Just throw the Bible out already!

The latest story in yet another apostate church. The sign in front of this church reads as follows:

"Jesus had two dads and he turned out just fine!"

The church leadership responds concerning their sign:

"We have people in our congregation who are homosexual. We are an all-inclusive church, a family. No one cares what your sexuality is. Come on in, we don't see any difference."

They don't care and see no difference? Interesting. I reviewed the sexual sin list and and was completely unaware that one could simply "Cherry pick" the Bible and omit what they decide God was wrong about??? Go figure!

Since they claim they are an inclusive bunch next week's bill board should read:

"Joey had his own wife...and his best friend's wife...and his neighbour's wife...and his brother's wife...and his physicians wife...AND last but not least his wife's sister! Although he left a trail of broken and devastated families...no need to worry because he turned out OK!"

Following that they could do an entire sermon series for weeks on how they also embrace rape, beastality, incest, adultery, fornication, etc. I mean really, you can't embrace one sexual sin and omit all the others. That would be to "Exclusive" and I'm sure the Anglicans would not want to be viewed as hypocrites. Just sayin'

Until next time...

Part 2: Just Answer the Question!

"Next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say"

Richard Dawkins, "A Devil's Chaplain" pg 248

And on that note, enjoy the following :)




If you can believe it, many vehement followers of the great and mighty Richard referred to this video as a hoax, stating that he did in fact answer the question but the reality is he did not touch the question. In fact he went completely off in his own direction rambling on about the misconstrued perception of the evolutionary process. Uh yeah, that's nice Richie that you hold onto your belief on how it all happened but that was not the question.

The interviewer did not ask you whether or not we are descendants or just cousins. They did not ask you to explain how you believe it all happened. They asked you to substantiate your assertion of the evolutionary process of genetic mutation based on your very own words and truth claims. In 1993 it was you who decided what constituted a "scientific" approach to what was "True". On page 145 of your book "A Devil's Chaplain" you state:

"testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu (this should include atheists since they are a culture unto themselves) and so on"

Alright, fair enough. Now answer the question. Give us an example of genetic mutation or evolutionary process based on your concept of scientific approach. Still "Nothing" Richard? How ironic for someone who believes in nothing.

"As a lover of truth, I am suspicious of strongly held beliefs that are unsupported by evidence".

(A Devil's Chaplain, pg. 117)

Now there Richard is something you and I can agree on. Scientifically speaking of course.

So allow me to apply your advice and great wisdom with your original quote at the beginning of this post. There is no doubt, Richard, that you believe that genetic mutation is true. You have stated that many times. So I will ask the question that you yourself would encourage an inquisitive guy like myself to ask. OK, Here we go:

"Richard, what kind of evidence do you have to substantiate genetic mutation?"

Oh wait you just answered that one on your video response. You came from "nothing", believe in "nothing" and your answer was "nothing". In that case I will take you up on your advice since you can't give a good answer...or any for that matter. And I will think carefully about what you said before I believe a word you say..or don't say. Just as you would recommend.

Since there was "Nothing" to ponder, except 14 seconds of deafening silence and 1 minute 24 seconds of your doctrinal preaching on what you believe to have taken place, that did not take me long to consider. Thanks for your insight and advice Richard. I have applied it as per your direction and have drawn the conclusion that I don't believe you :)

Until next time...

Just answer the question!

Well the great and mighty Richard Dawkins has spoken yet again! The world's self proclaimed master of intelligence continues to grace our planet with his wonderful random chance supremacy steeped in his deep "accidental" logic that derived from nothingness! How blessed we are to have such a humble personality come together with such vast knowledge of his own wisdom! How did he attain such heights of orderly intelligence out of all the chaos in our expansive universe? I guess he was just first in line thru natural selection to grab hold of that selfish gene. Good thing to because I would not know how stupid I was if he were not around to tell me.

Thank God for...oh dear, I just offended Richard and displayed my hallucigenetic nature exposing my incredible lack of intellect. But really, I just want to know more Richie. If you are as smart and as intelligent as you keep telling us you are and we are as stupid...as you keep telling us we are...then please, for the love of...(oops, almost did it again) please "enlighten" the masses with an answer.

In the following video, Richard had a minute and a half to answer a very simple question, no doubt from a "simple" person compared to his greatness, and was incapable of it. If one claims to be such a supreme intelligence at the very least grace us all with an intelligent response. Instead Richard displays an "attitude" of arrogance and ignorance without responding with an answer at all.

First he opens up with a self defeating contradiction:

"Well, anybody could be wrong!"

Not true Richard, because you assure everyone that only people with weak minds who have the audacity to believe in a deity are wrong! Don't believe me? Just ask yourself since there is no other superior intellect outside of you. In fact it was you who said "The refusal to believe in anything you can't see yourself is absurd". Wait a minute... Yikes! Forgot about that one. That little statement could actually put you in a place of conflict with yourself so we just won't go there.

Next up he says to the "simple" minded student, who was probably robbed in the gene pool of intellect by being the weaker of the species:

"You know what it is like to believe in a particular faith because you are not a muslim your not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happen to be brought up in America not in India. For people brought up in India you'd be a Hindu. If you were brought up in, in Denmark in the time of the Vikings you would be believing in (could not make it out) and Thor.If you were brought up in classical Greece you'd be believing in Zeus. If you were living in Central Africa you'd be believing in the great Juju up the mountain."

OK let's get serious here now. Are you freakin' kidding me? What a generalized, broad brushed statement that was. On the one hand I will give Richard some credit for the whole "you are a product of your enviorment" spiel but that is certainly not a verifiable consistent pattern in which one could draw a conclusive absolute on. There are far to many circumstances that would dictate just the opposite. This is such a narrow minded unintelligible response.

For one thing there are Christians in every region that he mentions. Many who converted (in some of the mentioned regions under threat of death) from the different "beliefs" within the differing time eras. Secondly, how does Richard the almighty supreme intelligence explain me? If I had posed the same question he would not have me pegged at all. I came from a very non-Christian/religious home. Not a single Christian on either side of my family. As far back as my great grandparents, none ever attended church on a regular or irregular basis unless it was a wedding or funeral. To this day none of them even have a bible in the home unless I personally gave them one which I doubt they read. The mindset of my enviorment growing up was liberal and my step father professed his atheism. Yet, in my stupidity as Richard would point out, I made a decision to follow Christ. regardless of my childhood surroundings, nation, or atheistic influences. Answer that one O great master of supreme intelligence.

Finally he states:

"There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo Christian God in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up in and ask me the question "What if I'm wrong?". What if your wrong about the great juju at the bottom of the sea?"

And there you have it. He refuses to answer the question and then turns the question back on the "simple" minded student. This sounds so much like "I know you are but what am I?". Childish and redundant. What are you afraid of Richard? Answer the question if you are so sure of yourself. And to insult the young lady by referring to her upobringing as an accident. Wow! Tell us then Richard what it was like being raised in the selfish dominating gene pool that natrually selected your parents to raise such an intellect? Funny how nothing "influenced" your perceptions. You are to sharp for that aren't you?

What an asine response. In Richard's earlier years he displayed a willingness to engage in intellectual philisophical debate with respect. Today, he appears to have given into the "New Atheism" which is completely disengaged philisophically and focuses more on outright attacking people who believe in the existence of a deity. Tsk tsk, not very tolerant! I am willing to answer the question Richard. Why aren't you?

Until next time...

Still here!

Been a long while. So much to talk about. So much intolerant hypocrisy to expose from the masses and preachers of tolerance (lol)...but not today!

Medina, Saudi Arabia is the home of Mohammeds tomb and bodily remains. Kusinara, India holds the cremeated remains of Bhudda. Ch' u-fu Shandong, China the burial site of Confucious.

Jerusalem, Israel home of the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. The only place where the faithful travel to "Not" see a body/remains. That is because He is not there. He has risen!

Happy Easter my friends. The following video is the true meaning behind Good Friday.

A life lesson from God

I am not one to get to personal on my blog site, as many of you know, I rather enjoy a challenging mind bending discussion that...how shall we say? Stirs the poop!

However, this is not going to be one of those posts. I have been away for quite sometime. 5 months to be exact, so I thought, if any of you still happen by, I would fill you in on my whereabouts.

It has been a crazy, educational journey that I have been on. As you know, I am a man of prayer. 9 months ago as I looked around my very modest 800 square foot home I realized that when I purchased it 10 years ago I had two kids knee high to a grasshopper. Today I have three who are as tall as the Ent trees in Lord of the Rings. This began my prayer request to God. It was quite simple, "Lord, I am grateful for all that you have blessed me with but I really need more space"

I don't believe I am a greedy man. I felt I recognized a legitmiate need for my family. As is always the case with God, He does not expect you to sit and wait for Him to do absolutley everything while you do nothing. He is a God who delights in watching His children learn and grow. He aslo wants His children to lean on Him while they learn life's lessons. I leaned on God for the answer to my prayer.

I first took measures to place my house up for sale. When a few potential buyers fell thru due to their own "credit" issues, I took that as God's way of saying that I will not be going anywhere. Which left me questioning. "Does the Lord feel I have enough space?", "Maybe this is just not the right time just because I might think it is maybe He see's something down the road that I do not".

The Lord made it clear to me that I was staying put but I was going to learn something in this life that I never imagined I would. He directed to my local bank where I discovered they had what was called an "Add on mortage loan". In other words, one can get the money to renovate their home without taking out a loan but could, instead, have the cost "ported" onto their excisiting mortage.

The financial end of doing this is far more cost effective then trying to buy a larger home. This is where the "educational" portion came into play. God said "And your going to build it!" In other words, except where absolutley neccessary, I was not going to contract ANY of the work out. I would build it with my own hands. A labour of love for the family. Easy to say, problem was is I am by no means a carpenter and have cerrtainly NEVER built a house.

But God said He would provide the knowledge, skills and labourers and I would take care of the rest. Believe it or not, that is exactly how it all went down. I am now in the finishing stages and was even able to celebrate Christmas in it. God saw the bigger picture. My need for more space would not have been easily accomodated with an insane mortage. Especially in todays economic landslide into the abyss. When I began the planning stages of this project back in March (2008) I certainly did not see the market heading where it has today. But I know that God did.

In this, one of life's lessons, God spared me from a foolish mortage amount that could have sunk me and at the same time provided me with a mountain of knowledge from start to finish when it comes to bulding a house. Right from dealing with Planning boards, aqquiring all the neccessary permits, designing my home/blueprints, ordering all materials, organising a crew (made up some very solid friends/family who sacrificed a lot) right down the finishing touches.

As exhausting as it has all been (work all day, come home and work on the house all night and ALL weekends) I am so grateful for the knowledge I have obtained, the friendships that have I hgave solidified, anbd the space I now have.

God really is good. Because in His infinite wisdom He answered my prayer not by me sitting back and having Him do everything for me but by using me to as the answer. For this I am grateful.

Merry Christmas to all and a very Happy and prosperous New Year. My acid tongue shall return in the New Year :)

Until next time...

Justified by "Their" actions (The need for Islamaphobia)

Last post it was detrimental to actually observe the true definition of "Islamaphobia". That is, "To have a fear of..." in this case, Islam or Muslims. Now it's not necessarily being afraid of them as people and it would be unfair to paint every single one of them with the same broad brush, however it is a movement that concerns many. In fact, the world. One that calls on the Muslim believer to "eradicate the land of the infidel". I have asked the question of many a Muslim (I admit already knowing the answer) "Just who is the infidel?"

That, of course, is the non believer. But the bigger question, and it is pertinent to exclude the Muslim scholars from this question, "Have the Imans and Clerics not called for Holy Jihad on the infidels?" The answer is unequivocally "Yes". I have found this question often answered in a low mumble to silence. It is important to note that is the Imans and clerics, NOT the scholars, whose commands are held with reverence. Then the knock out question, "Is it not also true that when this particular command is given that Muslims who then kill an infidel secure themselves a place in Heaven?"




I can honestly say I have NEVER recieved a response on the last question. Only a look of disappointment and more silence. That brought me to ask the question in the previous article, "Is Islamaphobia justifiable?"

I think the silence answers for itself. But let's move on to the misapplication of the word. Many Muslims will throw this word out when they feel they are essentially being persecuted for their faith. Planes, buses, cars, buildings, innocent women and children have all been blown to smithereens in the name of Islam. This has been a relentless constant in our world that has intensified with such wrath that it is only natural that "Islamaphobia" is alive and well.

Unlike a "cult" where a self proclaimed/appointed prophet successfully manages to brainwash those within the commune where the damage done is always from within, involving only those who took part, radical Islam is quite the opposite. It calls for death and destruction to all who stand on the outside. This apparently defines the "Religion of Peace" and tolerance. Let's look, once again, at the shining examples Islam thereby displaying the appropiate and well deserved scrutiny of this destructive faith.



Here are some examples you will never read about in mainstream media:

- Muslim militants killed at least two Christians and wounded dozens more on March 3, 2008, in the town of Nensabo located 325 km southeast of the capital Addis Ababa.....militants attacked the Christians, including women and children, while they were attending a worship service. (Classy, isn't it?)

the attack was part of a plan by Muslim militants, influenced by the spread of Wahhabism in the area, to wipe out Christians from the Muslim-dominated region. The plan included destruction of churches and attacks on Christian groups involved in missionary work.

- On February 10, Jemmal Abdo (30) and his wife, both Muslim converts to Christianity, were beaten and chased out from a mosque where they both worked in the capital city of Addis Ababa...Soon after their conversion, one of Jemmal's friends saw him talking with Christians and told the imam of the mosque. On February 10, Jemmal and his wife were interrogated in the mosque during a meeting called by Muslim leaders in an attempt to persuade the couple to recant their faith. The couple refused to do so, even after the leaders offered them higher positions and salaries if they denied Christ. The couple was then beaten and dragged out of the mosque. (More tolerance for ya!)

- An evangelist, Daniel Sodager Masih (55), was beaten by Muslims at approximately 7:30 p.m. in Lahore on February 11. Masih was preaching on the road when a Muslim man emerged from his nearby shop and began to shout at him. Masih told the man that he could not stop him from preaching God's Word. The man slapped Masih and was soon joined by another Muslim shopkeeper.

- Five church buildings were destroyed, several people injured, and the homes of a number of Christians burned in violence in Yana, Bauchi state, Nigeria on February 2, according to a February 12 report from Compass Direct. On the evening of February 1, Patience Yusuf met with an unidentified Muslim man outside her home upon his request. The man told her that he wanted to befriend and marry her but Yusuf refused him. The man begged her "in the name of God and his apostle, Muhammad," to become his girlfriend. Yusuf again refused, saying: "You are pleading in the name of a person I do not know. Jesus I know, but Muhammad I do not know." The man left and later that night told friends and neighbours that Yusuf had blasphemed against Muhammad.The next morning, he led a group of Muslims to Yusuf's house to confront her. She escaped to the local police station for protection but the mob followed her and demanded that she be killed for her alleged crime in accordance with Islamic law. When the police refused to give her up, the Muslims attacked the officers and burned down the station. Shortly afterwards, hundreds of armed Muslims rioted in the streets, attacking and injuring several Christians. Buildings belonging to the Evangelical Church of West Africa, the Church of Nigeria, the Apostolic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of Christ in Nigeria were destroyed. Approximately 1,000 people were reportedly displaced in the violence.

- Police arrested and tortured a Christian teenager, Farzana (16), after her Muslim employer falsely accused her of theft in Lahore on March 27, according to a March 28 report from Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan. Following her arrest from the house of her employer, Muhammad Abid, the police took her to the station where she was tortured and forced to confess to stealing from Abid. The same day, at 11 p.m., the police searched Farzana's home and arrested her elderly father and three brothers, whom they also tortured. Her father and brothers were released the following day when a crowd protested the police's actions.No formal charge has been issued against Farzana and there is no evidence to indicate her guilt. However, it is common in Pakistan for Muslim employers to falsely accuse Christians of crimes, particularly young Christian girls who are forced to work as house servants.






- Four teachers, two British citizens of Somali origin - Mr. Daud Hassan Ali (64) and Ms. Rehana Ahmed (32) - and two unidentified Kenyans, were shot and killed by Islamist insurgents during a midnight raid on the Hakab Private English School in the town of Beledweyne, south-central Somalia on April 13. Al-Shabab, the militant Islamic group responsible for the violence, alleged that they fired indiscriminately and that the teachers were killed in cross-fire. Local people, however, believe that the teachers were singled out for their suspected evangelistic work. The wife of Daud Hassan Ali alleged that her husband was targeted because he was a Muslim-born convert to Christianity.

- On March 2, Pastor Motilal Das' 13-year-old daughter, Elina Das, was raped by five Muslims intent on stopping his ministry work in the village of Laksmipur, Mymensingh district, according to a May 8 report from Compass Direct. The Muslims abducted Elina while she was walking to a latrine outside her home. They gagged her and took her to a nearby tea stall where she was repeatedly raped. At approximately 3:00 a.m., Pastor Das found Elina unconscious on his doorstep. When he went to the police station, the officers reluctantly registered the case after accusing him of filing a false case. Muslims have since threatened to kill him and his family if he does not withdraw the charges. Pastor Das claimed that locals Muslim had have long been angered by his evangelistic work in the area and he had previously received death threats. Male Muslim classmates had repeatedly teased and harassed Elina, the only Christian in her school, about her faith.

- David Abdulwahab Mohamed Ali (29), a convert to Christianity from Islam, was killed by Muslim militants on April 22 at approximately 4:30 p.m. in the Somali town of Baidawa,...A cousin of Ali and two members of Al-Shabab, a militant Islamic organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda, were reportedly responsible for the murder. Ali, an evangelist who had helped to lead many to Christ, had been living in Ethiopia since 2000 and was in Somalia to visit family members.

- Dr. Robin Sardar (55) was falsely accused of blasphemy by a local Muslim, Muhammad Rafique, in the district of Hafizabad, Punjab on May 5, according to a May 7 report ...The tension between the men was sparked six months ago, when Rafique visited Sardar's clinic. Rafique shook the hands of his Muslim friends present but refused to shake Sardar's hand, saying, "It's my insult to shake hand with a Christian." Some weeks later, Rafique was angered when Sardar stopped him from setting up his shop stall in front of his clinic. He then filed a case against Sardar falsely accusing him of "humiliating the prophet Muhammad."When local Muslims heard of the charges, they used a loudspeaker to demand the killing of Dr. Sardar, calling him a "kaffir" (infidel). A mob intent on killing Dr. Sardar and his family surrounded his home but the police were able to prevent any violence. The militants then pressured the police to arrest Dr. Sardar on charges of blasphemy. He has been detained in a local prison.

- On May 12, the police rescued two Christian girls, Mary Chikwodi Okoye (15) and Uche Edward (14), who were kidnapped by Muslim militants three weeks ago in the town of Ningi, Bauchi state, according to a May 19 report from Compass Direct. The kidnappers initially took the girls to the house of a Muslim leader in the town of Wudil. Okoye's foster father and a group of believers heard where the girls were being held. When they arrived at the home, however, the girls had been relocated to the residence of a Muslim leader in Ningi. When the team went to this home they were told by the leader that the girls had converted to Islam and could not be released. The police then stepped in and evacuated the girls to eastern Nigeria where they were reunited with their biological parents.The following day, Muslims associated with a paramilitary arm of Kano state's Sharia Commission went on a rampage, attacking Christians and setting fire to local churches, in protest of the girls' release. Six church buildings -- the Deeper Life Bible Church, St. Mary's Catholic Church, All Souls Anglican Church, Church of Christ in Nigeria, Redeemed Christian Church of God, and the Redeemed Peoples Mission -- were destroyed in the attack. The Muslims also attacked shops belonging to Okoye's foster father, looting and destroying goods worth over 50 million naira

- Joseph Francis, a Christian rights activist and partner of Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS) was attacked by two unidentified Muslim militants in Lahore, Pakistan on May 23, according to a June 4 report from CLAAS. The men chased down Francis' vehicle on motorbikes and one of them pulled a gun in an attempt to forcibly stop his car. They accused Francis of committing blasphemy, a crime punishable by death, and threatened to kill him if he continued to work with CLAAS to help "blasphemers." Due to the heavy traffic, he was able to escape the men and call his staff members for help. When the staff members arrived they stopped the men, who then fled. This is the second attack on Francis in less than three months. On March 6, militants attacked his car as he arrived at a rehabilitation centre with a Christian girl who had been raped by Muslims.


- On May 25, a 12-year-old girl from a Christian family, Elishba, was raped by three Muslims in Lahore, according to a June 13 report from AsiaNews. Elishba's father, Niamat Masih, returned from work to find her not at home and grew worried for her safety because she suffers from mental problems. When he went outside to look for her he heard noises coming from a nearby home and went inside. He was met by the young Muslim men who fled at the sight of him. He then found Elishba lying unconscious on the floor with her clothing torn. Elishba's family initially refrained from reporting the crime or filing charges because they were threatened by local Muslims (Nothiung like spreading the love of allah)

- A mob of local Muslims attacked shops and homes belonging to Coptic Christians in the village of Al Nazla, Fayoum province, on June 19. When a convert from Christianity to Islam left that day on a three-day trip to Cairo, local Muslims concluded that she had gone missing. Rumours circulated that she had been abducted by her Christian family members. A mob of Muslims then went on a rampage in the village, beating and injuring Christians and destroying property

(This is NOT OK!)


(But apparently it is OK to insult the God of other's)

If those who suscribe to Islam want to continue to cry out and continue to misappropiate the correct terminology, then judging by their actions on a worldwide scale it is quite confusing how they have never been labelled and/or accused of their blatant Christianphobic ways.

Until next time...

Why NOT Islamaphobia?

I have lamented many a time on what I perceive to be a subconscious and somewhat intentional misuse of terminology from various special interest groups trying their best to convey a weak argument. When they have found themselves losing ground they tend to initiate the only tactic they have left in their arsenal. "Let's call them names that will guilt them into silence and hopefully they will feel shameful over their intolerant views that should dam well agree with ours!"

It has clearly become a world full of "ism's" and "phobia's". Many often not applicable under their circumstances. Someone disagrees with a particular ethnic policy and they are accused of racism clearly where none has been exercised or even remotely demonstrated. Another disagrees with a sexual orientation and are accused of having a "phobia" where no "fear" has been demonstrated. Many of these terms are absorbed and sucked up by the mainstream and gullible of society with the repetitive use thru media. Like these "terms" are somehow actually applicable in the circumstances when , when one takes the time to look up the actual definition of the word, you would soon discover that the use of the word was completely misappropriated.

However there is one word I have not yet addressed in my past rants that I find is quite an appropriate word for the times. That is Islamaphobia. Phobia, by definition, is to "have a fear of" and Islam is self explanatory. The word then defined means to have a fear of Islam. Or Muslims, those who practice the religion of Islam. Quite often when more conservative media exposes Islam in a bad light it is liberal media and many Muslims themselves that will often cry foul and before one knows it the term "Islamaphobia" is being thrown about.

I have pondered the word and asked myself the same question I ask when I hear similar "ism's" and "phobia's" thrown about. That is, "Is it applicable under the circumstances?" It is a fair question. After all, if one is going to engage in a name calling match I would think they should also be obligated to display a level of intellect that demonstrates they are using terminology that defines and even justifies the "accusation" and not just mudslinging by sloppily throwing out non applicable terminology in hopes of beating their opponent into the proverbial guilt submission hold.

The typical scenario that often lends itself to the accusation of one demonstrating Islamaphobia comes about when someone or group points out a refute or negative about the Muslim religion. It often begins when those practicing the "Religion of Peace" are demonstrating it by blowing themselves up along with innocent women and children. Naturally condemnation from those outside Islam follows yet we are often told not too "judge" all Muslims because of the actions of a few. The "few" is easily arguable. Just follow the news on a daily basis and you will quickly see the reality is actually the "many".

But there are two distinct trends here that have me thinking otherwise. First would be the lack of response by the "moderate" Muslim. That would be those who have come to North America to escape, as they claim, the brutality of their homelands where Islam is quite often more violent then peaceful. The "Moderates" are supposedly in disagreement with the actions of their brothers and sisters overseas by proclaiming that they are in fact a "peaceful religion" yet they are strangely silent when it comes to the continuous onslaught of violence. Not just in concentrated areas but what is becoming worldwide.

When 9/11 happened this was an opportunity for "peaceful" Muslims to demonstrate to the rest of western civilisation just how "offended" they were by the actions of those claiming to be practicing Muslims.

Yet there was an eerie silence and a more defensive attitude coming from the "moderate". Devout muslim and news columinist Salim Mansur took notice of this "condoning silence" and noted:

"Those involved in the planning and execution of such terror are immigrants or born of immigrant parents belonging to the rapidly growing Muslim population in the West over the past 40 years. I happen to be a part of this wave of immigration to the West.
This western Muslim population, with its ethnic diversity reflecting the vastness of the Arab-Muslim world -- stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa -- could have given some timely ballast to multiculturalism by unambiguously and unapologetically defending the West against barbarity.

This was the minimum Muslims in the West owed to the civilization where they sought refuge, and where they found security, prosperity, freedom and self-fulfillment of the like denied them in their native lands. Instead Muslim-based organizations, at first having offered denial, followed with an unending volume of polemics condemning the West for past sins. By exploiting the West's post-colonial guilt they held it responsible for the conditions in the Arab-Muslim world that breeds the politics of terrorism."

Oddly enough they are silent on the other issue's as well. While they want to introduce Sharia law in the Canadian Province of Ontario (sorry folks, go back to the homeland if you don't like it here) they were silent on the moral issue's such as abortion, adultery, and same sex marriage. While their own religious liberties that they had come to enjoy were at stake over here and would be cause for an "honor" killing in the homeland they had nothing moderate to say about it in North America. The silence left an impression of condolence. Moderate Muslims are no more then liberal mainstream church goers (Not Christians BTW) who embrace and bless all kinds of sin.

Yet I am not convinced that is the reason for their silence. If Sharia law was to be enacted, the very moral issue's would be dealt with. With the same ferocity of the timeless homeland form of justice. This could explain their silence on such matters thus far.

If this is the case then I would suggest there is much to fear. With good reason I might add. That would, under the true definition of the word, qualify me as an Islamaphobe.

Until next time...

(I will address the 2nd trend in my following post)

Reading between the lines

I recently received the following e-mail from a dear and well intentioned friend.

"Check out Barack Obama in a Town Hall meeting in Elko, Nevada on January 18, 2008 - that would be just a few days ago. Note how he was NOT scripted or calculated wondering what "the right thing" was to say - he said what is Right and what he believes."

Although I do not follow American politics as closely as I do Canadian politics, I still pay attention. After all, let's be realistic, everyone who wants to have the slightest inkling as to the direction our world will take will always pay at least some attention to it's predominant superpower.

Anyway, with the e-mail was sent the following Youtube link on just what Obama said. Listen closely and then you decide. I posted my responses to my friend underneath the clip that I sent back to her. She hasn't responded back to me since...at least regarding this issue.



(Barack qouted yellow in italics)

I (TIO) disagree (name withheld). Sounds very well rehearsed from my end. I have heard all that political verbal diarrhea many times leading up to an election.

1st, Barack notes that it was "A great question" (way to stroke a potential voter)

2nd "The first thing we have to do is acknowledge the tragic history" C'mon (name withheld), how many times have you heard that line?

3rd Barack acknowledges "we have not always abided by our treaties, we have not always been honest and truthful" This point is often conceded in preliminary's. It is called political pandering/posturing. Post election it will be called political rhetoric. Democrat or Republican, they have ALL said this many times before and they have accomplished?????

4th "and this is history we have to acknowledge" Hmmm more acknowledgment. That is not action. I am willing to bet there is a promise coming up that says "If elected President"!

5th "We can't just have Indian bureau's meeting with the tribes we got have the President of the United States meeting on a regular basis..." 2 points here.
1) I will believe that when I see it and
2) if Barack said "Indians" and "tribes" up here (in Canada) he would be labeled a bigoted racist not applauded. (Just a note of interest I picked up on)

6th "We have to make sure there are the adequate resources to deal with the extraordinary difficulties that exist" You haven't heard that line before either???? Not only sounds scripted but plagiarized from elections past.

7th "That is not just an embarrassment for the US government that is an embarrassment for all of us" More blah, blah. Remember these words should he become the next President. I am quite convinced that he won't recall them.

8th "and ALL children should have basic health care and basic education AND THAT IS WHAT I WILL BE FIGHTING FOR AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" And there is the "promise"! Elect me and I will address all your woes. How? By acknowledging them? Acknowledgment is not action. I suspect Barack, (although he may not have expected that question right then and there,) definitely anticipated it somewhere down the road of campaigning. He would not be a good politician if he did not. However, it is my opinion that Barack's answers were "standard protocol". He orated his words well which had him come across as sincere, like what he was saying was original. He is a product that is marketing himself. I don't buy it. Simply because I have heard it all before. Almost verbatim. I am somewhat surprised that you have! But there is something else I wonder...even if he were the very first politician to actually take action on treaty issues, he is an American politician so what good does that do up here?

That was the jist of it all. However I still hold my views, based on what I read and observe, regarding the process of campaigning leading up to the eventual presidential race next year. Overall the Democratic preliminaries have become a sad state of "differences". I guess that is better then "affairs", right Hilary? It is not a matter of who is the best qualified but rather a contest of "Will the next potential President of the United States have black skin or breasts?" Too bad these are always the focus as opposed to the actual qualifications of the individual.

I think Americans would have been better served if the Democratic candidates were either both women or both black. Who will win? Well, it appears Americans are ready for change. But when the lines are divided between race and gender there really is only one Democrat left. My fellow Americans, let me introduce to you the next President of the United States, John McCain :)



Until next time...

Disagreeing is a "Right" not a phobia (dammit!)

Like a group of whiny, spoiled little brats in a shopping mall screaming at the top of their lungs until they get what they want (IE get their own way) so the endless saga continues for a small insignificant group of gay rights activists spewing their typical and very, VERY, predictable mantra of "Homophobia" (YAWN!)

Here we go once again. What, pray tell, is the issue this time? Actually it is nothing new. Our story begins with the Nova Scotia county of Pictou where gay lobbyists headed up by Ramona Westgate, an activist with the Pictou County Pride Group, were decrying the violations against them because town hall voted against flying their flag during Pride week. Awwwww, well, I guess that means they hate you then! Right Ramona? (BTW, I don't believe that for a minute) In fact, town council voted against flying "ANY" flags, making it an official policy, except for the Canadian, Provincial, County, and First Nations flags which represent EVERYBODY not a preferred sexual lifestyle choice. I find that far more tolerant then allowing just the gays to fly their flag as the national flags are all inclusive and encompassing. The Rainbow flag segregates a select group and THAT , my friends, is intolerant!

Responses have become so predictable for these lobbyists to start throwing out the garbage language, in typical over used and abused fashion, how they are being discriminated against and how "Homophobic" everyone else is who do not agree, support, or condone their sexuality. What they, and even bias media fail to look into, is the facts behind the decisions.

First off, is it necessary to fly their "sex preference" flag every year? Before one knows it every one will want to fly their flags at city hall and will simply apply the same "word offence" strategy that the gay lobbyists use by also whining how they are also being discriminated against and how oppressed they are.

Warden Allister MacDonald said it best in his response to the "homophobia" accusations :

"A hate group could come and ask for us to raise a flag, and we would be discriminating against that particular group (by not raising the flag),.....They could take us to a human rights court. This way we're trying to be proactive so that there would be no controversy down the road."

There you have it. Finally someone making a logical decision by not caving into the oppressive fear mongering tactics of the lobbyist. Either we fly for all groups or none. Since not all can be accommodated then no one get's a kick at the flag pole.

Naturally, and as is expected, that is just not enough for some. In that typical spoiled child like fashion, they simply will not take no for an answer. Councillor David Parker who voted against the new policy stated: "When we are able to fly that flag over our community, it will mean that we are at least beginning to confront our fears and our prejudices"

Oh do shut up Dave. Today those fears were confronted when your town council took a stand against the fear induced tactics that make it politically incorrect (let's not forget "hateful) to disagree with anything homosexual.

Here is a newsflash for Dave and Ramona. To disagree is a RIGHT in this country NOT HATE! Unless you can prove hate then stop abusing the terminology. You only make yourselves come across as ridiculous, ignorant, close minded, closed off, bigoted, forceful, and INTOLERANT!

Until next time...

Barbie Syndrome (the art of giving)

Christmas, it has been said (repeatedly) is a time to cherish the moments with our loved ones. A time to reflect and count our blessings, not our misfortunes. Admittedly, that can be easier said then done for some. Also, as the old cliché goes, a time to give. In a follow up to that, it has also been said "That it is better to give then receive".

Nothing could be more truthful then that. It is something I have come to enjoy (giving) but it is also something I have learned truly requires a level of skillful ingenuity. It is, to some degree, an art form.

Things I have learned about giving is this:

1.) Do not give under compulsion or some form of obligation. That is not giving from the heart with a genuine love for the recipient. It is rather given out of an attitude of "Well, they are family/close friend and therefore it would be rude of me not to get them anything" Give with sincerity because you are truly thinking of that person during this time of year.

2.) Taste. When someone has crossed your mind that you want to give to consider the things that are a reflection of who they are. NOT what your tastes for them might be. What are THEIR tastes. After all, you are not buying the gift for you, you are buying for them. Hence the title of this article.

For example, this year, knowing my boys tastes, we showered them with all kinds of Star Wars space ships and figurines. Why? Because we know that these things define their likes/tastes. It is a gift that we took great pleasure in giving because we knew it would light up their faces. We bought those with them in mind (not us) and we looked forward to the joy we get just watching their responses and the looks on their faces.

How would this have turned out though, if we decided to buy them Barbie dolls? It begs the question, why buy a gift for someone (at all) when it would never get used or played with?

Personally speaking, I am a better "giver" then I am a recipient. My tastes are simple and yet stubbornly complicated. If someone is stumped on what to buy for me as a gift then really, I would be more blessed just to have some quality time with them and sincerely mean it when I say "Don't worry about giving some thing material, your time is also a gift". I think of last year when I had Christmas with my in-laws. It was one of the best times I had as I discovered how much I just enjoyed hanging out with them. I could have cared less if I received a material gift.

This has more meaning then receiving a gift that I may never wear, spend, use, or otherwise. An example (Hypothetical as this did not actually happen) when a "giver" who knows my tastes and wants to purchase clothing for me also knows that a "Harley Davidson" emblem somewhere on that article of clothing will get it worn out by next Christmas. If the "giver" buy's me a turtle neck sweater, I gratefully receive it....and then I stick it in the closet until the moths eat it. Why? Because that is not my flavor. So remember the "Barbie syndrome" when giving.

3.) UNLESS otherwise stated on a "wish list", avoid buying someone's "Needs". Most people spend the other 364 days of the year purchasing their personal "needs" thru out the year on things such as socks, undergarments, body hygiene accessories, etc. Which leaves them little or nothing to buy the things they "want". They avoid buying themselves these little "treats" of self indulgent "wants" in order that their "needs" or necessities of life are met. So when the giver then gives that gift that the recipient denied themselves all year long in order to accommodate their "needs" it truly makes it that much more special.

So STAY AWAY from sock giving. It makes the statement "I really did not put a lot of thought into it". That is not to be taken as an encouragement for ungratefulness. I am gearing this writing towards the "Giver" remember?

Have you ever had those moments where you received a gift and in your inner most thoughts your thinking to yourself "When the giver spotted this item, what the H*** made them think of me?" I know, it sounds harsh but really, why purchase something for someone when they already have enough of said item or it is an item they would never use? Better off not getting them anything at all. Otherwise they are stuck with something they may feel obligated to hang on to.

SO that is my reflective piece for the final installment of the year 2007. Do your best to avoid Barbie syndrome when thinking of that someone special. Remember their tastes. If they like electronics and gadgets, don't get them gift cards to La Senza. If they like chocolate, don't buy them vanilla. If they like Hockey don't buy them tickets to a figure skating show. Annnndd if they like Star Wars DON'T BUY THEM BARBIES!



The best to all of you in 2008. Until next time...

Sensitive and straight forward!

To my liberal minded, unenlightened, backward progressing friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Canada great.

Not to imply that Canada is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only country in the Western Hemisphere .

Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To all my conservative, well grounded in common sense, who do not fear truth friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Jesus IS the Christ in Christmas. God bless you :)

A moral dilemma?

To download or not too download? That is the question. It is one not only of moral relevance but also one of legal ramifications. Or is it?

When it comes to the controversial hot button issue of downloading/uploading music files, is it in fact illegal? Is it in fact wrong?

From a legal standpoint, depending on your geographical region, it can be either one. For example, just last month, a 30 year old Minnesota (US) woman was ordered to pay $222,000.00 to six different record companies for sharing 24 songs online thru a file sharing site. Also known as P2P (Peer to peer). Obviously, it is against the law in Minnesota but the punishment was rather odd when she apparently had over 1,700 songs on her computer. Why was she then only charged for 24 songs? Either it is illegal across the board or it is not.

Here in Canada the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) are also all up in arms (naturally) for what they claim are more then 1 billion illegal downloads per year in Canada. But wait just a minute...ILLEGAL?


In 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada RULED that downloading P2P networks (File sharing) was, in fact, PERFECTLY LEGAL for personal use The following year a Canadian Federal court judge (that's the Supreme court baby!) took on a similar stance when questioning whether uploading files is even illegal. In other words, as long as you are only downloading music for your own listening pleasure and not making 500 CD copies that you are then distributing and making money off of, then you are not committing a criminal act. Therefore, the CRIA errs when they suggest that what Canadians are doing is illegal when the reality is quite the opposite. If I download any music, in Canada, I am not breaking any laws, therefore how can it be illegal?

The second, and maybe more important question, is ...is it morally wrong? Some refer to it (P2P) as "stealing". I am honestly not convinced, at least at this point, that it is. Hear me out on this.

Back in the early 1980's "Everybody" borrowed records (remember those big vinyl disc's?) from their friend's, families, and neighbors to record them onto their tape cassettes so they could listen to them on their car stereos. I also remember sitting up for hours listening to my favorite Rock station with a cassette loaded in my boom box ready to hit that bright red record button every time one of my favorite songs came on. Our thinking back then was no different then it is today. Why go out and buy an entire record when you only wanted one or two songs. Someone was bound to have a copy you could "borrow".

It was a Flintstone version of file sharing with only one big difference. Aside from the physical exchange of music, as opposed to the online experience, no one was ever ONCE accused of stealing music. No recording industry ever ONCE filed a law suit against an individual. No law was ever ONCE mentioned or tabled in any legislative assembly in order to try an attempt to prevent people from sharing their record albums for other's to record. It was all understood that it was for personal use as well.

As it stands for me today, and as of this writing, I see no difference in today's online experience then from that of yesteryear.

Until next time...

It's NOT Racism!

Racism (ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-)

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

One of my biggest pet peeves out there today has to be people/groups who cry foul over everything and anything. They go about this by almost intentionally misusing and abusing terminology. There is a tendency to shout out loud about somebody's/group's infraction against them. It is then taken a step further by manipulating media with these "words of accusation" in order that they might gain public sympathy thru media sensationalism.

The reality, quite often, is overshadowed by the "I'm a victim" statement as opposed to actual circumstance. Media swallow up the supposed offence against the "victim" without doing any real investigation to determine if, at all, the offence ever took place.

For example, we often see many people who disagree or who refuse to recognize a gay marriage due to a personal conviction, labelled by their supposed "victims" as homophobe's. Are they really? How do the accuser's know whether or not these "phobes" have gay friends, family, and co-workers whom they feel deeply for. Even love. They simply have a differing view on homosexuality. Does the term "Homophobe", as it is defined, actually apply?

Another word thrown around loosley these days is "Racism". Take the story of Winnipeg's Kim Houle who recently accused leadership at Church of the Rock of discriminating against her.

Her story begins when she recently moved into a Habitat for Humanity home in July and was asked to perform, along with eight of her kids and grandkids, at the organization's volunteer appreciation night which was to take place at the Church that the organization had booked. Her performance was going to be a Native Spiritual dance where she and her kids/grandkids were to dress in their traditional garb. The day the event was to take place, Houle was informed they could not perform because their spiritual dance did not align with the church's policies. (An "oversite" on the part of Habitat who was obligated to inform the church of all performers prior to the event, not the day of)

A policy that the church is entitled to have. However, ask yourself the question, "Would a church be allowed to have a legal and binding policy that outright states that certain races are not allowed"? Although I do not personally attend Church of the Rock I can attest that almost all church's have a policy in place for the sake of protection from discriminatory suit's. Not based on race either. They are often very similiar in content. I believe I would be quite accurate in assuming the policy in this case stated that the church, which is the sanctuary where Christ alone is worshiped, cannot permit "acts of worship" to accomodate other beliefs. It would demonstrate a "Universal" acceptance that all paths lead to Heaven/God and that would be contrary to the core tenets of the Christian faith. To allow such an event would make a contradictory statement that the church embraces all "Faith's" which it does not. It embraces all people. Which brings me to the crux of all this.

Houle stated, "I was very angry, I was really hurt to have to explain to my kids that this prejudice is still going on,". She later went on to say, "the church reminded her that aboriginal people are still not free from racism and prejudice".

I do sincerely sympathise with her hurt but was she racially targeted? The invite to the event still stood. She was never once told "I am sorry Ms. Houle but you cannot attend tonites event because your skin is brown" or "Because you are an aboriginal". That would have been racist. Her initial reaction is understandable. To be angry, but to accuse of racism when there really is no grounds to support it is irresponsible. It is even more irresponsible for media to report it as such but, as usual, the media had to feed off of it. Winnipeg Sun reporter, Julie Horbal, sensaltionalised her story with the opening scathing words:

"Kim Houle is still struggling to explain the harsh realities of discrimination to her children and grandchildren"

I reversed the situation in my thoughts to try and get a better perspective. I recall some of my native friends, who have become Christians, sharing with me how they still attend sweat lodges. On occasion, there have been times where they were told by certain elders of a particular lodge that although they were welcome the "said" lodge only recognised Native spirituality and that they could leave their Christian faith at the door. As I put myself in their shoes, imagining attending a sweat lodge and being told I could not acknowledge Jesus Christ, I began to get a better appreciation for Kim's case.

However, if such an event took place, would I feel that it was due to racism? To answer that honestly, I must first recognise the realtiy that the lodge is there to honor the tenets of the Native beliefs. If I could not exercise my faith in it, I am under no obligation to attend, am I? Would I be hurt if I was turned away? Admittedly, yes. But would I feel I was discriminated against based on my race? Absolutley not. Where would they have said that I could not attend because I am a "Paleface"? I would be welcome as long as I respected and honored their practices in the lodge. If that was a problem for me, which it would be, rather then cry foul, I need to show respect for them as a people to do as they see fit within the tenets of their beliefs. Whether I agree or not. But for me to cry "Racism" is to make an issue where there is none.

So in the case of Kim Houle, the scenario itself, I believe, was mishandled by the Habitat 4 Humanity for first not communicating with the church early on regarding their policies. But keep in mind tha Kim was never once refused entry into the sanctuary because she happens to be Native. The claim of racism is a ludicrous one. As I stated earlier, I am not a member of the Church of the Rock, but I have attended a couple of the services there. The amount of skin color and ethnicity of that congregation would put the multi cultural community to shame. They just happen to all be Christians. But no one has ever been discriminated against based on race. The word, in this case, was used irrationally in what I believe to be the heat of the moment.

If we are to truly consider ourselves a tolerant melting pot of cultures then we must not allow ourselves to portray the "victim of oppression" by playing the all to accessible "Race" card. Especially where it is clearly not applicable.

Until next time...

Let's discuss...

18 Year Old Katrina Clark had this to say on being the offspring of an anonymous sperm donor:

“I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on
the “parents” – the adults who can make choices about their own lives….The children
born of these transactions are people too…..

“I'm here to tell you that emotionally, many of us are not keeping up. We didn't ask to be
born into this situation, with its limitations and confusion….

“We offspring are recognizing the right that was stripped from us at birth -- the right to
know who both our parents are.”


(You can read her entire statement here)

This statement is yet another result that was forecast many years ago when medical science decided to hop into bed with bleeding heart liberalism. When these very types of reactions by the "offspring" were predicted by the more conservative crowd (How dare they actually consider how it might affect the child???) they were, in the typical self righteous liberal mindset, disimissed by the enlightened (smirk) "Elite" as being too radically and fundementally challenged to open their minds to new possibilities for evryone to have children.

That was never the point with the conservative view. The question that has always been ignored (and this includes the redefinition of marriage) is WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, DAMMIT?

Until next time...

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm..."

When one considers Bible prophecy one thing that has to be taken onto consideration is that often the prophet was speaking of a future time or future events that were to come. What signs would accompany or precede the ushering in of the events.

In writing down the visions these men were given by God often we notice they would often revolve around symbolism. Why is that? I believe in part because they were describing things that they were not familiar with. This challenged them to describe things in such a manner that they could identify with. It is no different then today.

Often when one hears of a UFO sighting, these crafts are not identified by any specific name. We often hear statements such as "saucer" or "Frisbee" because of the shape these crafts apprently appear in.

In prophecy we are told of a distant time where "locusts with the face of a man that will reign down fire" near the time of the end will inhabit the earth.

Too the finite small human mind this can seem ridiculous. But what were the prophets seeing that they could not describe?

(A grasshopper/locust flying, minus the little dude on top)

(how else would you describe it if you had never seen one?)

(The face of a man in the cockpit reigning down fire, hmmmm...)

Or how about a swarm?

It is simply food for thought. And quite possibly the most accurate description a prophet could give during his timeline in history.

The following article regarding Mystery Babylon is NOT mine. I had no part in it's content, pics, etc. But as I read it I admit it was rather thought provoking. I have re-copied it here too hear what your views on it might be. It will be considerd offensive to my Muslim friends but that is not the intent of me posting it. In my view I do believe we are living in the latter times of the last days and the return of Jesus Christ is very near.

MYSTERY BABYLON, The Beast, & The Mother of Harlots

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me,
saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment
of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication,
and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk
with the wine of her fornication.

Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,
and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,
having a golden cup in her hand
full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON
THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.



Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy,





Now Notice the Relation of the Beast of Islam.



Notice that First Day Cover Issue of a Palestinian Authority Postage Stamp Comes Right Out in Plain English and rather clearly states the
Moon God of Islam to be Baal.
Baal, Lucifer, Satan, the devil, is Allah the moon god of the Beast of Islam. That is why the Religion of Islam is the Favored Religion of the Luciferian Global Satanists.

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Everyone should Notice that the Shape of the Horns of the Beast which the harlot rides is in the OBVIOUS Crescent Moon of Islam or Baal



Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

Rev 2:13 I know thy works and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.



We KNOW from Revelation 2:12-17 that Satan’s Seat was located at Pergamon. The Altar of Pergamon (Location of Satan’s Seat) was discovered in an amazingly preserved condition by a German Archaeologist. In 1902 German Kaiser Wilhelm II brought the entire structure of the Altar of Pergamon, Satan’s Seat, and had it set up in Berlin Germany. (Pictured Above) Wilhelm II claimed that to be the highest achievement of his reign. Satan’s Seat, not a copy, but the actual original is NOW in the European Union in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin Germany.
German Archaeologists also found in an amazingly well preserved condition the Ishtar Gates of Babylon. (Pictured Below). In 1913 Germany began bringing the actual gates of Babylon to also finally be set up in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin Germany. It did not take long for World War One to begin. By 1930 the entire Ishtar Gateway as well as the processional had been brought to Germany and erected in Berlin. The Skull & Bones member, in Germany known as the Thule Society member, Adolph Hitler, celebrated the erection of the Gates of Babylon and ESPECIALLY the Altar of SATAN’S SEAT. World war two resulted in the death of 55 Million, including 6 Million innocent Jews which Hitler sought to purge from Europe. Russia captured the Pergamon Altar or Satan’s Seat but in 1958 returned the Pergamon Altar back to Germany where it is now located in the European Union in Berlin, Germany.




2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The things that make you go "Hmmmm....."

Until next time...