Dear friends,

Some think that a huge prophetic sign of the End is the complete and utter annihilation of the city of Damascus. It is prophesied in the Bible in Isaiah 17. The city is one of the oldest “continuously inhabited cities in the world”, (Wikipedia), but God says to Isaiah that there will come a time when it will “no longer be a city, but will become a heap of ruin”. It will be in a time when the nations are “raging” but “sudden terror” will come upon them because of what they have done to Israel. This is a very serious prophecy. I don’t know 100% that it is a major prophetic sign, but, if you should see Damascus hit by an Israeli nuclear weapon and completely wiped away, take heart and remember Isaiah 17!!!!


Hezbollah is Paving the Way for a New War

What awaits Lebanon and the Lebanese if the opposition wins the coming parliamentary elections? The answer came in the form of a “notification” distributed by the head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc to participants in this week’s national dialogue session. In it, the party warns of all-out military maneuvers that Israel will carry out at the end of next month, or a week before the elections, with the participation of all of its agencies, institutions and weapons. In addition, the Lebanese state is supposed to join up completely with the resistance in preparing for the outbreak of a “surprise” war with the Jewish state.

The “notification,” which was mostly devoted to stressing the massive Israeli maneuvers as well as their meaning, threat, background and dimensions, was clear in its conclusions: dialogue is a mere waste of time and effort; the only defense strategy that the party accepts, and strives for, is one that it lays down, according to its own thinking, in coordination with its external allies Syria and Iran, and in line with its conception of the role of the country, its institutions, its army and its citizens. In even more clearer terms, it is a consecration of Lebanon as a sole, permanent arena of confrontation with Israel. Hezbollah affirms that it is being targeted by these maneuvers and calls for a comprehensive Lebanese response at the civil, military and political level, covering hospitals, blood banks, water, telephone, electricity, the army, the security apparatuses, the media, embassies, diplomats… because it believes it necessary to confront Israel “in a way suitable to the nature of the challenge” that it represents and “be ready for the worst.”

In this sense, Hezbollah is portending an inevitable new war with Israel, one whose timing depends on factors connected to both it and the Jewish state. The Lebanese state can take no action except to prepare for this war, since anything else would have no point.


Hamas* warns Abbas not to form new government alone

After failing to reach agreement with Hamas over the formation of a Palestinian unity government, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is planning to form a new government that would not include representatives of the Islamic movement, a PA official in Ramallah said Thursday.

In response, Hamas warned that such a move would be regarded as a “fatal blow” to Egyptian efforts to end the power struggle with Fatah.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, said that Abbas was expected to announce a new government soon. He did not give a date, but another PA official said the new government would most probably be established on the eve of Abbas’s visit to Washington, where he is expected to meet for the first time with US President Barack Obama.

“President Abbas still hasn’t begun negotiations over the formation of a new government,” Abu Rudaineh said. “But he does plan to form a government with a broad coalition in the near future.”


Hamas Army Preparing for New War*

The defacto Hamas government in Gaza is re-training its army and changing its tactics in preparation for what it believes will be another war with Israel, according to Staretegypage.com. Iran and Hizbullah are advising Hamas on how to overcome its failures against Israel in the IDFs Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign earlier this year.

Hamas tactics in the war backfired. It told its fighters to dress in civilian clothes as a ploy to raise civilian casualties, but the IDF surprised it by pinpointing its attacks and warning civilians to leave areas before they were bombed.

Hamas has used the ceasefire, which Israel declared on condition that international monitors would be positioned along the Egyptian border to stop smuggling, to bring in advanced weapons through new tunnels that have been built. Two Arab smugglers or workers were killed Thursday morning in a tunnel collapse underneath the border at Rafiah.

*The Hamas army now includes anti-aircraft missiles that have been provided by Iran.* Israel Air Force planes were equipped with devices to deflect anti-aircraft missiles during Operation Cast Lead, but the newly-smuggled weapons are more advanced.

During the next war, Hamas’s army will remain in uniform and will use hit-and-run tactics instead of directly engaging Israeli troops.

Hamas has dismissed 40 commanders of its forces, which it is re-building with more discipline. It also is developing improved communications systems to protect senior leaders, many of whom were targeted by Israel.

One tactic that worked to a certain extent was the deployment of its army in schools and hospitals, which also were used as weapons depots, forcing the IDF to delay attacking unless it could be proven beyond a doubt that the facilities no longer were functioning for civilian purposes.


UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stirs debate

U.S. and Somalia lone holdouts, but opponents see a threat to parents

NEW YORK — A global children’s rights treaty, ratified by every UN member except the U.S. and Somalia, has so alarmed its American critics that some are pushing to add a parental rights amendment to the Constitution as a buffer against it.

The result is a feisty new twist to a long-running saga over the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The nearly 20-year-old treaty has ardent supporters and opponents in the U.S., and both sides agree that its chances of ratification — while still uncertain — are better under the Obama administration than at any point in the past.

Opponents of the treaty contend it would enable government officials and a Geneva-based UN committee of experts to interfere with parental authority. Its supporters view the treaty as a valuable guidepost for children’s basic rights — including education, health care and protection from abuse.

“No UN treaty will ever usurp the national sovereignty of this country,” said Meg Gardinier, chair of a national coalition backing the treaty. “Ratification would boost our credibility globally.”

Gardinier says her coalition — with scores of partners including Amnesty International and the Girl Scouts of the USA — has learned to be patient, and hopes an all-out push for ratification will be mounted by the third year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

The treaty’s opponents say they will be ready to fight back, and the proposed parental rights amendment is a key part of their strategy.

Introduced this spring by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the amendment has 80 of his fellow Republicans as co-sponsors in the House. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he plans to introduce it in the Senate.

Hoekstra acknowledges that they are far short of the needed two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress to forward the amendment to the states, but he says the dynamics could change.


Hoekstra’s brief amendment opens by declaring: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.”

It says federal and state government cannot infringe on that right without clear justification, and then concludes: “No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”


EUROPEAN NATIONS, TURKEY IGNORE UN SANCTIONS

AGAINST IRAN

Israel National News reports: “Five European nations, as well as Turkey, have ignored the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council in the past year, according to state-run Iranian media.

The head of the Iranian Trade Promotion Agency, Mehdi Ghazanfari, told the IRNA news agency that Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and the United Kingdom have carried out some $15.4 billion in bilateral trade with Iran over the past year.

Ghazanfari said the European states were ‘keen on continuing bilateral economic cooperation with Iran,’ despite the U.N. sanctions.

Turkey has gone even farther, according to Bahman Hosseinpour, the Islamic Republic’s Ambassador to Ankara.

Hosseinpour told participants at a business seminar focusing on Iran-Turkey ties that trade volume between the two countries has reached a record $12 billion this year alone, according to the Fars news agency.

A delegation of 170 Iranian exporters and other business owners traveled to Ankara this week for talks aimed at expanding commercial ties between the two nations…”


In the next 3 stories, I want you to see that the connection between “peace” in the Middle East and the world’s obsession has more to do with oil and money than human rights. Continue to watch the “war” among the world’s powers for political, financial, and military influence in the middle east. Russia & EU relations will continue to conflict  based on their international ENERGY interests in Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and all of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean. It will be one of the main reasons that the Antichrist will have such overwhelming power over the world financially. He will control “peace” in the Middle East and will hold radical Islam in his right hand. He will overcome them by Satanic spiritual and military means and control the world’s OIL!! Keep watching the fight punch by punch and play by play and you will not be caught UNAWARE! NAT


Azerbaijan-EU cooperation is at high level: Azerbaijan President

“Azerbaijan is a reliable transit state and supplier, and this is mutually beneficial for the Azerbaijan-European relations,” said the President. Solana


He entered prestigious Azerbaijan State Oil Academy at a busy hour and ‘was just shooting right and left,’ an official said. More than a dozen also were wounded before the shooter killed himself…


Russia's President Medvedev seals the deal with S Ossetia's leader 30 April 2009

The treaty allows Russia to extend its period of border control

Russia has signed a five-year deal taking formal control of its de facto borders with two breakaway regions of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Nato said Russia was in “clear contravention” of the ceasefire ending last year’s conflict with Georgia.

The deal comes ahead of planned Nato exercises in Georgia next week, which Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev has described as “overt provocation”.

Russia and Nato only resumed formal contacts on Wednesday.

The two rivals have been gradually rebuilding ties after breaking off contacts over the war.

But relations remain difficult. Nato expelled two Russian diplomats on Thursday over a spy scandal, infuriating Russia…


Taliban announce ‘countersurge’ in Afghanistan

The militants have vowed to launch a new offensive against US and its allies, which are preparing to increase troop levels. By Anand Gopal • A daily summary of global reports on security issues…


Attacks Across Baghdad Leave At Least 48 Dead

Five car bombs and a roadside bomb exploded in Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 48 people, the latest in a series of attacks that appear designed to discredit Iraq’s security forces as the


Deadly Clashes in Pakistan’s South Add to Security Woes

Ethnic clashes in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi have left at least 34 people dead and added to security concerns, as the country battles Taliban militants in the northwest…


Obama Emphasizes Sharp Departures From Bush Policies

President Reflects on First 3 Months in Office

One hundred days into his term, President Obama used a pair of public events Wednesday to chart how far he has steered the country from the course set by the Bush administration, saying, “We are off to a good start, but it is just a start.”


U.N.’s Top Climate Change Official: A New Willingness to

Tackle Emissions

Major developing countries like China are doing far more to address climate change than most Americans realize, the top climate change official at the United Nations said yesterday after a meeting in Washington of ministers from the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters.

The two-day meeting, requested by President Obama, brought together officials from 16 of the world’s major economic powers—the United States, the European Union, China, and India, among others—for a special, intimate round of negotiations as they work toward signing a new climate change treaty with the rest of the world by the end of the year.


Advertisements

Climate of World Religion

February 16, 2009

UN Sets Dangerous Precedent with “Defamation of Religions” Resolutions

(look up the UN “defamation of religions” resolutions after you read this)

The basic human right to freedom of expression is increasingly under threat as countries introduce and enforce laws that have been wrongfully legitimized by numerous United Nations resolutions on “defamation of religions.” In a statement sent to the UN Human Rights Council today, Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty strongly urged members of the council to reject any further resolutions when they meet in Geneva for the upcoming 10th Session March 2-27, and to further reject any attempts to create international instruments or mechanisms that would prohibit “defamation of religions.”
The statement explains how such resolutions directly violate international law and can encourage countries to increase the repression of religious minorities, political dissidents and human rights advocates. It points to a 2008 joint report by two UN special rapporteurs that soundly rejects the premise that the rights of religious believers are violated by merely hearing statements critical of their faith: “Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights.” 

Several recent high-profile cases have highlighted the growing conflict between freedom of expression and so-called religious “defamation.” This month, Indian authorities arrested the editor and the publisher of the Statesman, after Muslims protested the newspaper reprinting an article from the United Kingdom’s Independent titled, “Why should I respect these oppressive religions?” The article decried the erosion of the right to criticize religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In another case, Random House backed out of a deal last year to publish “The Jewel of Medina,” a fictional novel about one of the wives of Muhammad citing concerns that “the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community” and that it could “incite acts of violence.” In September, Gibson Books announced it would publish the book in the United Kingdom, but the publisher’s home and office were fire bombed three weeks later. The book was eventually published in the United States by Beaufort Books.

“Although we are sympathetic to the stated goals of the resolutions of combating intolerance, racism, and religious hatred, we believe that such resolutions do not serve to achieve these goals but rather limit the ability of individuals to raise questions, concerns, and even criticisms at a time when people of all faiths need to engage in more, not less, dialogue,” said Freedom House and the Becket Fund.

The full text of the statement follows:

Concern over UN Resolutions on “Combating Defamation of Religions”

1. On the occasion of the 10th Session of the Human Rights Council, Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty express concern over the resolutions on “combating defamation of religions” adopted by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly since 1999 [1]. We urge members of the Council to reject such resolutions in the future and further urge them to reject attempts to create international instruments or mechanisms that would prohibit “defamation of religions.”

2. Although we are sympathetic to the stated goals of the resolutions of combating intolerance, racism, and religious hatred, we believe that such resolutions do not serve to achieve these goals but rather limit the ability of individuals to raise questions, concerns, and even criticisms at a time when people of all faiths need to engage in more, not less, dialogue. Moreover, we believe these resolutions directly violate existing international law regarding the fundamental freedoms of expression, thought, conscience and religion.

3. In particular, the resolutions should be rejected on the grounds that 1) the term “defamation of religions” is overly vague, open to abuse, and inconsistent with traditional defamation legislation; 2) the resolutions attempt to provide rights to a belief or idea rather than an individual or group of individuals in contradiction of existing international law; 3) the concept of “defamation of religions” restricts freedom of expression beyond accepted limitations defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 4) the concept of “defamation of religions” violates the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and 5) the concept of “defamation of religions” falsely equates religious belief with race.

Problems with the definition of “defamation of religions”

4. The term “defamation of religions” has not been clearly defined and is therefore subject to misuse and abuse. The legal term “defamation” is typically defined as the spreading of mistruths intended to harm an individual’s reputation and livelihood. However, by attempting to apply such a definition to ideas or religious beliefs, which by their very nature conflict with opposing ideas or religious beliefs, it is impossible to evaluate whether ideas or religious beliefs represent truths or mistruths. As was noted in the Becket Fund’s “Issues Brief for the OHCHR” of June 2008, “religions make conflicting truth claims and indeed the diversity of truth claims is something that religious freedom as a concept is designed to protect.”[2] Thus, the concept of “defamation of religions” can be defined as the expression of ideas or beliefs that simply conflict with or offend the ideas of others.

5. Further, because the resolutions call on States to enact necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, it would be left up to governments to define whether ideas expressed are offensive or, in the language of the resolution, “defame” a religious belief. Governments would thus be forced to pick and choose among competing faith claims.

6. In countries with domestic laws that use equally vague or poorly defined language to restrict individuals from “defaming” or “defiling” religions, the government often “picks” the majority religion over minority religions. These laws are frequently applied to punish individuals from expressing questions, concerns and criticisms of the majority religion.[3] The application of similar legal mechanisms at the international level would not only legitimate such existing problematic domestic legislation, but would result in a greater proliferation of such legislation to other countries.

 

Problems with providing rights to a belief or idea rather than individuals

7. International law regarding freedom of religion and expression, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has been established to protect individuals and in some case groups of individuals from the violation of their rights. Thus, Articles 18 of both the UDHR and the ICCPR states, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” (Emphasis added.) Articles 19 of both documents define the right of “everyone” to freedom of opinion and expression free from interference. (Emphasis added.)

8. These documents lay out the right of individuals to hold and express beliefs and ideas and are designed to protect them from discrimination based on their beliefs. However, these documents are not intended to protect the beliefs themselves from criticism or even attack.

9. As the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief together with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance wrote in a joint report presented at a special seminar on this topic held by the OHCHR in October, 2008.

“Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion primarily confers a right to act in accordance with one’s religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment.”[4]

Violations of freedom of expression

10. Article 19 of the ICCPR states that, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

11. The right to free expression and the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds is not intended to be absolute, but rather is restricted by Article 20 of the ICCPR, which calls on signatories to create law prohibiting the “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” While this language of the ICCPR is itself overly vague and could be better defined, it is our belief that the term “defamation”-because it can be interpreted so broadly-does not necessarily cross the line of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence.

12. In other words, because the definition of “defamation” can be interpreted to include ideas or beliefs that simply conflict with or offend the ideas of others, the term oversteps the restrictions on free expression laid out in international law and places unnecessary and dangerous restrictions on the ability of individuals to freely express conflicting beliefs or to address disagreements through peaceful public debate. Such restrictions will have the opposite effect of increasing religious intolerance and hatred than what the resolutions on “combating defamation of religions” are purportedly designed to combat.

Violations of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

13. Article 18 of the ICCPR protects not only the freedom to have or adopt a particular religion or belief, but also protects an individual’s freedom to manifest his religion or belief. [5] As stated in General Comment No. 22, the freedom to manifest religion includes the sharing of beliefs, thoughts, and ideas. [6] It is this right to manifest belief that allows for inter-religious dialogue efforts to occur within the walls of the UN and around the world. Initiatives like the UN’s Alliance of Civilizations [7] and the Saudi Culture of Peace initiative rely upon the free exchange of ideas and beliefs. Yet such initiatives are in direct contradiction to the concept of “defamation of religions.”

Conflation of Race and Religion

14. The conflation of race and religion diminishes the uniqueness of both race and religion. Unlike immutable race, religion involves the freedom to follow one’s conscience, and implies dialogue and debate with others about the truth claims involved. Treating racial and religious discrimination as the same thing thus confuses racist hate speech with debate about (sometimes controversial) competing truth claimsWhereas one can easily identify and narrowly define racist hate speech, it is not nearly so simple to define what falls into the category of “defamation of religion,” which as currently characterized can include any controversial truth claim about someone’s religion. Race-based speech restrictions have never been used to cut off discussion about racial identity, whereas the “defamation of religion” measures by definition prohibit controversial discussion of religious belief.

Notes:

1. Commission on Human Rights Res. 1999/82, 2000/84, 2001/4, 2002/9, 2003/4, 2004/6, 2005/3; Human Rights Council Res. 4/9, 7/19; General Assembly Res. 60/150, 61/164, 62/154, 63/3.

2. “Combating Defamation of Religions,” Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Issues Brief, p. 5 (submitted June 2, 2008).

3. In Egypt, bloggers, such as Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, have been arrested for posting criticisms of Islam. In Pakistan, defiling Islam is punishable by death and insulting another’s religious feelings can result in a ten-year prison sentence. In Saudi Arabia, all Saudis are required by law to be Muslim. Source: Freedom in the World 2008, Freedom House (2008). 

In Russia, television stations of have been sued for blasphemous content in the popular television show “South Park.” Source: “Russian prosecutors in bid to ban South Park” The Times, September 8, 2008. Available at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4704089.ece (February 1, 2009).

4. Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief and Doudou Diene, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, “Conference Room Paper #4,” presented at the Expert seminar on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (October 2-3, 2008).

5. ICCPR Article 18: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”

6. CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18: “The freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised ‘either individually or in community with others and in public or private’. The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts.”

7. http://www.unaoc.org/content/view/63/79/lang,english/


Freedom House is an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. To arrange an interview with Freedom House, contact Laura Ingalls at ingalls@freedomhouse.org or call 1-202-747-7035 or 1-202-683-0909 (cell).

The Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a nonpartisan, interfaith, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. To arrange an interview with a Becket Fund attorney, contact Tom Carter at 1-202-349-7205 or 1-202-538-2044 (cell) or becketfund.carter@gmail.com.

 


A new faith needed to unify humankind as we march into future

(this guy is clinically insane, but you need to read this article)

We need faith, but the faiths of our fathers are tired now, or are spent forces. We must recognize this.


The Hamilton Spectator

(Feb 14, 2009)

Barack Obama is now leader of the most influential nation on earth. Are we yet capable of dancing to his song of hope?

Obama was elected by default by a desperate nation drowning in faithlessness and cynicism. He was simply the best bet for change.

This bleak outlook is the chronic disease of our day. We are pessimistic about our economic and ecological futures. We distrust government officials, officers of the law, bureaucrats and the principles of big business (while we scramble to enhance our own bottom line.) We doubt the trustworthiness and ambitions of people of other colours and other religions. We have our phones and e-mails rigged to monitor the fidelity of our mates.

We are a society shorn of hope and faith.

Every past society that devolved to a world view only admitting the materiality of the physical world eventually disintegrated. On the other hand, every political and spiritual genius of his particular time understood human nature and its needs. Those superior minds attempted to unite people “in one mind” — of moral rectitude and faith; of faith in the ultimate triumph of goodness.

The vigour of Zoroaster’s religion propelled ancient Persia to world-class status. Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Soter after himrecognized the spiritual need in man and attempted to unite the Greek world with a “universal religion.” Later, Caesar Augustus reinvented and reinvigorated the Roman religion, and Rome survived a few more centuriesConstantine recognized this human need and modern Christianity was bornThen came Mohammed, who lifted a fractious and barbarous people into the most civilized and scientifically advanced empire of the age. (is he actually touting these guys for being men of faith? Doesn’t he know theirs was a “faith” of bloodthirsty raw political power?)

We must seek God … or Goodness (or Love, if you prefer) for our own mental health. Belief is our sustenance as much as is the food we eat and the air we breathe. Spiritual food gives us the confidence to walk into the future with clarity and optimism. A healthy individual and a healthy society must have hope and confidence that the ultimate outcome of all things will be for the good. That is the essence of religion and has been since antiquity(oh yeah, well he hasn’t read or taken seriously the Book of Revelation…)

Strong beliefs bond differing minds and group into a working whole. It creates internally integrated morals — internal laws that need no outside coercion to ensure. (then why did the Puritan’s use public stockades?) It gives us the courage to live justly, and to die well.

***If Barack Obama is indeed the political unifier that Americans — and us — have put our atrophied hopes in, perhaps he will take the steps so necessary to heal his nation of its distrust and cynicism. Perhaps he will have the courage to harness the will to believe in some transcendent goodness. (starting to sound like the Antichrist here dude…)

But he must lead. He must demonstrate how to believe again in what is demonstrably true: That there is something out there that is greater and grander than the individual.

We need faith, but the faiths of our fathers are tired now, or are spent forces. We must recognize this whether we are Muslims, Sikhs, Jews or Christians. ***We are now a global village, and only a global world view will suffice.*** (you can keep your damn global village, that’s where the masacres of Sudan, Ruwanda, and Bosnia Herzegovina occurred.)

As in the past, this new and unifying faith must be novel, vibrant and inclusive. In this new global era of widespread education and immediate communication, this new faith must also be credible. It must align with ***scientifically obtained knowledge yet be aware also of the undiscoverable — the great mysteries that hold us rapt and in awe.

*** The marriage of a believable faith with the husbandry of government is the union that must be contracted.

Only then can there be a United Nations, only then shall we have peace on Earth and goodwill toward all. (damn this is scary…if this doesn’t scare you, you are asleep….)

 

 

 

Russia, China, & North Korea are all using their best judgment to insure that the Middle East and the world engage in a nice nuclear spat within the next century.

Since the inception of the nuke just before World War II, the world has teetered tottered on a nuclear merry-go-round of “we’ve got them” “we’ve used them” “now you’ve got them” “but you can’t develop them”.

Yes nuclear reactions produce lots and lots and lots and lots of clean energy. However is it worth the lots and lots and lots of nuclear BOMBS? Should humans have their hands in splitting atoms at all? My heart felt answer NO!

But my ideology is futile, because they are already here. Around every global corner and on every global street. They are here. It is easy to get them because our wise Asian neighbors love to sell them!

Now tiny rougue nations with big vicious voices can put their hands in their pockets and poke a nasty pistol at the whole world. They will. They are. And you had better be ready to see it go off before your very eyes.

 

View Wikipedia’s List of Nuclear Weapons Here

Ezekiel

June 22, 2008

Many prophetic scholars agree that the massive military conflict of Ezekiel 38 & 39 has not yet occurred in Israel’s history. I won’t go into all the theological reasons for this belief, but I wholeheartedly agree. There are several major statements in the text that indicate a definite “End Times” context and that preclude any explanation prior to 1948.

I believe EVERY person interested in prophecy should read Ezekiel 37-40 with MUCH interest. The book foretells of

1) The miraculous WORLD WIDE restoration of Israel

2) A terrible military attack by “Gog” “Magog” “the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” “Persia” “Ethiopia” “Put” “Beth-Togarmah” and many other peoples

3) A MIRACULOUS salvation from this terrible military attack by an ACT of God that can only be viewed as CATASTROPHIC

4) And finally a NEW glorious temple with the RIVER of life flowing out of it!

There is major hope in the book of Ezekiel for those who believe that God is the salvation of the world and of Israel. We should read it with open eyes and hearts and discern the Truth that God is sharing with us.

Who are these nations that will attack a “peaceful” Israel? When will this occur? What will this attack look like? What will this Act of God look like that will astound the nations?

Keep watch! Be vigilant! I believe this will happen VERY soon!