Search the Community

General Secretary Xi Jingping of China is NOT King Nebuchadnezzar, and the lineage of King David cannot be reduced to Alexander The Great's army!! We are the preeminence of Christ only!! This is the only thing that will remain: And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. Col 1:18 Daniel 2:45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. “The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

I recently had a post taken down. The reason stated was that I was "speaking evil of a leader." In point of fact, I had posted asking for scriptural reasons why a current leader could not be the Antichrist (I confessed that I believed him to be.) No proof of a lack of biblical qualification was offered that this leader could "not" be whom I claimed he was. A few supported me. Yet, one individual stated that Scripture commands us to respect those in authority -- something I was evidently violating. I was simply wrong "in principle" because I'm not "allowed" to do that. He went so far as to quote from the TOS: "Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17)" If the reason for the censor is a violation of the TOS, may I just point out that I did not make a disrespectful or threatening "comment" about this world leader, as the rules specifically state. NOT ONE. I simply expressed a "belief" about him, i.e. that he was the Antichrist. To my recollection, I made no offensive or disparaging comments about him. My tone was very serious and weighty, for the most part. A Christian forum's "terms of service" should be grounded in Scripture and administered consistently and not hypocritically. I would like to examine 1 Peter 2:13-17, to see what it says, what it doesn't, and what, if any, historical particulars might influence the application of the passage. "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13-17) The TOS interprets this verse to mean Christians do not have the right to express an opinion on the forum that may be construed as "disrespectful" towards one in authority. My first thought is that this sounds profoundly un-American. This kind of thought control seems more akin to China than the U.S. Apparently, the implication is this: Since my statement is dishonoring to our leader and the Bible says "Honor the king" ; therefore I'm in sin. But is that really what this passage says? Not at all. Historical-grammatical interpretation demands that we examine each and every text within its proper "context," both in terms of its historical background and internal grammar. This passage above lists two groups: 1.) evil-doers 2.) do-gooders Yes, we are to submit to and honor those in authority. That is not in question. But what is the context of that submission? What is this honor and what does it look like? Is it talking about our theological opinions of a person or even an opinion of a leader's character? Where does it say that in the text? I neither see it in that passage, nor in the Romans 13 passage -- it's not there. Who are these people that do not "honor the king?" Are they Christians with an opinion? We don't have to guess. The text tells us. THEY ARE LAW BREAKERS -- EVIL DOERS. We honor the king by living in accordance to the law of the land. THAT is what the text says. Verse 14 says that authority is sent by God "to punish those who do evil." Verse 16 says, "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." Clearly, the focus of 1 Peter 2 is living "lawfully" (rightly) in society as a testimony in order to silence men who would unrighteously judge Christ's Church (Christians). It is a call to "live within the law;" to "live beyond reproof". It is not some mystical power or honor given to a King, but rather an admonishment to live in accordance to the ordinances of civil law. But doesn't verse 17 say "Honor the Emperor (king)?" Yes -- but it also says, "Honor everyone." So, if we cannot call a spade a spade in regards to a king, then contextually, we can never call ANYONE an evil or corrupt or bad person. Charles Manson, Anton Lavey, and Hitler may have done some bad things, but we cannot call them evil, bad or wicked people. This kind of reasoning is absurd and not supported by either passage. After the post was taken down, I was told: "In the 1st century -- Nero was a type of AC and he persecuted believers in the worst way possible -- and yet you don't read so much about him in the Church Fathers." This is where the historical context must be closely considered. In the 1st century, an unsavory statement written about the Caesar was considered a crime of treason and punishable by death. Of course they didn't write negative statements regarding his character; not if they valued their life. If you wrote anything disparaging to the emperor, you were, in fact, a law breaker. (In America, we have something called the 1st Amendment which safeguards, in particular, religious free speech.) Even so, the apostle John boldly wrote that: "now many antichrists have come." (1 John 2:18), He did not cower to call a spade a spade. And neither do I. There does appear to be a degree of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worse when it comes to the enforcement of this supposed biblical principle. I'll spare you the direct quotes in lieu of suggesting that a mere search for the word, "OBAMA", in this forum will provide a SWATH of comparisons of him to the beast. The Pope also garners a lot of insults. I find it fascinating that my post was removed while those posts were allowed to stay. Recall also that my post was just asking folks to refute my conclusions. The posts on Obama and others were actually providing evidence from Scripture that they were indeed antichrists. According to the administrator (who was very nice, I might add), the post was about to be automatically pulled because of the amount of complaints. Is it just possible that when it comes to a Leftist like Obama, we are quick to "tolerate" moral criticism. Yet, when it comes to someone on our side, well...that's seen as "talking evil" about them. Let me clear up something. This is not "sport" for me. I was not looking for the Antichrist. I have never considered ANYONE previously as a contender - no one. I am not an "end of the world" fanatic or some conspiracy loon. I don't attend prophecy conferences. In fact, I haven't bought a prophecy book in over 20 years. That said, on March 25, 2016 I was t-boned out of nowhere by the Holy Spirit. I sat down at a computer and typed FURIOUSLY for 3 1/2 months with just my index fingers. When I was done, I had what I believe to be the most exhaustive book ever written on the Antichrist. I pulled from nearly 1000 Scripture verses. I am not a "charismatic" but I have seen the power of God -- marvelous things. When I wrote that book, I knew with certainty that a particular man was going to be elected, not once, but twice. And I wrote about it. I repeat, this is not a game. Trust me when I say that my book is not some inane adding up of a person's name to get 666. Recall, the reason for the post's delete was because I was deemed "speaking evil of a leader." But what is speaking evil of someone? This link may help: https://biblehub.com/topical/e/evil-speaking.htm Is it not meant to do them harm? -- usually through some kind of slander? Again, I was challenging people to dismiss my views from Scripture. Instead, what I got was, "You're wrong ." I ask, "Why am I wrong?" Answer: "Because you talked evil." Why do you say I was talking evil? Answer: "Because you were wrong." But fact is, I'm only "wrong" if I'm "wrong." In other words, if I'm wrong as in incorrect, then yes, I've committed a serious wrong. But if I'm right, now what? I am certain I am right and have good reason for that certainty. We are to honor all people, including the king, that we may live in peace. This is practical advice for our comfort -- "so that you may live peaceably." That said, there are times in history when men must forgo comfort to speak up against evil and the men behind it. If the Peter passage implies that men should just shut up and never point the finger towards unrighteous leaders, how do we explain the great prophets, judges and writers in the Bible that spoke up against evil rulers? The Bible is chalked full of them, from Moses, down through the prophets, to John the Baptist, forward to such men as the Apostles who said, "We must obey God rather than men." How about Nathan pointing his finger at David saying, "YOU ARE THE MAN!" Psalm 26:5 says, "I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked." We are to honor men. But we are also to hate evil. Ephesians 5:11 says, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Yes, we are called to love our enemies. But the Bible does not say, "Do not consider them your enemies." Someone asked me if I respected this leader (the subject of my deleted post.) My response was, "I would bet that I have a deeper, more profound respect for him than you do." I know who he is and what he'll do. I can have a respect for greatness, whether it be good or evil. I respect the man. I hate the monster, especially the monster that he'll become. What if I'm wrong? Well, for starters, I stand in good company. In fact, the great men of the faith, from the 1st century, through to the Reformation all had their designated, antichrists. Martin Luther, John Calvin all the way through to people like Jonathan Edwards considered the Pope to be the Antichrist. I have a copy of a Geneva Bible. The marginal notation mentions the antichrist of popery. They didn't refer to him as a type, but called him the Antichrist. Recall, the apostle John said there were antichrists in his day. Even today, sermons are preached calling out the evils of anti-Christian dictators. Some have gone as far as to take up arms to stand up against evil leaders. (I have never called for this.) Did our founding fathers commit evil against King George? Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer commit evil in standing with Christians in Germany to try to take down Hitler? Some may argue that my present-day antichrist has yet to commit evil acts. My response would be this: 1.) I could argue that he has committed evil. 2.) Because I am certain of this man's role, I know the evil he will commit. In God's eyes (assuming I am correct), he's already guilty of it. The point I want to make is this: The Bible lays out a Christian standard of living and conduct. But the Antichrist is unique. He is the penultimate embodiment of all the previous wicked leaders in history. He is evil manifest. When it comes to the Antichrist, even the admonitions to honor the ruler will go out the window at some point. I am not saying we've arrived there yet. If claiming someone is the Antichrist amounts to "speaking evil,", what about those who resist him during the tribulation? If they reject the mark, they are rejecting the man. Won't they be speaking evil of him by default? Again, speaking evil has at its center: FALSEHOOD. They won't be speaking evil because they will be speaking truth. And truth is never evil - that is unless it is being spoken for sordid reason e.g. for money, power or slander. I am solidly convinced that I AM speaking the truth. I am not doing this to hurt the man. My Lord, in my opinion, he's invincible until Christ returns. And from what I know of him, I think he would rather enjoy being called the first dictator of the world, evil or not. Bottom line -- I see NO biblical justification to pull my post. -- I see a different standard whether the object of our critique represents the political Right versus the Left. -- I am not an evil doer (law breaker). -- I am certain my conclusion is true and of the Lord. -- I will continue to attempt to post on here, as long as the Lord permits. -- I am convinced that those who mock my conclusion will soon mock no more. 1 Peter 2:15 "For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." That is what I believe I have done and will continue to do. In my next post -- the profile of a man.

If China's Social Credit System continues the way it's going it could mutate and it's technology be implemented by other governments wanting more real-time data on what their citizens are doing. In some respects the whole business of world trade is a social credit system. To date I haven't been bothered about the monitoring of my shopping habits but a ranking system that determines what freedoms or otherwise I have earned is going to get my attention. Just writing this on Worthy could be annoying some Chinese official right now, after all, I do have a Huawei Optical Network Terminal providing me with internet connectivity, if you get my drift... Huawei - Building A Fully Connected, Intelligent World.

It’s My Right! Or is it? Everyone seems to be claiming to have this or that right these days. Lately, I have gotten into a few conversations and debates, having to do with so-called rights. Those who are familiar with my rants on topics political and social have heard me say that rights are not plucked from trees. Rights, true rights, ultimate rights, can only be dictated by our Creator. It is for His pleasure and purposes, that we exist, everything we are, everything we have, everything we do, is ultimately His do with as He pleases. Really, what this boils down to is that we have no rights, He owns us, end of story. God is not a cruel slave owner though, He is a loving Father to those who will allow it, and a terror to those foolish enough to oppose One of such great power, and the only one who can define what is good. By definition, all who oppose God are evil. Consequently, since we all oppose God, we are all evil. Where are the rights here? He has the right to wipe us from His presence. However, we know that He has chosen to give life, and He reserves the right to take it away. We have no right to interfere in that process, unless he grants it to us. Capital punishment comes to mind, so also might war. While there are many who would take issue with whether God has granted mankind any license whatsoever in the taking of human life, I am not here to have that debate. In trying to recall verses about God granting rights specifically, only one came to mind: John 1:12-13 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. NASB I decided to look at the Greek underlying the word “right” in that passage: Strong’s NT:1849 exousia; (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence From the way that definition from Strong’s reads, even this does not sound like what we consider rights to be. This kind of makes sense. If it is a right, we can take it. Our relationship however, is a gift, we were adopted, this is a bestowed privilege, more than it is a right. Anyway, having these discussions about rights, and my repeated claim to the fruit pickers, that rights do not grow on trees, made me wonder myself about rights. Where do they come from, who has the authority to say, how do you know what is a right, and what is not? While it is not hard for me to say to others claiming rights, that no such right exists, I have a harder time defining what rights do exist. It is easy to point to some law, and within the law, discover rights secured by that law. However, what about rights that are not obviously given to us by God, nor granted in any law, do they exist? If so, on what basis or on whose authority? I have no idea. I am not willing to say that a right does not exist, if there is no law establishing that right, but I also cannot find it within myself to grant every right that people think they or others have. Often, when people state “it is my right”, I think what is going on is at some level, they think it should be their right, but fear that unless they claim it as a right, no one is going to automatically grant them the supposed right. Claimed rights can be pretty silly. Some of these rights are claimed on behalf of others who have no voice. Some will say that chickens have a right to be treated decently. In fact, according to the law in my state, they do have that legal right. It is a crime, to have roosters have fights with each other. Now, this one I understand, but I cannot help but think there is a sort of irony in this. No one is making the roosters fight; they are only being allowed to do what they want to do, what their instincts tell them to do. Could t not be said then, that the roosters are having their rights interfered with, not protected, because the roosters are entering into personal combat by mutual consent? Boxers do this, and it sometimes results in death, unnecessary death. Why do we allow grown men to kill each other in the ring, while we generally believe that men have more value than roosters? Animals apparently have the right to be protected from themselves, while humans do not. Interesting! Now, of course, one thing that will jump into the mind of many readers is that the roosters lack the clear thinking ability to make decisions regarding their own lives. Okay, I can accept that, they lack the rational ability to enter into contracts with such serious consequences. I would argue that the fact that two men will get into a ring together and pummel each other into unconsciousness, is evidence that they also lack the ability to think rationally. Okay, enough with silly illustrations. Let us get into a real world example. Children. We are protective of children. We assume that they cannot rationally make all of their own decisions. Let a child choose between chocolate and broccoli for dinner, and you will see what I mean (not that adults would necessarily choose well either).They cannot enter legally binding contracts; they cannot make decisions about other areas of live that they are not mature enough to decide on. I should not have to get too specific here. If you are an adult, you can figure some of these things out. We also recognize that children do not have a powerful political voice, so, are at the mercy of the adults in the society around them. Some of these adults, make poor choices themselves, and are not suited to make decisions regarding the welfare of children. I should not have to offer evidence or examples of that for they are plentiful and obvious. So, out of the recognition for a need to have a way to insure that the rights of children are protected, comes the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Now in my country, few people have even heard of this. I am not sure, but perhaps it is not well known in other countries either. For those interested in a long read, you can read the text of it here: http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/pdf/crc.pdf Now, I will be the first to admit that I do not know all that I should about how international law/treaties work, but my understanding is that all nations which have ratified the UNCRC, have obligated themselves to submit to the terms laid out in that treaty. This treaty has been in force, since late 1990. Unless you live in Somalia or the United States of America, this treaty is probably the law of your land. Somalia is planning to ratify the treaty. Elements within the current administration in the United States and in Legislative Branch of the U.S. are preparing to try to shove ratification through there as well. One might well ask, “Why would a country resist ratifying a treaty to protect the rights of children?” Let me remind the reader, that this is what I am trying to reason out for myself here: “Where do rights come from”? In this treaty, we have an attempt to recognize and agree upon, a universally accepted set of rights that children have. This seems like a lofty goal. Now, I would like to point out, just how dedicated to children’s rights, this U.N treaty is. There is a protocol in the treaty, which is optional. Basically, it says that children (under 18) cannot be conscripted into military service. It also requires that those children who volunteer for service, shall not be directly involved in direct hostilities. There is no age limitation on how young a child volunteer can be. As I read it, it looks as though a 5 year old can volunteer for military service under this protocol. Remember, this protocol is optional, meaning that the nations that ratified the UNCRC, are not obligated to obey this optional protocol unless they also separately, ratify it. In other worlds, this treaty allows nations who have not adopted the optional protocol, to force children into the military and make them be soldiers in combat if such nations see fit. So much for protecting the rights of children – oh, I guess that means that the U.N. had decided that children do not have a right not to be forced to be soldiers. O.K. I am beginning to see where rights come from, they come from the U.N. So, if a child complains that it is their right to try to have a happy and peaceful childhood, the U.N. say no, that is an option, not a right. I might mention another optional protocol. Article 1 of this second optional protocol declares Article 1 of the protocol declares that states must protect the rights and interests of child victims of trafficking, child prostitution and child pornography, child labor and especially the worst forms of child labor. So here again, this is an option, and Nations that do not choose the option are not obligated to obey they option. Once again, we have the U.N. pointing out, that children have no implicit right not to be sold, or to not be prostitutes, or not to participate in child pornography. I feel very comforted knowing that the U.N. is there to tell us that children only have these rights as an option, up to their country’s leaders to decide. Now, I have mentioned these optional protocols, to demonstrate that the U.N. proves itself incapable of figuring out what rights should be. My country, the United States, is preparing to join the other countries that have already ratified the U.N. Treaty; I certainly hope that it does not. I do believe that children have rights, but I do not think the U.N. is the source of rights, nor am I confident that is it right place to hope to find rights. I make no secret of the fact, that I distrust governments. The bigger the government, the more I distrust it. I am not an anarchist, I just believe that smaller governments are better, and local governments are superior to broader governments. The smallest, most local human government is the individual. Children are individuals. However, clearly children lack the wisdom, knowledge or power to manage their own lives. The next largest small, local government is the family, specifically the parents. In my opinion, the family is God’s design and the raising of children, providing for them and protecting them, is a role given to parents by God. If it is given by God, does not that mean that it is a right, if anything can said to be a right? While I distrust governments, I also recognize that God raises up authorities and wants us to obey the authorities as long as they do not usurp His position or try to overrule His commands. To me then, rights, true rights, come from God. If the rearing of children is placed into my control, then I assume that it is parents, more than children, who need to have their rights protected. Are we to trust that an international body, which thinks that keeping children from prostitution is an option, is the governing body that should decide what parents can and cannot do? I would rather have my own government, maintain it’s sovereignty, because so far, it has demonstrated itself to be morally superior to the U.N., but more to the point, I do not want distant, unrelated people, who have no personal interest in my children, deciding what is best for the family God has charged me with managing. Now this is where it gets tough. Parents sometimes abuse their children, parent sometimes are drug addicts, or violent, etc., etc. Do I believe that the God given right of parents is absolute? No, I do not. Now, how can I say this? It is God that grants human life and God who sustains it, and it is God’s right, to take back the life He has given, as he sees fit. Life is a basic human right, if there is one. It is God given. However, God has also dictated terms in which men can deprive other men of life. One only need read the Old Testament to discover many of these. I am not saying that every excuse for removing life found in the Old Testament should be exercised, that is not what I am addressing. What I am saying is, that God has shown us, that there are times, when it is proper for men, to deprive other men of rights that He has given. I see parenthood in this light. Since He has charged us with taking care of and loving our families, it is our job first, as parents, to raise our children, and to make decisions about their welfare, according to the principles he has given us. When a parent is beating a child (beating, not spanking), or not providing for the child’s well being, or in some other way demonstrating that he or she is unwilling or incapable of providing and raising a child, then it is time to recognize that the parent has surrender parental rights, by quitting the job of being a parent. This is not different that giving a child up for adoption, rights are not ultimate or unlimited, they are dependent on responsibility. As I said, this is where it gets difficult. Who gets to decide, and on what basis, when a parent has relinquished their right as a parent, through irresponsibility or lack of ability? This is dangerous ground. In my country, children have been removed from their parents because of the parent’s decision to educate their children themselves (a role assigned to them by God, by the way), rather than subject their children to the indoctrination of the public school system.* I do not have the answers. I am writing this with no plan in mind, just exploring ideas about “rights” as they pop into my head. Every time I try to come up with some hard rule about who has what rights and what is a right and what is not, I can think up a situation where there is a large potential problem. One day, not of this will matter. One day, we will either be with the Lord under His rule and yet as a co-heir, or we will be in a place where we do not have any rights whatsoever, except the right to a continual existence that we cannot enjoy. In this life, we do have the one right, to choose to live in eternity in bliss, or in pain, it is a tremendous opportunity. For now though, we have to muddle our way through the complexities of a fallen and cursed world, imperfect humans and situations, and try to figure out it means to have rights, where they come from, what they are, when they can be removed, and whether they are flexible or inflexible, timeless or temporary, universal or regional etc. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts, if you are up to the challenge, since I clearly do not have the answers. All I know, is that for now, I need to try to obey God and let everything else, take it’s course. Once again, if you managed to make your way all the way through this (only to find no light in the darkness), thank you for your patience. May the Lord’s peace be with you. * As a side note, you can read about a few cases where children have been removed from families for stupid reasons at this website, as well as find out more information about the possible implications of the UNCRC and what you can do to resists it’s implementation in the United States.

A Harvard study learns that those inclined to cheat, more likely to want to work for the government. Not sure this belongs in Weird and Wacky, I am not surprised. Link to article: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cheating-students-government-jobs-corruption-20131118,0,2929974.story#axzz2lQjlBZ1q The study was performed on students in India - I would much rather have seen a study of this type in the U.S.

the san antonio city council is voting to ban christians from serving on the city council. this was released 4 days ago, and not in the local news.. im outraged that they hav even proposed this bill.. they claim its due to our views on abortion and gay marriage.. this should cause a nationl outcry of christians, after all that was the first step in the holicost, jews banned from government jobs.. please spread this and pray.. thank u, Tamra

..URGENT RFID CHIP MESSAGE & CRISIS INFORMATION: ..AUSTRALIAN JWS/CHRISTIANS CALL LAST AMERICAN CHRISTIANS TO COME QUICK If you live in America & you believe Jesus is your Lord & saviour, then Australia calls you come flock with us now, so that we in our numbers might outlaw the RFID chip otherwise due to be manditory to you late March 2013, & boycot America - which is not your home any more. "Do not think of yourself more highly than you should. Instead be modest." Romans 12:3. You are supposed to follow the laws of your government After the word of God. It is what those of your whereabouts pray 4 , & to disobay makes 1 vagabond there. Also weather for or against RFID, to remain 1 would be effectively prayer for it too, & that it will take over the world, ..as losing you, the last American Christian, we could find ourselves outnumbered just the same as you are now, & to our peril aswell. Do you see how important it is you come now? Do not fight your government, but as the bible suggests please be ready. Move for Christ our Lord his blood, leave what ties tie you, & do not look back for any1, it is not the time, & without waiting & ths making of excuses, Hurry. Let the whole world see@ that Jehovah Is the kingdom , the power & the glory forever & ever. i now insist. that Australian Christians not see American Christians as American anymore, but fighting & vagabond in a place they don't understand to leave, or that sorrow only will create more sorrow. Or that they be sitting on a very unsound fence. Help them. INVITE them, 5 per every person so they might come in numbers to fill & shield this place, as no name of who accept in them the mark controlling buying&selling are found in the book of life. *bows head & lays hands on Australia & America, praying* .Dear Heavenly Father Jehovah? Please send your angels to guide and watch over us, and keep us safe & off the path of who with holes in their reasonings know not what they do. In Jesus Holy name, Amen.

http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-airing-v-vendetta-stuns-viewers-062649111.html