Category Archives: jeezis

bizarre… in so many different ways…

‘Vatican air’ passengers’ holy water confiscated
29/08/2007
By Malcolm Moore

The passengers on board the Vatican’s first flight to Lourdes may have been pilgrims in search of spiritual healing, but they still had to obey anti-terrorism rules, it has emerged, after several of them had their holy water confiscated. Continue reading bizarre… in so many different ways…

1087

Christianity is America’s true faith
August 10, 2007
By Al Bedrosian

Bedrosian, of Roanoke, is a former political candidate for the Virginia General Assembly (1997 and 1999). He hosts a 10-minute commentary program on local AM radio.

As a Christian, I think it’s time to rid ourselves of this notion of freedom of religion in America.

Now that I have your attention, let me take a moment to make my case. Freedom of religion has become the biggest hoax placed upon the Christian people and on our Christian nation.

When reading the writings of our Founding Founders, there was never any reference to freedom of religion referring to a choice between Islam, Hindu, Satanism, Wicca and whatever other religions or cults you would like to dream up. It was very clear that freedom to worship meant the freedom to worship the God of the Bible in the way you wanted, and not to have a government church denomination dictate how you would worship.

Christianity, by its own definition, does not allow freedom of religion. A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Jesus clearly states all through Scripture that he is the way and the only way to God the father. The Bible is clear in teaching us that we should have no other gods before him. Our God is a jealous God.

As Christians, we should not be just going through a ritual of worship. We have a personal relationship with the God of all creation. You can’t have this type of relationship alongside the worship of other Gods.

I know that my stance is even unpopular among Christians. If you took a poll in America and asked just Christians if we should allow any religion to be practiced in America, I guarantee that 99 percent would say yes. They would be proud to state that freedom of religion is the pillar America was founded on.

Yet these are the same Christians who will be protesting in the streets against the homosexual agenda, abortion, removing God from our schools and from our pledge.

Somehow many Christians have not been able to connect the dots. Don’t we see that when we allow other gods into America, those other gods start influencing our culture and our laws? And soon we are allowing laws and regulations to be enacted that are totally opposed to our belief system. And the sad thing is that we knowingly allow them in the name of “freedom of religion.”

One of the greatest moments in U.S. Senate history came when a Christian group recently shouted for God to forgive us during the opening prayer of a Hindu in the Senate.

Beware, Christians, we are being fed lies that a Christian nation needs to be open to other religions. America is a great nation — not because of its freedom, great economic system, or even its military power. It is a great nation because the God of the Bible has blessed us in our freedom, our wealth and our military power.

Once we remove ourselves from worshiping the one true God, all the wonderful qualities of America will vanish.

Those who oppose Christianity are extremely cunning. They realize that the true power of Christianity rests in the name of Jesus. Currently, there is a legislative battle in Congress over whether to allow our military chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus.

In Southwest Virginia, local government boards are coming under fire for “invocations” at public meetings. They can’t even call them prayers, and most can’t even use the name of Jesus.

Christians are kept occupied by fighting a battle over the removal of the generic word ‘god’ from our culture. This really is not the true battle. The word ‘god’ can refer to anything. Hindus, Islamists, Buddhists and Satanists all have gods.

In fact, the global warming crowd worships the environment as god, the abortionist has the death of unborn babies as their god, and the homosexuals have sexual freedom as their god.

The real battle is keeping the name of Jesus as Lord. The name Jesus is what makes us a Christian people and a Christian nation. This is why we must continue our heritage as a Christian nation and remove all other gods.


also:
Klansman Statue – “Historical Item”

blurdge!


China tells living Buddhas to obtain permission before they reincarnate
August 4, 2007
By Jane Macartney

Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission from China’s atheist leaders. The ban is included in new rules intended to assert Beijing’s authority over Tibet’s restive and deeply Buddhist people.

“The so-called reincarnated living Buddha without government approval is illegal and invalid,” according to the order, which comes into effect on September 1.

The 14-part regulation issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs is aimed at limiting the influence of Tibet’s exiled god-king, the Dalai Lama, and at preventing the re-incarnation of the 72-year-old monk without approval from Beijing.

It is the latest in a series of measures by the Communist authorities to tighten their grip over Tibet. Reincarnate lamas, known as tulkus, often lead religious communities and oversee the training of monks, giving them enormous influence over religious life in the Himalayan region. Anyone outside China is banned from taking part in the process of seeking and recognising a living Buddha, effectively excluding the Dalai Lama, who traditionally can play an important role in giving recognition to candidate reincarnates.

For the first time China has given the Government the power to ensure that no new living Buddha can be identified, sounding a possible death knell to a mystical system that dates back at least as far as the 12th century.

China already insists that only the Government can approve the appointments of Tibet’s two most important monks, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. The Dalai Lama’s announcement in May 1995 that a search inside Tibet — and with the co- operation of a prominent abbot — had identified the 11th reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, who died in 1989, enraged Beijing. That prompted the Communist authorities to restart the search and to send a senior Politburo member to Lhasa to oversee the final choice. This resulted in top Communist officials presiding over a ceremony at the main Jokhang temple in Lhasa in which names of three boys inscribed on ivory sticks were placed inside a golden urn and a lot was then drawn to find the true reincarnation.

The boy chosen by the Dalai Lama has disappeared. The abbot who worked with the Dalai Lama was jailed and has since vanished. Several sets of rules on seeking out “soul boys” were promulgated in 1995, but were effectively in abeyance and hundreds of living Buddhas are now believed to live inside and outside China.

All Tibetans believe in reincarnation, but only the holiest or most outstanding individuals are believed to be recognisable — a tulku, or apparent body. One Tibetan monk told The Times: “In the past there was no such regulation. The management of living Buddhas is becoming more strict.”

The search for a reincarnation is a mystical process involving clues left by the deceased and visions among leading monks on where to look. The current Dalai Lama, the fourteenth of the line, was identified in 1937 when monks came to his village.

China has long insisted that it must have the final say over the appointment of the most senior lamas. Tibet experts said that the new regulations may also be aimed at limiting the influence of new lamas.


like that’s really going to happen… my impression is that if you have control over life and death, and can reincarnate at will, the proclamations of a limited human government make little difference, and if you want to reincarnate, there’s not an awful lot that the limited humans can do about it.

1065

Are high-profile evangelical leaders endangering victims of domestic violence?
July 25 2007
By Bill Berkowitz

While domestic violence — also known as intimate partner violence — is in no way limited to any particular race, religion, ethnic group, class or sexual preference, author Jocelyn Andersen maintains that for far too long too many evangelical pastors have tried to sweep the problem under the rug. According to Andersen, the problem of physical, as well as emotional and spiritual abuse, is being exacerbated by the outdated teachings of several high-profile conservative Christian pastors.

In the introduction to her new book “Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence” (One Way Cafe Press, 2007), Andersen points out that “The practice of hiding, ignoring, and even perpetuating the emotional and physical abuse of women is … rampant within evangelical Christian fellowships and as slow as our legal systems have been in dealing with violence against women by their husbands, the church has been even slower.”

Andersen maintains that domestic violence in Christian families “often creates a cruel Catch-22 as many Christians and church leaders view recommending separation or divorce as unscriptural, but then silently view the battered woman, who chooses not to leave, with contempt for staying and tolerating the abuse. Victims quickly pick up on this hypocritical attitude and either leave the church altogether — or begin hiding the abuse. Either way they are giving up the spiritual guidance, and emotional support, they desperately need.”

“The secular medical world has had to reach in to advise and help women from the church see the truth of their situations, get shelter, and inform religious leaders about the need to accept medical and clinical facts about physical and mental abuse,” OneNewsNow.com — a news service of the American Family Association — reported in late June.

“Secular organizations are constantly addressing the religious aspects of domestic violence,” Andersen told the news service. “Christian women struggle with it and the secular organizations see what Christian women go through and religious women go through. They have set it up as their goal to educate spiritual leaders on the spiritual aspects, and the different aspects of domestic violence so they can give good counsel to the women coming to them. It’s a big issue.”

Andersen’s book discusses why women who are victims of domestic abuse stay with their abusers: “The third chapter of [the Book of] Genesis give us a clue, when the woman is told, ‘your desire will be to your husband’ — and he will ‘rule over’ you. The clue right there is no matter how he acts, her desire is often still toward him. She loves him. She responds to the abuse with an even greater determination to try to resolve the situation … and make it better.”

According to OneNewsNow, “Andersen never advocates divorce — yet she says after domestic violence enters the marriage picture, there must eventually come a point where a Christian woman decides what the will of God is for her in the face of the dangers of abuse. And that is where Andersen says the woman will likely conflict with pressure from the church to stay, no matter what.”

High-profile evangelical leaders blaming the victim
Andersen, whose account of physical abuse by her husband makes for a harrowing first chapter, says that the problem is exacerbated by misguided advice and use of outdated information in the writing of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Dr. John MacArthur, a pastor-teacher at the Sun Valley, California-based Grace Community Church. “We do see some very big-name evangelical leaders blaming the battered woman for the abuse,” Andersen explained. “You know, talking about how she may provoke her husband into doing it; or that her poor, non-communicative husband can’t handle maybe what she’s trying to communicate to him and he lashes out and hits her — [that] shifts the blame right off him and to her.”

Via several emails, Anderson told Media Transparency that the work of Dobson and MacArthur perpetuate the problem of domestic violence among evangelical Christians.

She chose to look closely at their work because of the “scope of influence” they wield “within the Christian Community.” Both men are “prolific writers with best-selling books,” and the both “have large listening audiences for their radio broadcasts,” which “have been staples of Moody Christian Radio for years.” Millions of people listen to the broadcasts weekly, she said.

“Both Dobson and MacArthur are high-profile evangelical leaders with enough influence and ability to make a positive contribution to the plight of battered women which would result in lives being saved.” Instead, “their words are often used to send Christian women back into the danger zone with counsel that encourages them to try and change violent husbands or return to violent homes as soon as the ‘heat is off.’ The last time I looked, assault was a crime, but Christian women are generally not encouraged to report that crime.”

In her book, Andersen cites an incident in which a battered wife wrote to Dobson telling him that “the violence within her marriage was escalating in both frequency and intensity and that she feared for her life.” Dobson “replied that her goal should be to change her husband’s behavior–not to get a divorce (‘Love Must Be Tough,’ (1996) [this is the edition that was being sold as of March 2007]).”

“He did suggest leaving as a temporary solution, but only as a way of manipulating the husband’s behavior. I found it inexcusable that not one note of real concern for this woman’s immediate physical safety was sounded in his response–in spite of the fact that she clearly stated she was in fear for her life.”

“Dobson counseled her to precipitate a crisis in her marriage by choosing the most absurd demand her husband made, then refusing to consent to it. This was not only absurd advice in a domestic violence situation, but life-threateningly dangerous as well, and very telling of the fact that, in spite of over 1,000 deaths per year due to wife-beating, the wife beater is not generally viewed as a real threat to his wife’s life or safety. “

Andersen also takes on MacArthur: According to a tape titled Bible Questions and Answers Part 16, a member of Grace Community Church asked MacArthur how a Christian woman should react “and deal with being a battered wife.”

MacArthur’s answer contained “some very dangerous advice to battered wives. He said divorce is not an option to a battered wife, because the Bible doesn’t permit it.” While saying that it was okay “for the wife to get away while the pressure was on” it was with the understanding that she would return. “He warned wives to be very careful that they were not provoking the abusive situations. Because, he said, that was very often the problem.”

“Three years later, MacArthur said essentially the same thing (softened with a few disclaimers) in a booklet he still distributes today titled ‘Answering Key Questions About the Family.'”

“How many thousands of pastors, leaders and lay Christians have been and are still being influenced through the writing of James Dobson, John MacArthur and others who share their views?” Andersen asked.

Andersen says that both of these pastors “admit they believe a large percentage of battering cases are instigated and provoked by the wife.” While Dobson “described the issue of domestic violence as a problem of ‘epidemic proportions,’ in ‘Love Must Be Tough,’ only five-plus pages are devoted to the subject. And he used over half those pages to highlight a case in which a wife deliberately provoked her husband into hitting her so she could gain her ‘trophy’ of bruises which she could then parade around with in order to gain sympathy.”

While those incidents happen, Andersen points out that “the bulk of the research about domestic violence refutes the myth that battered wives enjoy being battered or deliberately provoke the violence in order to gain some moral advantage. That unfair example in no way typifies the face of domestic violence.”

“If a Christian Leader blames a woman for the violence in her marriage and neglects to encourage a battered wife to use the legal resources available to her in order to preserve her physical safety, that leader is not only sanctioning the abuse but perpetuating it as well,” Andersen maintains.

“Many wife-beaters who are church-goers, professing Christians, even pastors and leaders of churches are getting the message loud and clear that their spiritual leadership is not so concerned with the fact that they beat their wives as they are concerned that wives should be submitting to their husbands and not seeking legal protection or divorce.”

“Telling a woman to leave while the heat is on with the intention of returning is not uncommon advice among evangelicals. It amounts to no less than sending a battered woman back into a violent home. With a violent spouse when is the heat ever really off? This is sin and, in my opinion, it is criminal.”

Thus far, Andersen hasn’t received any grief for the charges in her book. She said that she received a request for a review copy of her book and a media kit from a news correspondent at Family News in Focus — a Focus on the Family news service — which she mailed several weeks ago, but hadn’t yet heard from them again.

1050

???u?ld ?u??????p ?ll??o? ? uo ?u???l ??? ???? ??no?? s? s? ?? ??? puo??q s? pu?? ?? ??u??? o? ?u?o? ?ll?????? ‘?o???os s? s?z??? ?noq? ?? ?u?ll?? ?ld??s ???? ?u??? ?ldo?d ???

????l pu? sn ?o ??oq ?o? “?u????d” ?q plno? ??s p??s ??s ‘?????o?u? ?q o? ?ou? ?? ????? ???? ?su???? ?no ???ds sn ???? o? plno? ??s u??? ??? ???? ?u?????? pu? ?u??ou?? sn ??s ?????? plno? ??s ???? ??? plo? ? u??? ??????q s?? ?????l ??? ???? p?puods?? ??s pu? ‘ll?? o? o? ???l s?? ?o ?s?? ??? ??l pu? s?z??? u? ????l?q o? ??? ?o? ?????q s?? ?? ??????? ?o ‘s?z??? u? ????l?qs?p pu? ???l ?u?pu??sdn u? ???l o? ??? ?o? ?????q s?? ?? ?? ??? p??s? p???p ???????u? ?lq?q ??? u? ?ou s? ?s???d ???? ???? p????????u? ? pu? ‘ll?? o? o? ll,no? ?o ??? u? ????l?q o? ???? no? pu? po? s? s?z??? ?luo ???? p??s ?lq?q ??? ???? p??s ??s ????sou?? u? s? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?o ???ds u? s???q?p sno???l?? o? s??o? ?? u??? ??nols ou s? o?? ‘p???p pu???? ?? ????? ?u?? pu? ?l????u? ?no ?? p???olq ??s ‘?u?od ???? ??

??n?? %001 ‘???? u? s?? ‘?sl?? %001 ?q o? ?ou? ? ????? ‘?u???s s?? ??s ??n?s s??? ???? pu? ‘?sl?? %001 ‘???? u? ‘s?? ?n?? %001 ?q o? ??u? ? ???? ???? ?? plo? pu? ?????? ??? uo ?u?? p???su? ?nq ‘(?u??? ?? ???? pu??s??pun ?,up?p ??s ??no?? u???) p?????s?p ??s ????? ???? ??????s ??d?nq ? ??s ??s u??? ?n?s ??no? ??? d??? o? ??nou? ?? ??ol ?,up?p ?lsno??qo ‘ll? ?? ?ou? ?,up?p ? o?? ‘u??o? s??? ???? ?nq ‘u????? o? ?u?o? ?o ??u??? poo? ? s?? ‘???sou?? p?????p? u? s? o?? ‘p???p pu???? ?? ???? p??s ? ??s??????o ?o l???lq?q ‘??? uos??? ? ?? ???? ?,uplno? ??s – ?ou? no? – ?nq ?s?u??? ??ns ?u???s ?o? ll?? o? o? plno? ? ???? pu? ‘????ds?lq s?? ?u???s s?? ? ???? ???? pu? ‘p?s ???? s?? p??s ??s

?pl?o? ??? ???? ????s pno?s ? ?l?? ? ???? ?u??????s ?????do?dd? u? s? ?n?p ??????? ? s? sns?? ??o?????? ‘??n?s ????o s??? ll? ?noq? p?u???l ???? plno? ????u ? ‘?u???s s?? sns?? ???? p?u???l ????u ? p?? ?p??s?oo?snl ?o ‘np?n ‘?s?u??? ‘?l?d ‘????su?s ‘u???l ‘????? ‘???q?? s?? u? u?????? s?? ?? ???n?u?l ??? ??????? ?o ss?lp????? “s?u??q u??n? ?oll?? ?no? ??ol pu? ‘po? ??ol” ‘?ll???s?q ‘s?? “?x?? ??? pu???q u?pp??” ???ss?? ??? ???? pu? ‘?n?? s?? po? ?o u??pl??? pu? spo? ?u??q ll? sn ?noq? p??s sns?? ???? ???? poo?s??pun ? :???d l?n????ds ?? s? ?s?npu?? p??dop? ?ll???o? ? ????l s??p o?? pu? ‘?u??u??p?o ?? p??????? ‘p???np??? ? os ‘???p ???l ???? ?? ?u????nb u? ?u?od ??n? ??s ?,uplno? ? pu? ‘?u?od ???? ?? ???u???s ??? ?o?? uo???np??? o? ?sol? s?? ? ???o? ?u??o? s?? ? ???l ?l?? ?? ‘?????o? ‘???? ?s??? ??? ?o? ???? p??????q ??? p??? ? u??? ????o? os pu? ‘??l?o?? ???s??l? ?o s?u????? ??? ‘s?u????? ?s?u???s ?o ??unq ?lo?? ? ?u?pnl?u? ‘uo spu?? ?? ??? plno? ? ?u????u? ?ll???s?q ?????l??ol??d ??? ‘?u??? ?? o?? ??? ‘su?o? ?o s???s?q ‘?p?? ??? ‘??s??? pu?z ??? ‘u??,?nb ??? ???l s??n?d???s ?u?p??? p?????s ? – ?lq?q ??? u? p??s ?u??q s?? ???? ?o ?u?pu??s??pun poo? ? p?? ? ???? p????? o?? – s?o??nq ?? ???q?s?l? ??p ‘???u???s ??? ?o ss???s??p??? ??? ‘??????? ?? ?o uo???pu???o??? ??? uo ‘os ‘?lq?q ??? u? ?u?p??? s?? ? ??n?s ??? ???? p???s???sun s?? ? ?nq ‘???s?u?? u???s???? ? ?q o? ?u?u???? ‘???u???s ??? u? s?? ? ???? ??? plo? ? os ‘?? ?q ?u??? ? ???? ?? ?u??s? ?q ?no p?????s ??s ??n?p ??????? ? s? sns?? p??s ???? ??????s-??d?nq ?? ?noq? p???puo? o?? “u???s????” p?sn?uo? ???? ? ?q o? ?no p?u?n? ???? ?q u?nqn? u? ??po? p????o?dd? s?? ? ‘s???ld ??? ??? ?? ????p ? u??? su?dd?? ?l?u?nb??? s?

o? s?u??? d?l?