the minds and morals of those in whose hands it might fall. The impact upon the average person must be determined. The test is the effect of a whole work (not one picture or passage) on the average person applying contemporary community standards (not national standards) to determine if the work is without redeeming social importance or patently offensive.  If an idea has "redeeming social importance," however, it is protected, and this would include unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, and even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of public opinion.  Obscenity does not rise to the level of redeeming social importance because it "deals with sex in a manner appealing to the prurient interest" (Justice Brennan, writing for the majority).  Sex and obscenity are not synonymous, however.  Prurient interest, at least according to Webster's New International Dictionary (1949) is defined as "material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts...an itching, longing, uneasiness with desire or longing, having morbid or lascivious longings, of desire, curiosity, or propensity, lewd...a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion."  The Roth test was the standard for 16 years, but it underwent some modification and refinement.

        The Roth-Memoirs test - from A Book Named John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetss 383 US 413 (1966) is from a case often simply referred to as "the Memoirs case" and it modified or expanded the Roth test by adding that something could not be deemed obscene unless it met an "utterly without redeeming social value" test. This presumably meant that obsene material had to have something more, besides having a dominant theme which was prurient and was patently offensive to prevailing community standards.  This upgrading of the redeeming social importance test in Roth was intended to point out that judges are, depending upon your interpretation, either not qualified to evaluate the social content of books, or held to higher standard when doing so.  The "utterly without redeeming social value" test is to be applied separately and independently from other elements; i.e., "the social value of a book can neither be weighed against nor cancelled by its prurient interest or patent offensiveness (Brennan and Fortas).   

        The Miller test - from Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1973) was a landmark ruling which discarded the Roth test and remains the current standard for pornography today.  Justice Burger laid out the new, three part test as: "(a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct, as outlined in state law, in a patently offensive way; and (c) whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."  Burger explicitly rejected the Memoirs requirement that obscene material be found to be "utterly without redeeming social value," replacing it with the less stringent standard of lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."  Burger also rejected the Jacobellis requirement (from Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) which held that national standards ought to be used or at least how something is reviewed in 100 cities nationwide).  Instead, the Miller test says to use "contemporary community standards" to evaluate whether something appeals to the "prurient interest" and is "patently offensive."  Opening the door to community standards tends to reshape the definition of obscenity to anything morbid, abnormal, disgusting, and perverted and also anything involving hard core acts which demean women, at least according to some interpreters.  Leaving it up to state law to describe the kind of sexual conduct to be regulated was intended to provide some kind of fair notice to purveyors of pornography, but had the effect of giving state legislators control over determining what is patently offensive.  Miller kept the Roth components of average person, work taken as a whole, and contemporary community standards. An interesting procedure at this time was that police could not seize all copies to halt sale, just enough evidence for trial. Procedure today requires extreme degrees of specificity in search warrants, but otherwise the whole lot of offensive material is confiscated.  Miller remains the key test for determining obscenity.

(2) LIBEL
    If someone believes that a defamation of their character has occurred by the publication of a known falsehood, they can bring a civil action of libel against the offending party and collect both compensatory and punitive damages. Libel and libelous statements are beyond First Amendment protection. Truth is the only defense to libel; good motives don't matter; half-truths are as bad as lies. Public officials are held to a higher standard than private citizens when proving libel because the Constitution says people can speak out against government, whether true or false (unless the libel is seditious or treasonous).

        The New York Times test - from New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) requires that actual malice (knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not) be present, and that there be some presumed damage to reputation, profession, business, charge of an indictable offense, or tendency to bring an individual into public contempt.

        The Hustler Magazine test - from Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) requires that not only public officials but public figures in general must prove actual malice, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if no damage is done to reputation. The test is whether a parody, cartoon, or something clearly for entertainment purposes is outrageous in its intent.

(3) FIGHTING WORDS
    There's a long history of cases involving citizens calling cops "assholes" and other terms, which usually results in some altercation with later allegations of police brutality. Of course, speech that directly threatens the officer's safety ("I'm coming down to the station and kill you") or clearly hinders the officer's performance of their duties is criminal, but certain types of profanity, name calling, and obscene gestures are also not constitutionally protected. There's too many examples to list them all, but most of the unprotected language involves four-syllable words like "Damn you"; "F*** you"; and "You fascist".

        The Chaplinsky test - from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) holds that a state can lawfully punish someone for the use of insulting "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

        The Cohen test - from Cohen v. California (1971) involves whether "fighting words" can be put on a sign or clothing, in this case the F-word on a jacket. The test is whether others can avert their eyes easily enough and do not experience a direct insult in terms of offensiveness.

        The Lewis test - from Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974) defined "fighting words" as anything abusive and insulting, under face-to-face circumstances likely to provoke an immediate violent response. Police are held to a higher standard of being able to take more abusive language than the average person. There must be some conduct (spitting, moving one step closer, pointing a finger) along with speech that is expressed violently. See this graphic for an example of the speech-conduct.

(4) NUDITY
    Local law enforcement has always had a powerful role to play in regulation of red-light districts, nude bars, strip clubs, and adult movie theatres. Gross and open indecency has always been a common law crime. Most of the cases here have involved the display of female breasts and buttocks in ways that a person cannot avert their eyes. The Court has NOT banned all nudity, however, and in fact has declared that nudity by itself cannot be declared obscene simply to protect minors. Adequate protections or other restrictions must exist for such activities to be carried out.

        The Erznoznik test - from Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975) involved the showing of an adult movie at an outdoor drive-in movie lot. The screen at the drive-in was such that passerbys could easily view it.  Concern for highway safety notwithstanding, the City passed a municipal ruling that the theatre had to either restrict its movie offerings or construct high, protective fencing, which was upheld at first in court.  Upon appeal, the court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and invalidated Jacksonville's law. They essentially applied strict scrutiny in this case because the law discriminated against protected expression (movies) solely on the basis of content without a compelling state interest.
         

        The Barnes test - from Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) involved a South Bend, Indiana club known as the Kitty Kat Lounge which provided live nude entertainment which private customers viewed behind glass windows. The Court ruled that such arrangements are appropriate as long as performers wear a scant amount of clothing (such as pasties and a G-string) to become slightly less graphic. Generally, the government should allow non-lascivious display of genitalia as a form of erotic expression, as long as it doesn't involve sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, sodomy, or degradation to women. It's the effect on the customers in soliciting prostitution that the government should be concerned about.

SEMI-PROTECTED SPEECH

    There are in-between categories between free speech and unprotected speech. Generally, governments have a free hand in how they want to go about regulating these areas. The following areas may or may not trigger a constitutional protection, and may or may not involve situations which encroach upon the rights of others (protestors who block entrances), burdens on government functions (free flow of passerbys), and forms of expression that may or may not take a violent form or lead to criminal activity.

(1) HATE SPEECH
    Hate is obviously a belief or idea, and even if false, the First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a false idea. There are certain activities which cross the line, and others that don't. The current Justices are sharply divided on the whole issue of hate crime.

        The Garrison test - from Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) requires hate-motivated speech will be protected if the speaker honestly speaks out of hatred, and honestly believes they are contributing to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.

        The R.A.V. test - from R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) involved teenagers who burned a cross inside the yard of an African-American family. The Court ruled the teenagers could not be punished under an overly broad hate crimes statute and that since the conduct contained a political message, it should be protected, but that hate crimes in general should be dealt with in other ways than bringing the First Amendment into the picture.

(2) INTERNET DEFAMATION
    Suppose, for example, you participated in a discussion board, chat room, or other Internet forum, and someone else in that forum lashed out at you, calling you names and making stuff up about you. Well, that's called Internet defamation. Defamation is an insult to character which is less serious and less actionable than libel or slander. In the world of rapidly changing Cyberspace Law, one of the standing doctrines is the following.

        The Gertz test - from Gertz v. Welch (1974) requires that private individuals who feel defamed in some communications medium must first remedy themselves of every opportunity in that medium for self-help, correcting the error or minimizing its impact on reputation. The Court must balance the need for absolute protection of the medium with consideration for those who lack effective opportunities for rebuttal.

(3) COMMERCIAL SPEECH
    Commercial speech is that which is aimed at quickly separating a sucker from their money. Examples include panhandling, telemarketing (if not at commonsense hours), toxic products (if no health warnings about potential hazards are listed), lawyer advertising (ambulance chasing), and false advertising (such as airlines promoting one rate and charging you another).

        The Liquormart test - from Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996) involves billboard advertisements for alcohol at low prices, and the Court upheld the right of businesses to do so as long as ads were truthful and not misleading. Any "fortuitous" increases at the point of sale would have to be regulated by other consumer protections than the First Amendment. Freedom of consumer choice does not involve consideration of whether alcoholics would forgo other necessities in order to meet marginal price increases.

(4) CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
    One of the big issues in political corruption involves whether politicians can get around the law's limitations on contributions and restrictions by how they speak to attract money. Even the appearance of corruption is a matter of serious interest to the Court. Current law prohibits contributions on the basis of any candidate's stance on an issue. Money can only be contributed which expressly calls for a politician's election or defeat.

        The Buckley test - from Buckley v. Valeo (1976) holds that there should be no limitations on spending from a candidate's personal income and that such private money may be used to promulgate views which may attract contributors on certain issues. Clear-cut invitations for money are prohibited, however, out of fairness to less wealthier candidates. Loopholes in contributor limits ($1000 per person) which allow more than the limit in vague terms such as "relative to" a candidate are constitutionally infirm.

    Since much of Free Speech law is confusing, and perhaps the most confusing part of it is the criminal law aspect, the following table attempts to summarize what is not a crime and what is a crime.

7
General / Re: Happy St Patricks Days
« on: March 19, 2006, 01:26:12 AM »
Axle no im not Irish I just know my history, and it was correct to say that he was British Blood and Born,

St. Patrick's, said of homosexuality that "it is a disorder and, as a disorder, should prevent a person from being ordained a priest."

This is why I laughed at the Gay right movement who are ignorant of St Patrick in his day any one cought in the act of sodomy would be berned alive on a stake this is what called Hypocrocy of the Gay and lesbion movement yet they will have people arested for preaching on the streets...

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0429-03.htm


8
General / Re: Happy St Patricks Days
« on: March 17, 2006, 01:34:32 PM »
LOL intresting St Patrick was a Homophobe and would of burned people for commiting sodomy and he was not even irish.

9
you disagree with my article on the book of jude or SENSUALITY AS WORSHIP article,

under the title SENSUALITY AS WORSHIP

I was a carasmatic in my time and coming out of the movement the churches that I went to were only driven by music and the worship of songs then true worship thats obediance in Christ Jesus, this is one I wrote on the matter based on my own personal expereances.



Music and Emotionalism.

 The influence of music in today`s churches is becoming a cause for concern. The
way music is being used to stimulate a `spiritual experience`. How that music and
emotional feelings have become synonymous with being an expression of worship.

The question to be asked is, `Are Praise and worship the same or are they
different?`

We have to look at music but in its context, what it is used for and why?

Music is used as a way and means to promote the gospel, which in itself is not
wrong, however it is being used as a technique to persuade people that what
they are experiencing is a "true Spiritual experience".

In this day and age many Christians believe that the gospel is not effective and
efficient in this present social climate so it is reasoned that Jesus must be dressed
up to make him presentable and relevant to the world, that the Biblical idea of
salvation from sin and eternal punishment should be de-emphasised.

That which has been tried and tested over centuries of church history is being
abandoned in favour of what is felt to be a more `culturally relevant` way of
communicating the Gospel. Less and less of us preach the gospel and more
and more of us seek to entertain people thus consigning the example of Christ,
the apostles and countless generations of what men and women of God to the
garbage heap. What so many have died for in the past is now either forgotten
or simply taken foe granted. Was it all for nothing?

People forget the Luthers, Calvins, Torreys and your D.L Moodys etc. as being
yesterday`s material, instead let`s have this "Spirit of Friendship" the popularising
of Christianity. If it weren`t for the example of people like these we would never
have had the spreading of the Gospel message, nor would we have had the Bible
in our own language!

The attitude of many Christians today is that "it`s un-cool to be a boring normal
Christian", so instead they do as the world does. In order  to get members they
preach `Come and Join the Party`! Or they say that being a Christian is also
about having `Fun` and `Going Out`!

It`s not that going out is wrong, you have to look at that in its context. What do
they mean by the word `Fun` and the word `Going Out` what`s the motive?

God looks at the intent of our hearts.

There is great pressure on today`s youth (especially teenagers who claim to believe
in Jesus and who are being fed on a diet of milk). The world that throws allsorts of
things at them such as what they see on television or read in the papers, magazines,
the internet etc. Every thing is about experientialism, and the need to feel a `buzz`.

Emotions are not wrong but if we thrive on them there is a danger point.

This is what Jesus says Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias
prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips,
but their heart is far from me.

They have a tendency to think that Christian worship revolves around musical forms
and the emotions that this generates. Christianity needs to have `Street Cred`!.

They don`t seem to understand that true worship revolves around your conduct on a
daily basis. It is about how we treat others and our own witness before the multitudes
of the unbelieving world. It is not just about prayer but also the spreading of the gospel,
the message of repentance from sin and turning to Christ this is what it means to
worship.

We don`t need to feel God in order to act on our faith and do what Jesus commands
us to do on a day-to-day basis. Worship is doing what is required of us, a daily sacrifice.

Romans 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your
bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service
of worship. NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

We look at praise, the thing you do to express your self to God in song and dance.
People often get that mixed up with worship because a person has a heightened
sense of spiritual experience doesn`t make it worship. This becomes an emotional
experience not necessarily a spiritual one.

The scriptures say to test the sprits to see if they are of God.

Now we look at the concept of emotionalism.

Emotion is a very powerful motivational tool.

Emotion can cause us to change.

Emotion can make us from being tired to motivated.

Emotion can make us depressive and takes the form of causing us to have
the feeling of hopelessness.

The Bible talks very much about our emotions and how they affect our
conduct to God:

2 Corinthians 7:8-11. Godly Sorrow moves us towards repentance with
motivates us to do what God wills

It would be wrong to say (or think) that the Christian faith was ever intended to
enrich our emotions. Emotions can be a powerful thing and there are dangers
with us trusting in our emotions. They can often lead us astray. In the bible the
emotion of anger is not sinful, but to act upon anger can lead us to sin.
Ephesians 4:26.

The cares and pleasures of this world can hinder the truth in our hearts.
(Luke 8:13,14).

It would seem that not only are our own emotions are dangerous ground when
it comes to our own personal lives and conduct, but, when we are dealing with
matters of our faith there are some things that we need to be aware of: our
emotions and our conduct must be brought under obedience to God.

Our Personal Faith.

Emotions can cause us to avoid learning the matters of our faith. (Galatians
4:16; Isaiah 30:9-13).

Emotions can deceive us in believing that we are acceptable to God when
we are not. (Jeremiah 6:13-15; 10:23).

Emotions in False Teaching.

False teachers will entice people by appealing to the emotions. Feeling
good or bad for example. (I Corinthians 2:1-5).

False teachers will teach people to depend on emotions to determine
matters of faith. (II Timothy 4:3,4).

Conclusion. The Bible does not call upon us to be void of emotion, but
we must never allow our emotions to determine, or direct our faith. (Psalm
119:105-106).
 
By Miguel Hayworth written in 2003

10
its intresting my dad wrote some thing that hit the churches in the United Kingdom.

The first Article is what I wrote.

Quote
The Book of Jude commandment contend for the faith

 Part 1

The Epistle of Jude was written as a instructional letter for the people of God (believing Jews and Gentles). This letter was written as a warning and a reproof. In these last days the lessons are there to be learned from the examples of the Old Testament saints as to what happens when we stray. Surrounded by heretical teachers, and people who are disobedient to God etc., the temptation is to follow the crowd, to compromise and fall asleep spiritually because we are not aware of the dangers of listening to them and, subsequently, coming under God's judgment.


At times it is right to fight against false teachings, cults and virtually anything that is done in the name of Jesus that is contrary to the Bible.

What do other scriptures say about it?

The scriptures warn us about what will happen in the last days. Jesus said in Mathew 7:15 - 20 that we are to be aware of false prophets, not to be afraid of them. If you are born again, led by the Holy Spirit, then you should be able to discern their fruits. The example and teaching of Jesus even tells us how to identify the false teachers.

Mathew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

What did Jesus mean when he said "by their fruits", he meant where their teaching will lead, in Proverbs 20:11, in 2 Peter 2:1 we read what it says about false teachers.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Here 2 Peter 2:1 warns us of a future event, Jude says the false teachers are here already. 2 Peter 2:1 the word "privily" means "what is done in secret", so these teachers secretly bring in damnable heresies. This happens when the teachers who preach from the pulpit twist the scriptures, this is God`s judgment on these people and those who love to hear them and who compromise with them.

God knows what is in the heart of the individual.

2 Cr 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby
justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

So those that are not in Christ are not justified because they are lawbreakers and cannot keep any covenant with God in Christ. Only through his blood have we been made justified by Christ.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

W e can see that how we are made Justified in Romans 5:1.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Knowing because of our faith in Jesus we have peace with God, through Christ alone, by his blood we are also sanctified this means "made holy", set apart for God.

1 Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Jhn 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Whose minds the gods of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should
shine on them.

We know that God lets them become blind because of their disobedience, this is their Judgment because the simple fact is that they don't listen to God nor do they obey him.

This is what God says, here we are commanded yet again as Paul instructs :

2 Ti 4:2; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

This is a commandment not a suggestion. God wants us to preach the word of God. Why? Because it brings conviction from sin and the hope of salvation. We are commanded to reprove, meaning to correct error. If the believer does not listen to his correction, no matter who that person is, we are to rebuke them (in some cases publicly). It then says to exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine, this is what most don't want and don't even like, "exortation". Even if bad things happen as a result of it, for example if you expose their hidden deceit using the light of God's word, people who claim to be Christians will be the very people who will conspire to spread false rumors about you.

Exorting with doctrine, Judge (TEST) every thing we are taught, if that teaching or doctrine is false then we should not compromise and just sit back and accept it! Either speak to the person who is teaching the doctrine falsely (this is not suggesting that we should bite the persons head off, but in humility. Some times it is necessary to do it in a strong manner, other times we need to be gentle, above all having the character of Christ in dealing with the individual, remembering that each person is different.

An instruction for our Pastors and leaders from Ezekiel Chapter 33:7-9.

Eze 33:7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto
the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

Eze 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked [man], thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked [man] shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Eze 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

God said in Ezekiel that he leaves an instruction with a warning, that leaders and pastors are to be watchmen. When people who have been appointed for that position by God see a wolf they are to alarm the church and warn them so that the false teachers can be rejected, if a such a one as mentioned in verse 8 who is in error or is disobedient to God does not get corrected then he will die in his sin and that you will fall under judgement because you let that person carry on in his sin without warning them. This is a sin that is committed against God.

Verse 9 but if that person has been told and warned and he still does not listen nor corrects his ways then the unrepentant sinner will die in his own sin, and you will not receive God's Judgment for his sin.

The higher price is on the people God has appointed as our leaders, elders and pastors.

Ezekiel Chapter 34: 1 `“ 10

Eze 34:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe [be] to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill
them that are fed: [but] ye feed not the flock.

Eze 34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye
healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up [that which
was] broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven
away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force
and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

Eze 34:5 And they were scattered, because [there is] no shepherd:
and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were
scattered.

Eze 34:6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon
every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the
earth, and none did search or seek [after them].

Eze 34:7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;

Eze 34:8 [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock
became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the
field, because [there was] no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;

Eze 34:9 "Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD";

Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

God is speaking in Ezekiel 34:1 - 10 this is a opening in the chapter God is is angry at his shepard's and he charges them with these 2 things,

Henry's commentary says:
Quote
"1. that all their care was to advance and enrich themselves and to make themselves great. Their business was to take care of those that were committed to their charge: Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? No doubt they should; they betray their trust if they do not. Not that they are to put the meat into their mouths, but to provide it for them and bring them to it. But these shepherds made this the least of their care; they fed themselves, contrived every thing to gratify and indulge their own appetite, and to make themselves rich and great, fat and easy. They made sure of the profits of their places; they did eat the fat, the cream (so some), for he that feeds a flock eats of the milk of it (1Co 9:7), and they made sure of the best of the milk. They made sure of the fleece, and clothed themselves with the wool, getting into their hands as much as they could of the estates of their subjects, yea, and killed those that were well fed, that what they had might be fed upon, as Abbot was put to death for his vineyard. Note, There is a woe to those who are in public trusts, but consult only their own private interest, and are more inquisitive about the benefice than about the office, what money is to be got than what good to be done. It is an old complaint, All seek their own, and too many more than their own. "'

Henry's commentary

Quote
"2. That they took no care for the benefit and welfare of those that were committed to their charge: You feed not the flock. They neither knew how to do it, so ignorant were they, nor would they take any pains to do it, so lazy and slothful were they; nay, they never desired nor designed it, so treacherous and unfaithful were they. "

Henry's commentary

Quote
(1.) They did not do their duty to those of the flock that were distempered, did not strengthen them, nor heal them, nor bind them up, #Eze 34:4. When any of the flock were sick or hurt, worried or wounded, it was all one to them whether they lived or died; they never looked after them. The princes and judges took no care to right those that suffered wrong or to shelter injured innocency. They took no care of the poor to see them provided for; they might starve, for them. The priests took no care to instruct the ignorant, to rectify the mistakes of those that were in error, to warn the unruly, or to comfort the feeble-minded. The ministers of state took no care to check the growing distempers of the kingdom, which threatened the vitals of it. Things were amiss, and out of course, every where, and nothing was done to rectify them.

Henry's commentary

Quote

(2.) They did not do their duty to those of the flock that were dispersed, that were driven away by the enemies that invaded the country, and were forced to seek for shelter where they could find a place, or that wandered of choice upon the mountains and hills (Eze 34:6), where they were exposed to the beasts of prey and became meat to them, Eze 34:5. Every one is ready to seize a waif and stray. Some went abroad and begged, some went abroad and traded, and thus the country became thin of inhabitants, and was weakened and impoverished, and wanted hands both in the fields of corn and in the fields of battle, both in harvest and in war: My flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, Eze 34:6. And they were never enquired after, were never encouraged to return to their own country: None did search or seek after them. Nay, with force and cruelty they ruled them, which drove more away, and discouraged those that were driven away from all thoughts of returning. Their case is bad who have reason to expect better treatment among strangers than in their own country. It may be meant of those of the flock that went astray from God and their duty; and the priests, that should have taught the good knowledge of the Lord, used no means to convince and reclaim them, so that they became an easy prey to seducers. Thus were they scattered because there was no shepherd, Eze 34:5. There were those that called themselves shepherds, but really they were not. Note, Those that do not do the work of shepherds are unworthy of the name. And if those that undertake to be shepherds are foolish shepherds (Zec 11:15), if they are proud and above their business, idle and do not love their business, or faithless and unconcerned about it, the case of the flock is as bad as if it were without a shepherd. Better no shepherd than such shepherds. Christ complains that his flock were as sheep having no shepherd, when yet the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, Mt 9:36. It is ill with the patient when his physician is his worst disease, ill with the flock when the shepherds drive them away and disperse them, by ruling them with force.

Henry's commentary

So by this we have a lesson to learn as in verse 9 and 10 God gives us a warning to say shepherds meaning pastors God is showing the pastors he wants them to listen to what God is saying as this is important God also leaves a warning in verse 10.

Barnes states.

Verse 10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not. These false and corrupt teachers employ reproachful language of those things which lie wholly beyond the reach of their vision. See [2Pe 2:12].

But what they know naturally. As mere men; as animals; that is, in things pertaining to their physical nature, or in which they are on a level with the brute creation. The reference is to the natural instincts, the impulses of appetite, and passion, and sensual pleasure. The idea of the apostle seems to be, that their knowledge was confined to those things. They did not rise above them to the intelligent contemplation of those higher things, against which they used only the language of reproach. There are multitudes of such men in the world. Towards high and holy objects they use only the language of reproach. They do not understand them, but they can rail at them. Their knowledge is confined to the subjects of sensual indulgence, and all their intelligence in that respect is employed only to corrupt and destroy themselves.

As brute beasts. Animals without intelligence. See [2Pe 2:12]. In those things they corrupt themselves. They live only for sensual indulgence, and sink deeper and deeper in sensual gratifications.

Barnes

Thus this is what God says about Irresponsible Pastors this is God's judgement on them in accordance with Ezekiel.

JUDE 1:1-2

Jude's Background.

JUDE 1:3-16

The Sin and Doom of Godless Men

JUDE 1:17-22

A Call to Persevere
JUDE 1:24

Doxology

Jude 1:1 - 2 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

In Jude's letter he identifies himself, according to verse 1, as the brother of James who is another brother of Jesus Christ. (Mt. 13:55 and Gal. 1:19).

Mt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Gal. 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Luke 6:6 makes it clear also but Jude and Judas is the same name. The Hebrew name for Jude is or , the original greek the name for Jude is Ioudas or which the the New Testament is translated from. There is no distinction or difference between the names "Judah", "Judas" and "Jude", being rendered all as Ioudas; but in many English translations "Judah" is used for the Old Testament figure and the tribe named after him, "Judas" is used in the New Testament.

In verse 2 Jude is showing that he he has been instructed by God to warn us about these various issues any one who warns his brother's in Christ has love because he does not want to see him/us fall into error but understand that we need discernment.

Luke 6:16 And Judas [the brother] of James, and Judas Iscariot,
which also was the traitor.

As you can see from Luck 6:6 that we see Judas mentioned this also would indicate that in Jude 1:1 Jude is Judas according to Luke 6:6 also to note that Judas Iscariot and Judas are two entirely different people, that the brother of James is only called Jude and not Judas Iscariot.

Source references from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. and Blueletterbible.com

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

When someone writes "gave all diligence" it means that the writer wants to say some thing important. He further uses the word "exhort" meaning that he urges, in other words it means to pursue with out stopping no matter how hard or difficult, even if causing offence to others. We must hold to what is true. He encourages us as to the importance for a person to earnestly contend for the faith with was once delivered unto the saints.

What does that mean for the Believer that we should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints?

The Webster`s dictionary defines "To contend" as to strive in opposition to someone or something contending against the temptation to look behind him It also means synonyms battle, fight, oppugn, tug, war Related Word combat, oppose, resist, withstand; contest, cope (with), vie.

So you see it means combat, oppose and actively confront, to use earnest efforts to obtain information to expose the false teachers as a response thus defending the faith. This would means even defending the very word of God. If this is the gift God also gave us, His word, then we should treat it at face value and so if any one teaches falsely from it then that person is not fit for the pulpit.

We are also to preserve Gods word, how do we do that ?

People out side the true Church,the body of Christ, have no authority to do such it is even not the place of the unbeliever to be involved in the preservation of God's Holy Word;

Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Surely people out side of the Body of Christ cannot be blessed in this way because unbelievers, and those of little faith, cannot see as the Bible says.

Colossians 2:8 Be careful that you don't let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.

Jude also goes on to say take heed (listen) that we need to know the things of God and his ways, that one time God's people were of sound mind then they went astray.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

We are to Fight the Good Fight

Exposing false teaching is a matter of conscience some have rejected
the truth and, as a result, it leads them to hate eventually God .

This is why it is imperative to warn people so that they will take the Word of God more seriously instead of rejecting some parts and accepting parts that appeal to them.

This is a statement from David W. Cloud, who is from Fundamental
Baptist Information Service

In this statement David W Cloud wrote.

When Bible-believing Christians take the Word of God and measure leaders,
churches, denominations and movements today by it, ecumenical types
invariably charge them with a lack of love. A woman recently wrote to me
and said:

"You preach separatism. What about unity?

You preach about heresy. WHAT ABOUT LOVE? ...

From what I have viewed on your website, you hold your views as high as the Bible itself.

What you call "zeal for the Bible" I call arrogance and pride. If you knew the
Bible as well as you claim, then I believe you'd live it. The lost will never be
reached through such hatred" (Letter from a reader, May 1997).

This lady was upset about our preaching, but instead of explaining our alleged error carefully from the Bible, she charges us with a lack of love, and this, inspite of her own haughty and incredibly judgmental attitude toward me! To this brainwashed generation, the negative aspects of biblical Christianity are unloving. To carefully test things by the Bible is unloving.

To warn of false gospels is unloving. To mark and avoid false teachers is
mean-spirited and unloving. To preach high and holy standards of Christian
living is unloving legalism. To discipline heretics is unloving.

A few years ago, Evangelist Jack Van Impe rejected biblical separatism and
went over to the ecumenical philosophy. He said:

"Let's forget our labels and come together in love, and the pope has
called for that. I had 400 verses on love. Till I die I will proclaim nothing
but love for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, my Catholic brothers and
sisters, Protestant brothers and sisters, Christian Reformed, Lutherans,
I don't care what label you are. By this shall all men know that ye are my
disciples if ye have love one to another."

This is the popular view of love, but it is false and dangerous.

ECUMENISTS ARE CONFUSED ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF LOVE

Love is crucial. The Bible says that without love "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." The Bible tells us that God is love, and those who know God will reflect His love. What is love, though? The ecumenical world is confused about the definition of love. It must be defined biblically. "Love," to human thinking, is a warm feeling or a sensual romantic thought.

"Love," to this ecumenical generation, is broadmindedness and non-judgmental acceptance of any one who claims to know the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not what the Bible says about love.

Jesus answered and said unto him, (John 14:23;) "IF A MAN LOVE ME,
HE WILL KEEP MY WORDS and my Father will love him, and we will
come unto him, and make our abode with him "

`May 15, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) `“

This is what happens if we accept false teachers and tolerate false teachings

2 Timothy Chapter 2:17-18 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Now who were Hymenaeus and Philetus

They clamed that the Resurrection had already taken place, this was a lie.

The bible says again

Ephesians 5:11 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness, but rather expose them."

2 John 1:9-11 "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."

This goes for people like Billy Graham, Benny Hinn and others.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18 "Do not be unequally yoked together with
unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.' Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.' 'I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty.'"

You need real player for this clip.

Click here to see the video: Graham has "wonderful fellwship"
with the Pope and Mormonism.

Larry King: "What do you think of Mormonism, Catholicism, other faiths within the Christian concept?"

Billy Graham: "Well I think I am in wonder fellowship with all of them."

Larry King: "You are comfortable with Salt Lake City. You are comfortable with the Vatican?"

Billy Graham: "I am very comfortable with the Vatican."

Larry King: "You were preaching in his church (Pope) the day he was made Pope."

Billy Graham: "That is correct."

1 Corinthians 16:13 "Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong."

See we must be all the more faithful to God`s word.

Jude v 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

People like Graham, Hinn and others are as verse 4 states: Godless men working within the churches today and who also prostitute the churches for gain, comfort and Money. This is what they teach.

Look at the money teachers.

Click here to goto the audio files.

2 Timothy Chapter 4:14-16 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all [men] forsook me: [I pray God] that it may not be laid to their charge.

It`s the people like Alexander we must be aware of.

John writes a letter in to the elder,
3 John 1:9-11 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth [them] out of the church. Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

Here John speaks to cast false teachers out because of their false witness but we are told to be the Good example.

Jude v 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

If we sit back and tolerate false teachings we deceive ourselves. People were
destroyed because of their disobedience.

To those who do not do the will of God the bible gives us a warning.

Rom 16:17-18 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

And as such we should run away from it do not listen and take it either speak out or walk away, for that person is accursed by God.

They do not obey God they are more interested in their wealth while others are going poor these people teach that if you follow God you will be rich and so these men drive around in their Rolls Royces wearing Armani suites, sleep in expensive hotels when there are countless of people dying from starvation world wide.

1 Timothy Chapter 1:3 - 4 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Charge here means to `command`, that we expose and command also that they teach no other doctrine.

It also says about fables well here is a definition the dictionary says:

1. A usually short narrative making an edifying or cautionary point and often employing as characters animals that speak and act like humans.

2. A story about legendary persons and exploits.

3. A falsehood; a lie.

These things do not edify any one they just tell stories to twist what is truth.

By teaching these things it is they that cause division not those who defend the word of God but those who teach it falsely cause divisions.

1 Timothy Chapter 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

This is another warning, "Take heed" meaning something important to take notice of, this will save you from falling into error because by doing so you`re not sitting back and taking the person`s word for it. We should also be on guard so that if when we talk to others they do not fall for this! We have to be careful.

1 Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

We are told to practice what we have been taught to be out spoken we, as believers, cannot sit there and keep silent.

Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

We are to speak also in line with Gods word this is important.

Jude v6
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own
habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

As we see in (Revelation 12:7-9) it talks of a great battle in heaven because of a rebellion and God cast the devil and his angels down to the earth thus sin and trouble began.

Rev 12:7-9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Jude v 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude recognised the rebellion of unbelievers. Even today, for example,
they celebrate their lusts in drunkeness and perversion openly on our streets.

God takes these matters seriously we read this

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Genesis 13:13 But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Jude v 8 Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

This is spoken about in the book of Romans as the result of what happens when men do not submit to the authority of God.

Romans 1:24-32 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness throughthe lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Without understanding, ovenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Jude v 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

In the case of Jude 9, because we fight against the devil and his deeds and false teachings he states, "The Lord rebuke you!"( notice here he does not do it in his own strength.)

We also see this in Isaiah 55:8, John 15:5, Isaiah 40:31, Luke 6:48 Jesus is our Rock.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Isa 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew [their] strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; [and] they shall walk, and not faint.

Luk 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Jude 10-11 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

For any one who commits these things there is a warning; you can either do what Cain did or follow the example of Abel.

Let`s look at the ways of Cain, what he did to his own brother

Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

End of Part 1

By Miguel Hayworth



This next one is what my farther wrote.

Quote
SENSUALITY AS WORSHIP

Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
The dictionary defines it this way: sen`¢su`¢al (s n sh - l) adj.
1.   Relating to or affecting any of the senses or a sense organ; sensory.
2.   
a.   Of, relating to, given to, or providing gratification of the physical and especially the sexual appetites.
b.   Suggesting sexuality; voluptuous.
c.   Physical rather than spiritual or intellectual.
d.   Lacking in moral or spiritual interests; worldly.
 The Holy Spirit here warns us concerning the Last Times when people would be Sensual not having the Spirit.  These are people who would enter the churches not simply people outside the churches; else we would not need to be warned against them.
It is commonly felt that `Sensual` always is synonymous with sexuality; however the context here is with regards to the physical `senses``”`Feelings` and `sensations`.
We have five senses; Sight, Sound, Touch, Taste and Scent.
We are told that we `walk by faith`, as opposed to walking `by sight`.
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:).  This is simply a reminder that our lives must not be governed by our feelings, our senses. 
Back in the sixties one of the philosophies of the world was always, `If it feels good, it IS good`.
Another question that is often asked is, `Is this so wrong if it feels so right?`
The paradigm shift:
In the 1980`s a major change in thinking began to affect the churches, and continues until now; `The need for a paradigm shift in the Church (we must change our Western world view to that which integrates reliance upon supernatural influences)`.  Basically this teaching suggests that that which promotes the `Fruits of the Spirit` is of primary importance.  On the surface most would agree.  According to Paul the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. (Ga 5:22-23).  Therefore if the Holy Spirit is moving amongst a congregation these are the things that will be manifested.
According to John Wimber, `A result of our worshipping and blessing God is being blessed by him. We don't worship God in order to get blessed, but we are blessed as we worship him. He visits his people with manifestations of the Holy Spirit.` Equipping the Saints, Vol. 1, No. 1. Renewal Journal #6 (1995:2), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3-7.

It was common in a number of churches, particularly the Charismatic churches, for the preaching of the Word to be set aside if the leadership felt that the Holy Spirit was `moving`.  It was felt that it would be wrong to disturb these manifestations (thus `Quench the Spirit`), as the working of the Holy Spirit is more important than listening to teaching.  `Doctrine` was seen as being too divisive and, as a result, demoted in the thinking of the average church member. The reasoning being that; "God is above His Word"; and, `God is not limited by His Word."
John Wimber again, `This was an exciting revelation. After leaning about the central place of worship in our meetings, there were many instances in which all we did was worship God for an hour or two.` Equipping the Saints, Vol. 1, No. 1. Renewal Journal #6 (1995:2), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3-7.
However this is a dangerous precedent because there was no longer a need for a Scriptural basis for anything.  It is true that scripture would be quoted in order to back up this idea, however this would generally be based on scriptures taken out of context being spliced together in order to give the appearance of being scriptural.
Sensuality as Worship
Worship is seen as `Intimacy with God`.  The thing that stands out and attracts people to many church meetings is the `depth and richness of worship`.  This usually refers to a well orchestrated time of singing commonly called, `Praise and Worship`.
I was a member of a Charismatic Church for several years and became involved in the `Praise and Worship`.  `Worship` leaders were taught `principles` of worship, techniques that can be used to create an `atmosphere for worship`.  Generally these were techniques commonly taught to musicians about how to stir up emotions in the hearers, feelings of awe, love, joy and above all a sense of being so overwhelmed that tears would come to the eyes and there would be an over spilling of emotionalism. This was equated with becoming intimate with God.
John Wimber, 'After we started to meet in our home gathering, I noticed times during the meeting - usually when we sang - in which I experienced God deeply. We sang many songs, but mostly songs about worship or testimonies from one Christian to another. But occasionally we sang a song personally and intimately to Jesus, with lyrics like "Jesus I love you". Those types of songs both stirred and fed the hunger for God within me.`  Equipping the Saints, Vol. 1, No. 1. Renewal Journal #6 (1995:2), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3-7.
The majority of people would enter a state of what can only be described as an `altered state`, with eyes closed and being almost unconscious of what was happening around.  However the person leading would remain alert, eyes open and looking around to see the reactions of the congregation.  Depending upon the reaction he/she would then continue to play similar music, or change the music, basically manipulating the mood.
Healing and Deliverance are also a major factor in churches today.  I attended a conference on healing where we were being taught a `Healing Methodology`, or what were described as `Techniques of Healing`.  We were taught how that healings were often accompanied by certain `signs` to look out for.  These were listed as `heat`, `tingling`.  So we were taught to `look out for these things`.  Several weeks later I was listening to a local radio show in which a Spiritualist medium was being interviewed.  I was shocked and amazed to hear this man stating the very same `Healing methodology` and describing the exact same things to look out for; the `heat` and `tingling`.  I soon realised that what was being taught in the churches was simply mediumship in `Christian language`.
All this makes a mockery of true Biblical Christianity, replacing Spirituality with sensuality and carnality.
What is true worship? 
What constitutes Worship?  Is worship `intimacy with God?
The Hebrew word translated as `Worship` is shachah  (shaw-khaw'), it means:
to depress, i.e. prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God):--bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.
The Greek word translated `Worship` is: proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o).  It means:
(meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.
It simply refers to our being in submission to God, particularly in the sense of our being obedient.
Jesus, in speaking with the Samaritan woman, stated: Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.  Was He referring to our singing?  I think not.
Throughout the history of God`s people he was always reproving them for false worship.  The idea that God was simply satisfied with them singing and keeping their religious meetings and feasts without obedience to His commands.
Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Jesus Himself repeats this:
Mr 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
They would sing and declare their love for Him, however:
Ps 78:36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.




The heart of Worship is NOT intimacy`”the heart of worship is OBEDIENCE!
Mt 21:28-32  But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
  And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Music has it`s place, it is the vehicle through which we offer praise to God:
Psalms 145-150 show us this, however this should not be confused with worship.  We offer God praise with our mouths, but worship is living an obedient life!
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John L. Hayworth © 2006

11
One thing i have learned in recent years is that these things have goto happen as God has ordained them to if they did not then God is a liar and the Bible is simply un-true and were to be prepared, rathen fight against the power`s that be, look at is this way Jesus is comming soon.

Just be ready to go through psysical suffering, it costs to be a christian some times your life in this world, but also remember,

1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].

12
General / Re: Do you believe in the Virgin Mary?
« on: March 15, 2006, 12:53:16 PM »
If you look around history the Catholic Church and the ortherdox church is riddled in female dieties, in Brazil the catholics their worship the black madonna who has another name,

In the early days of the 'comparative religions' discipline, authors casually equated the 'Black Virgins' venerated by Catholics with pagan goddess images of similar appearance, providing some with a polemic argument against the Catholic Church.  More recently, some feminist writers have suggested the Black Madonna as indicating a perspective on Mary underemphasized in traditional Christian doctrine.  In any case, Black Madonnas have proved themselves as devotional aids within ecclesial life over the course of centuries.  Many of these images have received approval from ecclesiastical authority in light of the divine approval manifested by well-attested miracles (subsequently approved by Church leadership).

Madonna and Child of Soweto




The first is that the images were darkened to illustrate a text from the Song of Songs: "I am black but beautiful" [Negra sum sed formosa].  In support of this theory, note that many of the black madonnas exist in France, and date from around the time of the crusades, when Bernard of Clairvaux wrote numerous commentaries on the Canticles, comparing the soul to the bride, as well as many on Our Lady.  He was also known to have visited several shrines of the Black Madonna, for example: Chatillon and Affligem.  In the Gothic period texts explicitly interpreted the Bride in Canticles as referring especially to Mary.  Once artistic precedent had been set, subsequent black madonnas may be explained by artistic convention rather than theological motivation.  Based on historical correlations, Ean Begg speculates that the genre developed from an esoteric popular religion common among the Templars and Cathars, perhaps as a complement to the impetus from Bernard.

The other prominent theory is briefly summarized by Stephen Benko: "the Black Madonna is the ancient earth-goddess converted to Christianity."  His argument begins by noting that many goddesses were pictured as black, among them Artemis of Ephesus, Isis, Ceres, and others.  Ceres, the Roman goddess of agricultural fertility is particularly important.  Her Greek equivalent, Demeter, derives from Ge-meter or Earth Mother.  The best fertile soil is black in color and the blacker it is, the more suited it is for agriculture.

Were these images taken as is, renamed [baptized as it were] and reused in Christian worship?  If so, the practice seems compatible in spirit with the norms on inculturation given by Pope St Gregory the Great in a letter to priests written in 601:

      It is said that the men of this nation are accustomed to sacrificing oxen.  It is necessary that this custom be converted into a Christian rite.  On the day of the dedication of the [pagan] temples thus changed into churches, and similarly for the festivals of the saints, whose relics will be placed there, you should allow them, as in the past, to build structures of foliage around these same churches.  They shall bring to the churches their animals, and kill them, no longer as offerings to the devil, but for Christian banquets in name and honor of God, to whom after satiating themselves, they will give thanks.  Only thus, by preserving for men some of the worldly joys, will you lead them thus more easily to relish the joys of the spirit.

We may even wonder whether pagan statues of Mother and Child were thought to represent someone other than the Virgin Mary and her Son, Jesus.  For Christians, Mary is "The Woman" (cf. Jn 2 & 19).  Similarly, the only child worthy of special note is "The Christ Child."  Lacking explicit identification, it seems natural that Christians read these perspectives into any art they saw.  In fact, it seems that Eusebius of Caesarea took advantage of this predisposition and, sublimating any pagan roots [which he considered likely], used an image of the black Madonna as preparatio evangelii or evangelical preparation, a readily accepted introduction to the full Christian mystery, which is indeed centered on the Word's Incarnation through Mary.

Far from condemning the phenomenon, Benko, a non-Catholic, goes even further in validating this example of inculturation.  He begins by noting the Judeo-Christian roots of the earth-mother concept in Adam's creation in Gen 2:7.  Benko sees a parallel to the 'New Creation' in which Christ is the 'New Adam'.  Structurally, Mary parallels the earth of the first creation.  Benko also cites Ambrose (d. ca. 390) as an explicit example: "from the virgin earth Adam, Christ from the virgin."  Moss mentions a similar teaching from Ambrose's pupil: "Saint Augustine noted that the Virgin Mary represents the earth and that Jesus is of the earth born."  A number of similar examples could be cited from the Christian Tradition in and around Syria.


IBID Benko, Stephen Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology (1993)

The Pagan Origin of Mary Worship

Catholic theology: Technically, it is impossible for Catholics to "worship" Mary. "Worship" has been defined as applying only to "God". The worship of Mary is termed "hyperdullation", and of the Saints, "dullation". Further, Catholics do not "pray to" Mary, they "ask Mary to pray for us." But to any non-Catholic, this is exactly the same as praising and praying to someone, i.e., worshipping them. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

An email correspondent writes:

Please speak to and be open to hearing the perspectives of Catholics and understand what true DEVOTION and not WORSHIP OF Mary is. Mary is the window in which we look through to see Jesus. She always points to Jesus. Even if a Catholic has misunderstood who Mary is, she in turn will show them Jesus, if they are willing to see Him. She prays for us as I can pray for you, and you for your friend. She is our intercessor, and she knows Jesus, therefore a very good intercessor.

Quote
Dr. J. D. Fulton: The Lady of the Jesuits is not even an invention of Jesuitism, but an adoption of a pagan conception which cursed Babylon, the prototype of the modern Babylon, centuries before Christ appeared as the son of Mary. Pictures of the mother and child were then worshiped. In almost all the devotional books of the Roman Catholic Church, the mother of God is crowned, sceptred and enthroned as the Queen of heaven. ["She has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth", Pius IX, 1854, but not made "official" till 1954 by Pius XII.] "I can never," said the Rev. M. Hobart Seymour, in his Evenings with the Romanists, page 254, "forget the shock I received when I first saw in their churches in Italy, the Virgin Mary crowned as Queen of heaven, seated on the same throne with Jesus crowned King of heaven. These were the God-man and God-woman enthroned alike. There was nothing to distinguish the one above the other."

Is Mary the "Mother of God"?

Quote
The history of the doctrine:

    The cult of the Mother Goddess entered the Christian Church in typically Christian categories, such as the Ecclesia [church], represented as the spiritual mother of Christians, or as "the Second Eve," whose divine motherhood is responsible for mankind's rebirth. It was through such Christian concepts that the idea of the divine feminine took root in Christianity, and it was a long and often confusing process until Mary was declared to be the Mother of God. But it is the primordial mystery of generation and childbirth, the appearance of life, and the age-old belief that motherhood is part of a cosmic order upon which both the pagan and the Christian versions of the cult of the theotokos ["God bearer", i.e., "Mother of God", Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.] rest. This reverence for motherhood and childbirth is the basic principle of Mariology, a principle which Christianity inherited from its pagan forerunners.
    Stephen Benko (1993) The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the pagan and Christian roots of Mariology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 5


Quote
    The Lateran Council of 469 under Pope Martin I declared: "if anyone does not confess in harmony with the holy Fathers that the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary is really and truly the mother of God, inasmuch as she in the last times and without semen by the Holy Spirit conceived God the Word himself specially and truthfully, who was born from God the Father before all ages, and she bore him uncorrupted, and after his birth her virginity remaining indissoluble, let him be condemned." The perpetual virginity of Mary thus became an official teaching of the church: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. In 1555, the Council of Trent confirmed this dogma in the Constitution of Pope Paul IV known as "Cum Quorundam." Here the pope warns against teaching that "the same blessed Virgin Mary is not truly the Mother of God, and did not remain always in the integrity of virginity, i. e., before birth, in birth, and perpetually after birth."
    Stephen Benko (1993) The Virgin Goddess: Studies in the pagan and Christian roots of Mariology. Leiden: E.J. Brill. p. 203

18 times in the Encyclical "Munificentissimus Deus" (1950), Pope Pius XII entitles Mary, "Mother of God".


But was she the "Mother of God"?

Jesus was a divine being before His human birth: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with [the supreme] God, and the word was [divine, a] God [-level individual]." (John 1:1).

Jesus was divine after the Resurrection: "My Lord and my God" (John 1:28).

Jesus was not divine during his human incarnation: "made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2:7-8).

"Jesus was made a little lower [or, for a little while lower] than the angels for the suffering of death." (Heb. 2:9).

"Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." (1 John 4:2)

Since Jesus was not divine during his incarnation, Mary was the mother of a human being, not the mother of "God".

An email correspondent writes: "How then, if Jesus was not divine during His earthly lifetime as you say, was He able to forgive sins, a right and power only reserved for God Himself?"

Jesus makes clear that this right can be delegated: "The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:20-23, ASV). If Jesus could delegate the forgiveness of sins to the Disciples, then surely the Father had delegated that right to Jesus, regardless as to whether he was human or divine or both.



13
all it is, is basically the international bankers to dominate the entire world both economically and politically, the whole purpose is to create a crises or a collaps in the global ecconiomy to then implant martial law, that in the ranks the son of perdition will apper as saviour of the world the con is that every human being will have to have a electronic implanted chip in order to buy or sell the world monatry system will be worthless.

14
General / The American Union by 2005 “ 2006 by Robert Gaylon Ross
« on: March 15, 2006, 06:30:03 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/march2006/140306americanunion.htm

This video reveals the plans of the international bankers to dominate the entire world both economically and politically. This charge is validated by video clips from C-SPAN, showing David Rockefeller, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright & Warren Christopher describing what they have in mind for the U.S. and the rest of the world, as well.

15
General / Re: Blog Opportunity
« on: March 14, 2006, 01:29:26 AM »

16
General / Re: * NOLAJBS PROJECT -- NOLA Freedom Radio *
« on: March 14, 2006, 01:22:11 AM »
Couple of things winamp has a free radio broadcaster where lots of people listen to.

www.winamp.com

you can do you dj work here,

also you need to find a good time slot like Alex Jones did because thats where you get the listeners.

17
General / Re: Disinformationalist Identification
« on: March 14, 2006, 01:19:51 AM »
here is what I believe, for anti-christ to come their needs to be a resotoration of Isreal so that he will rule the world acourding to reverlation and danial.

Thus his mark will be imposed on people, this is what happens, their is no way of stopping him apart from the comming of Messiah`s return.

these things have to happen for the phropercys of God to be fullfilled, if you believe the Bible then their is no way you will be able to stop this from happening, if you dont then their is still no way even if you tryied.

If you looked in the basis of Israel`s roots in the final regeneration is the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34.  `The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah because they will all know me, from the least to the greatest, declares the Lord. I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.`

he announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a new covenant for it will be made with both houses of Israel. The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Israel. Jewish missions and Jewish evangelism will not be needed in the Messianic Kingdom, because every Jew will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. The sins of Israel will be forgiven and forgotten. To a man, all the Jews will believe. There will be no need to tell a Jew to know the Lord because they will all know Him (v. 34).

That Israel was to undergo a national regeneration is not confined to the words of the New Covenant alone. The truths of the New Covenant are greatly elaborated by various prophets. Other prophets mention either the New Covenant or the facet of the New Covenant that deals with the regeneration of Israel (Isaiah 29:22-24; 30:18-22; 44:1-5; 45:17;Jerem

iah 24:7, 50:19-20; Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:25-27; Hosea 1:10-2:1; 14:4-8; Joel 2:28-32; Micah 7:18-20; Zephaniah 3:9-13; Romans 11:25-27). According to Micah 7:18-20, This national regeneration of Israel will result in a total forgiveness of Israel`s sins.

The second facet of the final restoration of Israel is the re-gathering of Israel from all over the world. This is based on the Land Covenant of Deuteronomy 29:1-30:20, where, through Moses, they are warned against turning away from the Lord. Then the passage proceeds to state that they will do exactly that, resulting in the dispersion out of the Land into the Gentile nations to endure a long period of many persecutions. But this dispersion out of the Land is not going to be permanent, because eventually there will be a re-gathering as described in Deuteronomy 30:1-10. But this final re-gathering will occur only after the regeneration of Israel, at which time the punishments previously applied to Israel will now be applied to the Gentiles. Although curses may fall on the Gentiles, there will only be blessings for Israel because they will totally return to the Lord.  The re-gathering of Israel, following the regeneration, is another high point of prophetic revelation. Out of the many passages that talk about the worldwide re-gathering, Isaiah 43:5-7 emphasizes the magnitude of the final restoration of Israel in the re-gathering. Isaiah writes:

5Fear not; for I am with you: I will bring your seed from the east, and gather you from the west; 6I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back; bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth; 7every one that is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.

In the future it will be the final re-gathering of the Jews that will become the high point of Jewish history.

The third facet of the final restoration of Israel is the possession of the Land encompassing two aspects: its total boundaries and its productivity. The basis for this facet is the Abrahamic Covenant as found in various passages of the Book of Genesis. The very beginning of the Abrahamic Covenant is in Genesis 12:1-3. In Genesis 13:14-17,

the promise is clearly made that the land is to be possessed by Abram personally as well as by Abram`s seed. Yet, Abram died having never possessed any part of the land except for a few wells and a burial cave that he had to purchase.

 In order for God to fulfill His promise to Abram, two things have to occur: Abram must be resurrected; and the land must be restored to Israel. Since Abram`s seed is to possess the land as well, and since Israel has never possessed all of the Promised Land, this, too, remains to be fulfilled. 

In the above passage, Abram was told that all the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring, but no exact boundaries were given. Later however, as God confirmed the covenant, the exact boundaries were given in Genesis 15:12-21. The borders are to extend from the Euphrates River in the north to the river of Egypt in the south.


 This third facet of Israel`s final restoration, the possession of the Land, was further developed in both the Law and the Prophets. For the first time in Israel`s history, she will possess all of the Promised Land, while the Land itself will greatly increase in its productivity and be well-watered, all on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant (Leviticus 26:40-45; Isaiah 27:12; 30:23-26; 35:1-2; 65:21-24; Jeremiah 31:1-6, 11-14; Ezekiel 20:42-44; 28:25-26; 34:25-31; 36:8-15, 28-38; Joel 2:18-27; 3:18; Amos 9:13).


 The fourth facet of the final restoration of Israel is the re-establishment of the Davidic Throne. This prophecy is based upon the Davidic Covenant found in two passages of Scripture: II Samuel 7:11-16 and I Chronicles 17:10-14.  In essence then, the Davidic Covenant promised four eternal things: an eternal dynasty, an eternal kingdom, an eternal throne, and an eternal Person. The eternalness of the dynasty, kingdom, and throne are guaranteed only because the Seed of David culminated in the Person who is Himself eternal. This fourth facet is also developed by the Jewish prophets. For example, Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Amos 9:11-12, Luke 1:32-33.


Besides the various features mentioned in the passages dealing with the covenants and their prophetic developments, other passages develop additional characteristics. One of the other major features of the final restoration is that Israel will be reunited as a nation, never to be divided into separate kingdoms again (Jeremiah 3:18; Ezekiel 37:15-23).


A second major characteristic of Israel`s final restoration is that they will become the center of Gentile attention. Gentiles will be drawn to Jewish people for various reasons. They will be drawn to the Jewish people in order to observe the great work that God has done in the final restoration. To learn about the Jews and from the Jews because Israel will be the light to the Gentiles in that day (Isaiah 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 60:1-3; 61:4-9; Micah 7:14-17; Zechariah 8:23).


Another feature of Israel`s final restoration combines the various characteristics of righteousness, holiness, peace, security, joy and gladness. These six basic attributes are emphasized in Isaiah 32:16-20; 35:5-10; 51:3; 55:12-13; and, 61:10-11.
The Millennial Temple: Ezekiel 40:5-43:27

The Millennial Temple is described in Ezekiel 40:5-43:27. This passage gives exact measurements and specific details concerning what the Millennial Temple is going to be like and how it will be constructed. It also discusses how each area will be set up, its function and even decor.  In chapter 41:17-19 we read `In the space above the outside and entrance to the inner sanctuary and on the walls at regular intervals all around the inner and outer sanctuary were carved cherubim and palm trees`¦.` There is no way to make any sense of this passage if we try to allegorize all these deliberate details. We are given as much detail here as in the construction of the Tabernacle and the construction of the First Temple. It will be the largest and most beautiful Temple Israel has ever had.


According to the measurements the temple will be about a mile square, (much too large for the present Temple Mount) and will sit on top of a high mountain that will rise out of the land of Israel. There are several passages that speak of this Millennial Mountain of the Lord`s House: Isaiah 2:2-4; 27:13; 56:6-8; 66:20; Micah 4:1-2.


18
General / Re: Do you believe in the Virgin Mary?
« on: March 14, 2006, 01:07:56 AM »
Ha ha ha ha ha...now that IS an insult!

We here in Australia have been largely sheilded by the nutter element of Christianity. They are mostly congregated around the Eastern States in places like Sydney and the evangelical "Hillsong" group of network marketing; 'Jesus wants you to be rich" twats.

I understand it must be hard surrounded by such fools but you must try and make the distinction between them and the Gospels and the other wise words of the Bible.

I am Orthadox, Russian. Because my Russian Orthadox friends go. Cant understand a word of it in Church Slovenic but they put on a good Russian peasant soup afterwards. You will find some of the most ancient and first converts to Christianity from Etheopia there as well as the 1700 year old Eastern European traditions. What can I say...i am no Saint but in my heart I know there is truth in the Gospels. It's taken me 13 years to get their after studying ALL the usual new age Jungian...be your own way stuff.

Each to their own I just wish people would not be put off by the idiot element. What changed me was the outstanding examples of my friends who make no hoo haa about their beliefs but just live as best they can.

As for evidence of the Gospels and Bibles in generals authority...just watch the nightly news. :)


That is the problem

SENSUALITY AS WORSHIP

Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
The dictionary defines it this way: sen`¢su`¢al (s n sh - l) adj.

1.   Relating to or affecting any of the senses or a sense organ; sensory.

2.   

a.   Of, relating to, given to, or providing gratification of the physical and especially the sexual appetites.

b.   Suggesting sexuality; voluptuous.

c.   Physical rather than spiritual or intellectual.

d.   Lacking in moral or spiritual interests; worldly.

 The Holy Spirit here warns us concerning the Last Times when people would be Sensual not having the Spirit.  These are people who would enter the churches not simply people outside the churches; else we would not need to be warned against them.

It is commonly felt that `Sensual` always is synonymous with sexuality; however the context here is with regards to the

physical `senses``”`Feelings` and `sensations`.

We have five senses; Sight, Sound, Touch, Taste and Scent.

We are told that we `walk by faith`, as opposed to walking `by sight`.

2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:).  This is simply a reminder that our lives must not be governed by our feelings, our senses. 

Back in the sixties one of the philosophies of the world was always, `If it feels good, it IS good`.
Another question that is often asked is, `Is this so wrong if it feels so right?`
The paradigm shift:

In the 1980`s a major change in thinking began to affect the churches, and continues until now; `The need for a paradigm shift in the Church (we must change our Western world view to that which integrates reliance upon supernatural influences)`.  Basically this teaching suggests that that which promotes the `Fruits of the Spirit` is of primary importance.  On the surface most would agree.  According to Paul the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. (Ga 5:22-23).  Therefore if the Holy Spirit is moving amongst a congregation these are the things that will be manifested.

According to John Wimber, `A result of our worshipping and blessing God is being blessed by him. We don't worship God in order to get blessed, but we are blessed as we worship him. He visits his people with manifestations of the Holy Spirit.` Equipping the Saints, Vol. 1, No. 1. Renewal Journal #6 (1995:2), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3-7.

It was common in a number of churches, particularly the Charismatic churches, for the preaching of the Word to be set aside if the leadership felt that the Holy Spirit was `moving`.  It was felt that it would be wrong to disturb these manifestations (thus `Quench the Spirit`), as the working of the Holy Spirit is more important than listening to teaching.  `Doctrine` was seen as being too divisive and, as a result, demoted in the thinking of the average church member. The reasoning being that; "God is above His Word"; and, `God is not limited by His Word."

John Wimber again, `This was an exciting revelation. After leaning about the central place of worship in our meetings, there were many instances in which all we did was worship God for an hour or two.` Equipping the Saints, Vol. 1, No. 1. Renewal Journal #6 (1995:2), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3-7.

However this is a dangerous precedent because there was no longer a need for a Scriptural basis for anything.  It is true that scripture would be quoted in order to back up this idea, however this would generally be based on scriptures taken out of context being spliced together in order to give the appearance of being scriptural.
Sensuality as Worship

Worship is seen as `Intimacy with God`.  The thing that stands out and attracts people to many church meetings is the `depth and richness of worship`.  This usually refers to a well orchestrated time of singing commonly called, `Praise and Worship`.

I was a member of a Charismatic Church for several years and became involved in the `Praise and Worship`.  `Worship` leaders were taught `principles` of worship, techniques that can be used to create an `atmosphere for worship`.  Generally these were techniques commonly taught to musicians about how to stir up emotions in the hearers, feelings of awe, love, joy and above all a sense of being so overwhelmed that tears would come to the eyes and there would be an over spilling of emotionalism. This was equated with becoming intimate with God.

John Wimber, 'After we started to meet in our home gathering, I noticed times during the meeting - usually when we sang - in which I experienced God deeply. We sang many songs, but mostly songs about worship or testimonies from one Christian to another. But occasionally we sang a song personally and intimately to Jesus, with lyrics like "Jesus I love you". Those types of songs both stirred and fed the hunger for God within me.`  Equipping the Saints, Vol. 1, No. 1. Renewal Journal #6 (1995:2), Brisbane, Australia, pp. 3-7.

The majority of people would enter a state of what can only be described as an `altered state`, with eyes closed and being almost unconscious of what was happening around.  However the person leading would remain alert, eyes open and looking around to see the reactions of the congregation.  Depending upon the reaction he/she would then continue to play similar music, or change the music, basically manipulating the mood.

Healing and Deliverance are also a major factor in churches today.  I attended a conference on healing where we were being taught a `Healing Methodology`, or what were described as `Techniques of Healing`.  We were taught how that healings were often accompanied by certain `signs` to look out for.  These were listed as `heat`, `tingling`.  So we were taught to `look out for these things`.  Several weeks later I was listening to a local radio show in which a Spiritualist medium was being interviewed.  I was shocked and amazed to hear this man stating the very same `Healing methodology` and describing the exact same things to look out for; the `heat` and `tingling`.  I soon realised that what was being taught in the churches was simply mediumship in `Christian language`.

All this makes a mockery of true Biblical Christianity, replacing Spirituality with sensuality and carnality.
What is true worship? 

What constitutes Worship?  Is worship `intimacy with God?
The Hebrew word translated as `Worship` is shachah  (shaw-khaw'), it means:
to depress, i.e. prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God):--bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.

The Greek word translated `Worship` is: proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o).  It means:
(meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.

It simply refers to our being in submission to God, particularly in the sense of our being obedient.
Jesus, in speaking with the Samaritan woman, stated: Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.  Was He referring to our singing?  I think not.

Throughout the history of God`s people he was always reproving them for false worship.  The idea that God was simply satisfied with them singing and keeping their religious meetings and feasts without obedience to His commands.

Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Jesus Himself repeats this:

Mr 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
They would sing and declare their love for Him, however:

Ps 78:36 Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

The heart of Worship is NOT intimacy`”the heart of worship is OBEDIENCE!
Mt 21:28-32  But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

  And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed

him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Music has it`s place, it is the vehicle through which we offer praise to God:

Psalms 145-150 show us this, however this should not be confused with worship.  We offer God praise with our mouths, but worship is living an obedient life!

Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.



19
General / Re: Do you believe in the Virgin Mary?
« on: March 13, 2006, 11:45:38 AM »
This is what i believe.

Acourding to the Catechism of the Catholic Church says of the Immaculate Conception of Mary:

490. To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."  The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace."  In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491. Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception.  That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1844:

    "The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854.)

492. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son."  The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love."

493. The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

For more on the role of Mary in Salvation History, read the entire section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§ 456-511.


This is a clear contridiction of the Bible and a missrepresentation of Mary.

What Does The Word of God Teach?

The Bible NEVER teaches any such nonsense about the "immaculate conception" of Mary.  In fact, the Bible clearly teaches the exact opposite concerning Mary...

"As it is written, There is  none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -Romans 3:10-12

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a fraud, a big hoax!  God's Word clearly declares that all of humanity is sinful  The ONLY person who ever walked this earth without sin was the Lord Jesus Christ.  We know this is true because the Bible clearly proclaims Christ's sinlessness...

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." -2nd Corinthians 5:21

 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." -Hebrews 4:15

Jesus was perfect!  Jesus never did or said anything which He should not have.  Jesus was the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish.  Mary, Jesus' earthly mother, was a sinner just like you and me.  Mary was a sinner just like Hitler or Gacy (a mass murderer).  We are ALL horrible sinners.  We tend to think that we're not so bad because we compare ourselves to worse sinners.  However, the ONLY accurate measuring stick is the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.  If we compare ourselves to God's Word, then we will see just how filthy and wicked we really are in God's eyes...

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." -Isaiah 64:6

The Bible teaches that even our good works are "filthy rags" in the sight of God.  Why?  Simply because God cannot be impressed with our self-righteousness.  The whole reason why Jesus came to earth to atone for our sins is because we cannot save ourselves.  How can a sinner make himself clean?  How can a trapped man free himself?  ONLY through Jesus Christ can anyone be saved and go to heaven.  ONLY through Jesus can we have our sins forgiven.  Salvation is all about getting your sins forgiven and having your name written in heaven in the Lamb's book of life.  No amount of religion or personal effort can merit a person heaven.  We must rest in the finished work of Christ's atonement by trusting upon the Lord.  We must believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).


Again, there is NOT one Scripture in the entire Bible which even hints to such nonsense as the "immaculate conception of Mary."  Mary was born with a sin-nature just like any other fallen human.  ONLY the Lord Jesus Christ was born without a sin-nature.  This is because Jesus did NOT have an earthly father, but God in heaven was His Father.  Jesus had God's blood flowing in His veins, not man's (Acts 20:28).  Jesus had Adam's flesh, but not Adam's sin-tainted blood.  The Life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).  It's the father's blood type that is carried to the child, not the mother's.  Mary was simply an instrument used for God's glory and purpose.  There was NO sexual relations between Mary and God (contrary to the wicked lies of the perverted Mormon religion).

The Scriptures are clear that ALL humans are sinners.   ONLY the virgin born Son of God, Jesus Christ, was without sin.  Please don't believe the damnable heresies of Roman Catholicism.  Mary was a sinner deserving of hell, as are ALL sinners (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:15; 21:8).

Mary Did NOT Remain a Virgin!

The "Blessed Virgin Mary" did NOT remain a virgin.  Joseph had intimate relations with Mary after Jesus was born.  Joseph was her husband, what else would you expect?

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not (this means he did not have relations with her) TILL SHE HAD BROUGHT FORTH HER FIRSTBORN SON:and he called his name JESUS." -Matthew 1:24-25

Jesus' unbelieving neighbors were stupefied by His power because they knew His whole family--His mother, Joseph, His SISTERS, and His BROTHERS.  When these unbelievers referred to Jesus' brothers and sisters they were in no wise be referring to His disciples.  It is obvious that they were talking about His physical family who they all knew and grew up with...

"Is not this [referring to Jesus] the carpenter, the son of Mary the BROTHER of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not HIS SISTERS here with us? And they were offended at him." -Mark 6:3


John's gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms--in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

"And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." -John 2:17

"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER'S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up ; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." -Psalms 69:8-9

Why was He an alien to His mother's children? Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him.

"For neither did his brethren believe in him." -John 7:5

The apostle Paul saw the Lord Jesus' half-brother James.

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." -Galatians 1:19

The Catholic religion says the word translated "brother" should be "cousin". Wrong again. The word "cousin" is clearly found in the scripture and it means--you've got it--cousin!

 "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."  -Luke 1:36


 "And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her."  -Luke 1:58


The Catholic teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin is utter nonsense in light of the Scriptures we have just observed.  Mary and Joseph were married and bore several children together.  In Luke 2:41-49, we read about Joseph and Mary searching for Jesus when He was twelve.  It's obvious from these Scriptures that Joseph and Mary were still together as husband and wife twelve years later.  Do you really think Joseph and Mary lived together without being intimate?  The Vatican would lead us to believe so.  The entire Catholic religion crumbles to naught in the plain light of God's Inspired Word.  How ridiculous that the Catholics have idolized Mary even to the point of making her Christ's co redeemer?

Where does this infatuation with Mary end?  Unbelievably, during one rosary prayer (a chaplet), a Catholic will pray 53 hail Marys! (as seen below).  Each "hail Mary" prayer is 42 words long.  42 x 53 = 2,226 words just praising Mary!  The devout Catholic who prays the rosary every day will praise Mary with 812,490 words in a year's time.  That is idolatry!  Though someone might contend that half of the hail Mary prayer is a Bible verse, it surely has been taken way out of context.  Jesus NEVER taught us to recognize Mary in any way.  God NEVER asked us to recognize Mary in any way.  Mary didn't even exist in the Old testament, but the Babylonian false god, the "Queen of Heaven," existed (Jeremiah 7:18;44:17-19,25).  Catholics even refer to Mary as the "Queen of Heaven."  In fact, they do it continually in their prayers.  The Roman Catholic's fictitious Mary is the Great Whore of Revelation, NOT Jesus' mother.  Jesus' mother was a sinner who needed to have her sins forgiven by believing upon Christ, just like everyone else does.

 

Catholic's Disregard the Plain and Clear Teachings of God's Word

Roman Catholicism teaches LIES, despicable lies of the devil.  It's hard to imagine over 1,000,000,000 Catholics in the world who blindly follow the Catholic religion, totally disregarding the plain and clear teachings of God's Word.  The problem is that Catholics are taught by the Vatican that the Catholic Church is "infallible" in addition to the Bible.  Catholics are sinfully taught that the Vatican knows best.  I heard a priest tell his congregation to "listen to the Pope" to be safe on all matters of morality and faith.  No Sir!, you listen to the Word of God!

Jesus did not build His church upon Peter, not at all.  The Bible CLEARLY proclaims that Jesus Christ Himself is the "Rock" upon which the Church is built...

                "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." -1st Corinthians 3:11

Jesus Christ is the ONLY foundation!  How clearer can the Bible be?, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."  Everything is build upon the Saviour, not the church priests and popes.  How arrogant for Catholic popes and priests to claim superiority over the plain teachings of God's Word.  Jesus met this stubborn group of unbelievers in His own earthly ministry...

"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.  And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." -Mark 7:6-9

The Catholic religion is composed of pagan religions and manmade traditions.   Read more on Catholic traditions.  Don't you see friend, you have been deceived by the devil.  Here is a list of Catholic heresies and the years they were invented.  As you can see, the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary heresy wasn't officially recognized by the Catholic Church until 1834 when Pope Pius IX made it so.  How can you just make up doctrines as you go?  It's just a big game to the Vatican.  It was in 1950 that Pope Pius XII decided to recognize the  Assumption of Mary, a ridiculous Catholic teaching no where found in God's Word.  Wake up folks!!!   Roman Catholicism as well as Russian Orthodox Catholicism is straight out of the pits of hell.  I do not say this to be unkind, but to proclaim the eternal truths of God's Word.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a hoax, NOT based upon Biblical doctrines.  I beseech you to consider your ways and turn away from false religion, and TO the precious Lord Jesus Christ Who died upon the cross to pay for your sins and mine.  It doesn't take a mountain of faith to be saved, just enough faith to call upon the Lord to forgive your sins and save you.  If you would like to know how to be born again from the Bible, then click below.  May God bless you.


LIST OF CATHOLIC HERESIES
And HUMAN TRADITIONS
ADOPTED and PERPETUATED by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE COURSE OF 1600 YEARS

(Compiled by Rev. Stephen L. Testa)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free." Jesus in John 8:32

Notice:--These dates are in many cases approximate. Many of these heresies had been current in the Church years before, but only when they were officially adopted by a Church council and proclaimed by the pope as dogma of faith, did they become binding on Catholics.

And doctrine to be true must conform to the Word of God. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

At the Reformation in the 16th Century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the Religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.
Heresy    Date
     
OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross.  Both began 300 years after Christ.    310
Wax Candles introduced in church. about    320
Veneration of angels and dead saints.    375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted.    394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus    431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity    500
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great    593
The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (I Cor. 14:9).    600
The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matt. 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)    600
The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; I Cor. 3:11).

Note:-- Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."    610
The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9).    709
The Temporal power of the Popes

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matt. 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).    750
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Ex. 20:4; 3:17; Deut. 27:15; Psalm 115).    788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized    850
The veneration of St. Joseph began    890
The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV    965
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV

Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Rom. 1:7; I Col. 1:2).    995
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matt. 15:10; I Cor. 10:25; I Tim. 4:1-3).    998
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).    
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read I Tim. 3:2,5, and 12; Matt. 8:14-15).    1079
The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matt. 6:5-13).    1090
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion    1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century.    1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year

By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; I Cor. 11:26).    1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council

The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psa. 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; I John 1:8-9).    1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24).    1220
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia

Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; I Tim. 3:15-17).    1229
The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk

It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism.    1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matt. 26:27; I Cor. 11:26-29).    1414
The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read I John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Rom. 8:1).    1439
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed

The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matt. 28: 19-20; 26:26-28).    1439
The Ave Maria, part of the last

It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century.    1508
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible

By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Col. 2:8; Rev. 22:18).    1545
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent

These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Rev. 22:8-9).    1546
The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles

True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Gal. 1:8).    1560
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Rom. 3:23; 5:12; Psa. 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47).    1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility

This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the anti-christ predicted by St. Paul. (Read II Thess. 2:2-12; Rev. 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).

Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILII DEI." -- V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l -- Total, 666.    1870
Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church

Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864.    1907
In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools    1930
In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God"

This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2: l-5).    1931
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pins XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary    1950


CONCLUSION

What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism. Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

Note:-- Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of the Christian Religion," admits that ... "Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin..." (Page 359).

HERESIES are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called "human traditions" or "doctrines of men". Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times "false teachers" would rise within the Church and bring in "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read II Peter 2:1-3, and I Tim. 3:2-5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, for they transgressed the commandments of God by keeping their traditions. "in vain," He said, "they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:3,9).

The real heretics therefore, are the Roman Catholics and the true orthodox are the Evangelical Christians.

BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18:4). All true Christians will remain faithful to the religion of Christ as taught in the Bible, and heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8).

20
Preview: The American Union by 2005 `“ 2006 by Robert Gaylon Ross

This video reveals the plans of the international bankers to dominate the entire world both economically and politically. This charge is validated by video clips from C-SPAN, showing David Rockefeller, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright & Warren Christopher, and White House Councelors Mac McLardy & David Gergen describing what they have in mind for the U.S. and the rest of the world, as well.

Windows Media Broadband

http://www.infowarsmedia.com/video/previews/am_union_gaylon_ross/ross_globalunion_preview_10min_bb.wmv

Quicktime Broadband

http://www.infowarsmedia.com/video/previews/am_union_gaylon_ross/ross_globalunion_preview_10min_bb.mov :o :o

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16