Saturday, April 21, 2012

Vatican position on Israel,7340,L-4203818,00.html

"In a special interview with Die Tagespost last week, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem 
Fouad Twal, named by Pope Benedict to represent the Vatican in the Jewish State, 
declared that “Israel’s existence as such has nothing to do with the Bible.” He then 
compared Christians’ condition in today’s Jerusalem with Jesus’ Passion: “We 
Christians never forget that even our Lord himself suffered and was mocked in 

Twal's position on Israel and the Bible has been embraced at the highest levels 
in the Catholic Church. The Vatican synod in 2010 declared that Israel cannot 
use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people. “We Christians 
cannot speak about the Promised Land for the Jewish people”, the synod’s 
document said. “There is no longer a chosen people. The concept of the 
promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews 
to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians.”

There is the concept "replacement theology," which holds that the Church or 
ekklesia, assembly, the Assembly of YHWH which originally was Israel, consists
properly of those who truly follow YHWH as did Abraham, to whom YHWH said
that ALL nations would be blessed through him, now consists solely therefore
of those who follow YHWH's Messiah Jesus (Joshua or Yahshua, Yah is 
Savior) "Christ" being Greek for Anointed One, which is the same thing Messiah
means in Hebrew. 

Indeed, if a Jewish rabbi were to deliver a sermon in a Greek synagogue about
the Messiah he would either have to use the word "Christos," or avoid this by 
using the Hebrew word for "Anointed One" only, the rest of the sermon being
in Greek, or use some Greek equivalent phrasing that uses several words
to express the concept of the Messiah, or weasle around the word by 
using some appropriate but weasle intended in useage in context word like
Son of David or something like that.

There is however, St. Paul's warning in Romans that the Christian should not
boast against the Jews or Israel after the flesh, because they are not cast
off and they are the domestic olive tree, into which we the branches cut 
from a wild olive tree are grafted, and they bear us not vice versa.

Also, contrary to some evangelical critics, support of zionism does not 
have to mean there are two tracks for salvation, Judaism for Jews and 
Christianity for the rest of us, rather, that what has to do with God's actions
in history, and making a situation that sets the stage for the Second Coming
when "they will look on Me [or Him depending on translation] Whom they
have pierced," is not about salvation which still depends on Jesus.

(one can argue that those who love God and do not actually hate Jesus
but have some kindness towards Him as an individual, might indeed meet
Him at death, recognize Him as the unknown influence in their lives, and
accept Him as Lord, or get fished out of hell later in response to prayers
for the dead, but still their salvation would depend on Jesus, Who said
"I am the way, the truth and the life, none comes to The Father except
through Me."]

Yes, there is legitimacy to replacement theology but it is more nuanced
that the typical Orthodox or Roman Catholic would see it. Meanwhile 
any curse that the Jews of the time brought down on themselves and
their children as they said, would have been fulfilled in AD 70, and 
mitigated by Christ/Messiah's prayer to The Father, "Father, forgive 
them, for they know not what they do."


Monday, April 9, 2012

your chakras, target of New Age deception

18 New Age Lies is an important read, and lie no. 18 is that you need to open your chakras so
"Spirit" can enter. This is NOT the Holy Spirit, Who is YHWH the Third Person of YHWH The Holy
Trinity, this is some creature who is a deceiver and evil. The Holy Spirit needs no chakra work to be
in you, only acceptance of Jesus Christ of The Bible as your Lord (and therefore your savior).
"No one should open any of his or her chakras at any time for any reason, All such openings allow
psychic entities to enter. This is why the puppet-masters behind the New Age Movement are so keen
to get people to open one of their chakras. This danger applies as much to the Third Eye and Crown
chakras as it does to any of the lower chakras. The Holy Spirit does not need a chakra to enter the
body. The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ does not need a chakra to sanctify and protect us.

"So who does need an open chakra? The answer should be obvious - Lucifer."

Before anyone argues that this name means light bearer, or that satan and lucifer are not the same
beings, remember that lucifer was once an unfallen angel, but having fallen in love with his own 
beauty and ascribed it to himself and not to YHWH God, the angel fell through pride, deciding 
to exalt his throne above that of God, but was cast down instead. The argument that this refers 
only to the king of Tyre, to who the prophecy was made, fails, because initially the statements
make sense as directed to a human king, but then change to things that can only refer to an immortal
spirit being. Apparently the king of Tyre was what Malachi Martin called "perfectly possessed."

Ha-satan means the adversary, the adversary of God and also of mankind, who he hates as God's
images on earth, and because God loves us. It is the same being as lucifer, and lucifer bears a
false mind scattering, deluding light. True light lets you see things better, false light clouds and
blurs and deceives. Some demons (many angels fell with the devil) are more out in the open, others
more seductive and deceiving and if one has overcome vices and mastered virtues they then take
you down by the sin of PRIDE.

Robert Pye the author continues, "the same cunning trick is also used by the New Age movement,
to damage one's aura, to create a tear or a fault line that the dark force [or false light force] can use
to gain access. This is often done under the guise of co-called spiritual healing, such as that 
practiced by Reiki."

What I particularly like about this article, is that it does not deny the existence of the energy body,
but warns that the New Age teachings on what is healthy or not for it are WRONG.

All the New Age at core is Hindu. This in turn is based on the assumption that the physical
universe is evil at worst, a delusion at best, and to be escaped as soon as possible. Fast track
Laya Yoga, which would permanently reverse the kundalini flow back up to the head, reversing
the process of creation and throwing you into parasamadhi, a trance you never come out of, is
just a labor intensive form of suicide. 

The Bible mentions the energy body, in Ecclesiastes, where it discusses the breakdown process
at death. "the wheel is broken" is interesting in this regartd, because "chakra" is Sanskrit for
"wheel." someone who could see stuff saw something that most resembled a wheel, whether
because of roundness with or without spokes is not clear, whether because of shape only 
or rotation is also not clear.

But it exists. And any system that looks to undo creation, is not going to have the right bias
to tell you how your energy body should be functioning.

A classic example is the constant statement, that a golden aura is a sign of great spiritual 
enlightenment, but that is the false light. lucifer is latin for Hebrew helal, the golden glitter
of a king's robe. Bingo! I thought when I read that - from a masonic apologist online at that -
this is the thing I was running into, always when checkable on people who were involved with
demons, and one of them I found out later was a rapist, with a nasty arrogant attitude.

Another was not nearly so bad, but he had gotten involved in some kind of traditional folk
witchcraft involving pacts, and used to witness for the devil in the interest of giving him equal
time or at least do so to me, because I was witnessing for Jesus. this fellow and I generally got
along well other than that, though I heard a man describe him as "he will turn on you in a second."

Roman Catholic iconography didn't help much. Orthodox is so obviously artificial and with
specific meaning, that it wouldn't be nearly the trap RC was, because RC realistic looking 
people with such "auras" look like you might expect to see this on a holy human. But everyone
I saw it on was unholy as hell. New Agers draw on these auras in art to excuse or support their
positions when luring Christians and westerners. 

An Orthodox elder or monk once wrote that people with experience in this stuff, reported 
that the devil often shows as or with light that is yellow or gold sometimes tinged with red.
What I noticed was the same thing, though in a cocaine soaked environment it was more like
a white cloud but always a mind scattering and blurring, blinding influence. 

True light lets you see clearly. (There is a kind of clarity that is demonic but that is another

The usual Christian anti New Age take is to deny the existence of the energy or etheric body
altogether, and this is a mistake. The real problem is what the New Age disciplines do to it.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

ethics established by existing practice?

“By arguing that the widespread use of antidepressants like Prozac has established the ethical foundation of using drugs to alter thought patterns and behavior, scientists contend that ‘manipulating morals’ through ‘pharmacologically-induced altruism’ should also be acceptable.”

well, now I see how these people establish what is ethical, to the point the
Journal of Bio Ethics or whatever that thing is called can argue for killing
children up to three years old. (They correctly enough argue it seems, that
abortion itself is no different, but instead of pulling back from abortion they
push for extending the age at which a child can be killed on whim.)

Widespread use of something, practice of something, already established,
is the basis for determining what is ethical.


When the Hippocratic Oath was invented (doomed by its calling on a false
god's name but the ideals in it were godly) widespread practice of the time
was apparently to give potions to induce abortion and take fees of either a
set per service kind or any outrageous amount one could get, as BOTH are
prohibited. Usually prohibitions follow existing practices rarely are the
possibilities looked at ahead of time and prohibited, though the "do no harm"
concept would be an exception.

Instead of questioning the use of psychopharmacology, they argue it is in
place, so extend it.

Now, the existing psychopharmacology though it includes some outrageous
failures, is in play because of the agreement of the patients generally, that
the conditions they are in are unpleasant at best and obviously disabling
and its needs correcting. The target is to achieve or recover normal human
functioning, aside from any issue of what they are being functional in order
to accomplish.

The latter is normally addressed by morals and ethics and laws. The rash
of murders and suicides linked to Prozac use or sudden disuse in the case
of the Columbine Massacre, is mostly likely because when you are
disabled by depression, you can't get anything much done, good bad or
indifferent. A person who is determined on grounds other than mood swing
of the moment, to kill themselves or others, may well find themselves now,
once the burden of depression is lifted, able to accomplish their goals.

The flaw is to assume that people are solely the product of mood and so
forth. That ideas might be held to regardless of empowering or disempowering
conditions never seems to cross some peoples' minds.

But a drug to alter racism, etc. strikes me as unlikely to work, except in those
cases where it is solely the result of personal inadequacy feelings being
compensated for by a superiority complex disguised as science or cultural
"truth" (great great great granddaddy was a racist and slave holder and what
was good enough for him is good enough for me sort of thinking).

And since the purpose is to change not only mood and mental functioning,
but mental CONTENT, this indeed moves over a line perilously near to
some kind of robotizing of the target person.

Let's get back to the basis for establishing ethics.

These people argue if something is already established practice, it is therefore

This means that ultimately, you can take any godawful traditional cultural
practices and mandate they be kept going no matter how evil, and any opposition
to them, except perhaps to their introduction among populations not already
doing such, and incl. any desire to escape by emigration, is ipso facto itself
unethical at best, insane at worst.

So here comes slavery, female genital mutilation, honor killing, torture of animals,
human sacrifice, slave raiding, even aggressive imperialism incl. mass murder
and all forms of entrenched traditional corruption and racism and ethnic nationalism
forced arranged marriage, pedophilia, rape, homosexuality, exclusion from the
definition of homosexual those who have sex with their own gender but do so only
playing the role of their physical gender, selling of children, castration of boys to
make them permanent high tenor singer or attractive as slaves for the harem or
even as sex slaves for male homosexuals who being jocker types are excluded
from the category of homosexual, nepotism, bribery, killing of one out of every
pair of twins, and anything else you can think of, as being okay because existing
practice for that people, or the subculture at issue. And don't forget big pharma,
big agra and big govt. in bed with each other along with bank ownership of
everything, as being something that is ethical because it exists, and anyone
opposing it to be drugged.

Subculture - ah yes, here comes the criminal castes of old hinduism before the
Brits overhauled India to some extent.

Any ethical examination has to be based on something other than merely
existing practice. Now, pharmacology to help psychiatry can be defended on
the basis of what it is to accomplish - restore sanity - and that it sort of

But programming attitudes and ideas by drugs is another matter, and even if
you can find an ethical basis for it, the mere fact that psychpharmacology is
already accepted is not a reason for this. Indeed, this whole discussion would
reasonably be cause to reconsider psychopharmacology and while I don't
recommend throwing it entirely out, the idea that long standing practice is
the basis for determining acceptabilty of anything, let alone using it as a
springboard to something else, is NOT ethical. It is the opposite of ethics,
which presupposes some overarching correct standard to be discovered,
and deployed, even if need be against existing practices.