In response to one of those many emails I get from Malaysia or Nigeria trying to solicit money by false pretenses
Dear Amin
God knows what you are doing. He has already raised His first Son Jesus Christ from the dead to watch over all men until they eventually meet Him for an interview when they are all raised from the dead by Jesus' voice. The first Son is looking for others to follow Him. He has already found Moses and Elijah, and they have recognised Him as their Lord and Saviour, they have repented of their ways and now follow Christ..
Just as Jesus' raised Moses and Elijah in order to give the Jews a clear message about His authority over the dead and the living He will also raise you. Whether you die tomorrow or in fifty years, you will meet Jesus Christ in the same way as Lazarurs did who heard his voice while he was dead in his grave. And now the Muslims have become like the Jews, worshipping a God created in their own image after their own imagination.
How do you think the dead can hear Jesus' voice?
"I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man"
And don't think that I am talking about physical death. I am talking about those who are dead to God while they are living, who are spiritually cut off from His presence, which is a state of death that only the Son has the authority to change
"I tell you the truth, everyone who hears my word (singular) and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
Amin, have you crossed over from death into life yet? Have you understood that sinners and evil doers will have no place in God's kingdom?
Neither they that kill, that steal, that lie and cheat, that treat women badly. No 'Muslim', no 'Hindu', No 'Buddhist', No 'Spiritual Man', No 'Christian' has a place in God's kingdom without the blood of Christ washing away their sins first. Many call themselves by a religious name but this does not transfer a soul from death into life. A cultural name is just a cultural name. Sin is a condition that separates people from God and you can tell they are separated from the love of God by their actions. If George Bush confesses to be a Christian on one hand and then orders troops to kill his neighbours in another country he is separated from God, the Pope who might rule over the same destructive hierarchical powers as Bush is also separated from God. Bin Laden, who orders people to kill their neighbours is also separated from God. In fact any one who thinks he can earn a place in Heaven by killing another person is already dead to God. The only god who kills, destroys, steals, lies, hurts and cheats is satan. Satan inspired the Jews to kill their neighbours just as he inspires Christians and Muslims and Sikhs to kill their neighbours today. None of these people are alive to God, He considers such people who listen to satan as dead and cut off. Just as satan is dead and cut off from God so are those who listen to his lies.
Will you come to Christ today Amin? Will you let Christ come into your life and take away the sin that cuts you off from God? If you do Amin, I guarantee that God will make your life a temple for the Holy Spirit where He longs to live. God longs to live in the heart of man. He has no interest whatsoever to live in temples, buildings, cathedrals, mosques and pantheons. These are places where the dead worship dead idols.
You see Amin, once your sin has been removed by your confession of faith in what Christ as done for you, the chasm that separates you from God will be bridged by God's hand reaching out to you with an offer of membership of His Royal and Eternal Household of Children who are all made in the image of the first born Son Jesus Christ.
Will you consider your life in the light of the truth that Jesus brought? Or will you throw away God's gift of eternal life.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The spirit that condemned Christ
I don’t know which is worse. Christians who repel other Christians as reprobates whom they superficially judge as needy of sanctions and exclusions to conform to their Old Testament view of ‘holiness’, or a nation judging another nation with phrases like ‘an axis of evil in need of a regime change’ or ‘Sadam Hussein was evil who needed to be wiped out’. Both positions reflect a narcissistic attitude that was endemic in the Jewish culture, which Christ has always been trying to put an end to once and for all.
God came to establish Christ as the ruler, the judge, the shepherd, the teacher, the pastor, the lover of men’s souls. God has never intended that man should sit on the throne of His will and execute it on His behalf as teacher, judge, leader and shepherd who lords it over others. This idea of men lording it over other men is totally alien to Christ, and therefore per se to God.
The Old Testament is a testimony of the ways and imaginations of a people caught up in a relationship with God who proved to be the hardest and most recalcitrant people to receive the truth that Jesus brought to them later in the flesh. Jesus had visited them many times before. The word of truth became flesh and dwelt among them in the form of individual characters who were occasionally inspired by the law when he came alive in their hearts to obey His command to love Him and their neighbours. Christ has always been the living law and the living grace.
Most of the time, however, they hated and destroyed their neighbours believing in a form of ‘holiness’ that was nothing to do with the ‘holiness’ that Jesus was trying to communicate to them. The idea that holiness is achieved by ridding the world of evil, first by ‘soft’ sanctions and exclusions and then by ‘hard ones’ completing the process of separation by social excommunication or by physical death, becomes demonic when men believe they possess the power of God to take the law into their own hands and become judge and executioner on His behalf. This kind of thinking and understanding that inspired these people to throw Jesus down the cliff, to conspire against Him as a social reprobate, to call him a blasphemer and an ‘evil doer’ and to eventually have their ‘holy’ way and crucify Him thinking they were doing God’s will, is a kind of thinking that has infected church life since the Romans retrofitted Christ to the Old Ways Of Men. Sadly, the Old Testament, in this context, is a lie from the pit. Suitable for Roman ideology of empirical rule by iron, by fist and by bloodshed and war but not for God – sorry. Nothing to do with God.
The bi-polar position of cutting off a member of God’s family as ‘evil’ and as a ‘reprobate’ or as a ‘blasphemer’ and of then testifying to the love and inclusivity of Christ is what signifies the contention between the Old and the New Testament, between a narcissistic deterministic soul and an effaceable passive one. The contention is resolved by the blood of Christ that reconciled ALL men and women to God. It is not the role of the church to judge who is failing and who isn’t but it is God’s command to nurture personal obedience by reinforcing TRUTH from Jesus not LIES from the pit.
Church life would be revolutionised if God’s people worshipped Christ instead of a book that suffocates Him.
God came to establish Christ as the ruler, the judge, the shepherd, the teacher, the pastor, the lover of men’s souls. God has never intended that man should sit on the throne of His will and execute it on His behalf as teacher, judge, leader and shepherd who lords it over others. This idea of men lording it over other men is totally alien to Christ, and therefore per se to God.
The Old Testament is a testimony of the ways and imaginations of a people caught up in a relationship with God who proved to be the hardest and most recalcitrant people to receive the truth that Jesus brought to them later in the flesh. Jesus had visited them many times before. The word of truth became flesh and dwelt among them in the form of individual characters who were occasionally inspired by the law when he came alive in their hearts to obey His command to love Him and their neighbours. Christ has always been the living law and the living grace.
Most of the time, however, they hated and destroyed their neighbours believing in a form of ‘holiness’ that was nothing to do with the ‘holiness’ that Jesus was trying to communicate to them. The idea that holiness is achieved by ridding the world of evil, first by ‘soft’ sanctions and exclusions and then by ‘hard ones’ completing the process of separation by social excommunication or by physical death, becomes demonic when men believe they possess the power of God to take the law into their own hands and become judge and executioner on His behalf. This kind of thinking and understanding that inspired these people to throw Jesus down the cliff, to conspire against Him as a social reprobate, to call him a blasphemer and an ‘evil doer’ and to eventually have their ‘holy’ way and crucify Him thinking they were doing God’s will, is a kind of thinking that has infected church life since the Romans retrofitted Christ to the Old Ways Of Men. Sadly, the Old Testament, in this context, is a lie from the pit. Suitable for Roman ideology of empirical rule by iron, by fist and by bloodshed and war but not for God – sorry. Nothing to do with God.
The bi-polar position of cutting off a member of God’s family as ‘evil’ and as a ‘reprobate’ or as a ‘blasphemer’ and of then testifying to the love and inclusivity of Christ is what signifies the contention between the Old and the New Testament, between a narcissistic deterministic soul and an effaceable passive one. The contention is resolved by the blood of Christ that reconciled ALL men and women to God. It is not the role of the church to judge who is failing and who isn’t but it is God’s command to nurture personal obedience by reinforcing TRUTH from Jesus not LIES from the pit.
Church life would be revolutionised if God’s people worshipped Christ instead of a book that suffocates Him.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Evolutionist mindset: a crisis of conscience
We can now watch man’s inhumanity towards man more or less as it happens. We can watch missiles and smart bombs raining down on our neighbours from the comfort of our living room and watch blood trickling from dead bodies that have just been torn apart by a suicide bomber. We can watch the drama of war as it unfolds after it has been ethically and politically sanitised for prime time family viewing on our news channels.
So familiar are we with the clever way in which life is realistically portrayed by actors and film-makers using the latest digital gadgetry we could be forgiven for watching real human tragedy as if it were entertainment. The thin line between reporting and entertainment becomes even more blurred when films portraying reporters reporting on war become so close to the real thing that it is almost impossible to tell the difference.
One of the most poignant and perhaps most devastating examples of inhumanity is the two atomic bombs dropped on innocent families by American aircrews over Japan in 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporised, that is, totally annihilated, by the Americans within a month of the first Atomic bomb being built. So much in a hurry were they to ‘test’ the power of their new technology that the aircrew were not entirely convinced their bomb load would perform as reliably as their superiors said it would. In the light of the story that was eventually given a viewing as a documentary over cable networks to the American public as late as 1999 one cannot find words to understand why successive Western leaders have committed themselves to inhumane atrocities ever since.
It is totally beyond all boundaries of reason and common sense, in the light of recent history, for any country in the post-modern era of the so-called ‘age of enlightenment’ – of rational thought that gave us the human renaissance in the 15th century – to engage in acts of brutality for the purpose of securing justice and democracy.
But reason and common sense are not naturally occurring human traits, they are learnt through the specific codified language of our education and our media. Here you will find the double-mindedness of people proudly calling themselves ‘academics’, whose absolutism is expressed in one column bleating on about the sanctity of life when a member of their own society is blown to bits by a ‘mad Islamic terrorist’ but readily defend in an adjacent column their absolutist moral justification for the brutality and murder of innocent families who are not members of their society. This kind of absolutism murdered Achan in the Bible.
Reading the front page of the Daily Express dated June 7th 1944, which I happened to find in the loft the other day, I couldn’t find a single word of disapproval for the amount of carnage going on in Europe at that time. In today’s papers the same community of double-minded journalists croon and whine about man’s inhumanity to man while supporting the principle of ‘self-defence’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. If for one moment in their lives they can’t make up their minds once and for all whether having a standing army to kill others on their behalf is not equally as repugnant as terrorists having a standing army of suicide bombers to kill others on their behalf then they should put down their quills and shut up. It’s simply no good one day writing columns that lend passive support to a killing machine because they wear British/UN/US uniforms labelling them as ‘defenders of democracy’ whilst on another, aggressively criticising a another group labelling them ‘terrorists, enemies of democracy’ because they wear a uniform/language/culture that is alien to our Western ones, without making any attempt to confront the problem of a cultural and national pathological disease defined as self-righteousness. No case would stand up in a court that argues for killing the innocent in order to combat evil but this is what schizophrenic journalism does in some quarters.
The same can be said of those who responded to the terrible slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the cry ‘foul’ in one breath and then, in another, type on their typewriter ‘it was a necessary evil’. It is not necessary to talk but it is necessary to do evil. In fact the ideology of war, fundamentally believing that slaughter is a necessary evil to save the world from evil, has proved in Europe to be the greatest cause of human suffering, but it is horribly presented to children in our schools as heroism worthy of honour and pride. Schizoids run amuck in our schools.
"It was to me the most horrendous, terrifying thing I had ever seen," camera operator Herbert Sussan, who's now deceased, said in a 1983 interview with the BBC. "I finally convinced myself and some of these people that there was some value for the rest of the people of the world to see what had happened in this first bombing."
McGovern and Sussan were two people who tried to gather original unseen footage connected with the slaughter in Japan but U.S. government officials at the time deemed it too sensitive to release and they confiscated black-and-white footage that a Japanese film crew shot before the Americans arrived. In the interview on the BBC they told their story how they managed to get their hands on the vital footage necessary to show the American people the part their country played in the massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. The production was shown nationwide 60 years on from the event. Such is the guilt of a nation that it should use officialdom to obfuscate and delay the making of an important documentary.
What they had hoped from this documentary was some kind of intellectual break through that would bring clarity of thinking to our paragons of Western culture, to our educationalists, our academics and our scholars, to perhaps help them deconstruct some of the Old Testament ideologies that have influenced the direction of our culture far too long. May be they thought that the footage would awaken deep compassion for fellow human beings among our educationalists whom they thought might respond by pushing harder for a curriculum that praised pacifism and scorned the traditional social practice of dressing up war memorials and of preserving weapons of mass destruction like trophies in museums and of celebrating the heroic acts of thugs on horseback and in tanks. Perhaps they even hoped for a total disarmament.
The educational aspect of denouncing vile weapons of mass destruction, of constructing a coherent case for the total disbandment of a standing military force and of presenting an intelligent alternative to the tripe about ‘noble bloodshed’ clearly remains an anathema to the machinery of State education. But that’s secularism for you.
The prognosis among those who discuss the issue of war in public and who watch fellow citizens proudly display their trophies of war on the internet; the US soldier his endless photos of bodies scorched by phosphur or torsos ripped apart by shells; the Terrorist his footage of decapitation and blindfolded journalists, is that the secular conscience is very sick indeed. By ‘human being’ I mean collectively the secular world that no longer has a conscience that can be trusted. Who knows what Christless powers will decide next, with their cauterised view of a species they foolishly believe has no loving Creator? Which community of people do you think is next on their agenda for being wasted as part of an over all strategy for blessing God’s planet with their constructivist demented Foucaultian view of what constitutes ‘civilisation’?
There’s going to be gnashing of teeth alright.
So familiar are we with the clever way in which life is realistically portrayed by actors and film-makers using the latest digital gadgetry we could be forgiven for watching real human tragedy as if it were entertainment. The thin line between reporting and entertainment becomes even more blurred when films portraying reporters reporting on war become so close to the real thing that it is almost impossible to tell the difference.
One of the most poignant and perhaps most devastating examples of inhumanity is the two atomic bombs dropped on innocent families by American aircrews over Japan in 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporised, that is, totally annihilated, by the Americans within a month of the first Atomic bomb being built. So much in a hurry were they to ‘test’ the power of their new technology that the aircrew were not entirely convinced their bomb load would perform as reliably as their superiors said it would. In the light of the story that was eventually given a viewing as a documentary over cable networks to the American public as late as 1999 one cannot find words to understand why successive Western leaders have committed themselves to inhumane atrocities ever since.
It is totally beyond all boundaries of reason and common sense, in the light of recent history, for any country in the post-modern era of the so-called ‘age of enlightenment’ – of rational thought that gave us the human renaissance in the 15th century – to engage in acts of brutality for the purpose of securing justice and democracy.
But reason and common sense are not naturally occurring human traits, they are learnt through the specific codified language of our education and our media. Here you will find the double-mindedness of people proudly calling themselves ‘academics’, whose absolutism is expressed in one column bleating on about the sanctity of life when a member of their own society is blown to bits by a ‘mad Islamic terrorist’ but readily defend in an adjacent column their absolutist moral justification for the brutality and murder of innocent families who are not members of their society. This kind of absolutism murdered Achan in the Bible.
Reading the front page of the Daily Express dated June 7th 1944, which I happened to find in the loft the other day, I couldn’t find a single word of disapproval for the amount of carnage going on in Europe at that time. In today’s papers the same community of double-minded journalists croon and whine about man’s inhumanity to man while supporting the principle of ‘self-defence’ in Iraq and Afghanistan. If for one moment in their lives they can’t make up their minds once and for all whether having a standing army to kill others on their behalf is not equally as repugnant as terrorists having a standing army of suicide bombers to kill others on their behalf then they should put down their quills and shut up. It’s simply no good one day writing columns that lend passive support to a killing machine because they wear British/UN/US uniforms labelling them as ‘defenders of democracy’ whilst on another, aggressively criticising a another group labelling them ‘terrorists, enemies of democracy’ because they wear a uniform/language/culture that is alien to our Western ones, without making any attempt to confront the problem of a cultural and national pathological disease defined as self-righteousness. No case would stand up in a court that argues for killing the innocent in order to combat evil but this is what schizophrenic journalism does in some quarters.
The same can be said of those who responded to the terrible slaughter in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the cry ‘foul’ in one breath and then, in another, type on their typewriter ‘it was a necessary evil’. It is not necessary to talk but it is necessary to do evil. In fact the ideology of war, fundamentally believing that slaughter is a necessary evil to save the world from evil, has proved in Europe to be the greatest cause of human suffering, but it is horribly presented to children in our schools as heroism worthy of honour and pride. Schizoids run amuck in our schools.
"It was to me the most horrendous, terrifying thing I had ever seen," camera operator Herbert Sussan, who's now deceased, said in a 1983 interview with the BBC. "I finally convinced myself and some of these people that there was some value for the rest of the people of the world to see what had happened in this first bombing."
McGovern and Sussan were two people who tried to gather original unseen footage connected with the slaughter in Japan but U.S. government officials at the time deemed it too sensitive to release and they confiscated black-and-white footage that a Japanese film crew shot before the Americans arrived. In the interview on the BBC they told their story how they managed to get their hands on the vital footage necessary to show the American people the part their country played in the massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. The production was shown nationwide 60 years on from the event. Such is the guilt of a nation that it should use officialdom to obfuscate and delay the making of an important documentary.
What they had hoped from this documentary was some kind of intellectual break through that would bring clarity of thinking to our paragons of Western culture, to our educationalists, our academics and our scholars, to perhaps help them deconstruct some of the Old Testament ideologies that have influenced the direction of our culture far too long. May be they thought that the footage would awaken deep compassion for fellow human beings among our educationalists whom they thought might respond by pushing harder for a curriculum that praised pacifism and scorned the traditional social practice of dressing up war memorials and of preserving weapons of mass destruction like trophies in museums and of celebrating the heroic acts of thugs on horseback and in tanks. Perhaps they even hoped for a total disarmament.
The educational aspect of denouncing vile weapons of mass destruction, of constructing a coherent case for the total disbandment of a standing military force and of presenting an intelligent alternative to the tripe about ‘noble bloodshed’ clearly remains an anathema to the machinery of State education. But that’s secularism for you.
The prognosis among those who discuss the issue of war in public and who watch fellow citizens proudly display their trophies of war on the internet; the US soldier his endless photos of bodies scorched by phosphur or torsos ripped apart by shells; the Terrorist his footage of decapitation and blindfolded journalists, is that the secular conscience is very sick indeed. By ‘human being’ I mean collectively the secular world that no longer has a conscience that can be trusted. Who knows what Christless powers will decide next, with their cauterised view of a species they foolishly believe has no loving Creator? Which community of people do you think is next on their agenda for being wasted as part of an over all strategy for blessing God’s planet with their constructivist demented Foucaultian view of what constitutes ‘civilisation’?
There’s going to be gnashing of teeth alright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
