eChurch Blog

Lovely, as always from John Piper

We use the term “glory of God” so often that it tends to lose its biblical force. But the sun is no less blazing, and no less beneficial, because people ignore it.

Yet God does not like to be ignored. “Mark this, then, you who forget God, lest I tear you apart, and there be none to deliver!” (Psalms 50:22). So let’s focus again on the glory of God. What is it? How important is it?

What Is the Glory of God?

The glory of God is the holiness of God put on display. That is, it is the infinite worth of God made manifest. Notice how Isaiah shifts from “holy” to “glory”: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Isaiah 6:3). When the holiness of God fills the earth for people to see, it is called glory.

The basic meaning of holy is “separated” from the common. Thus, when you carry that definition all the way to the infinite “separation” of God from all that is common, the effect is to make him the infinite “one of a kind”—like the rarest and most perfect diamond in the world. Only there are no other diamond-gods. God’s uniqueness as the only God—his God-ness—makes him infinitely valuable, that is, holy.

The most common meaning for God’s glory in the Bible assumes that this infinite value has entered created experience. It has, as it were, shined. God’s glory is the radiance of his holiness. It is the out-streaming of his infinite value. And when it streams out, it is seen as beautiful and great. It has both infinite quality and infinite magnitude. So we may define the glory of God as the beauty and greatness of God’s manifold perfections.

I say “manifold perfections” because specific aspects of God’s being are said to have glory. For example: “the glory of his grace” (Ephesians 1:6) and “the glory of his might” (2 Thessalonians 1:9). God himself is glorious because he is the perfect unity of all his manifold and glorious perfections.

But this definition must be qualified. The Bible also speaks of God’s glory before it is revealed in creation. For example, Jesus prays, “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). So I would suggest a definition something like this: God’s glory is the outward radiance of the intrinsic beauty and greatness of his manifold perfections.

I am aware that words are poor pointers here. I have replaced one inadequate word with two others: glory with beauty and greatness. But we must try. God has revealed himself to us in words like “the glory of God.” And he does not want them to be meaningless.

We must constantly remind ourselves that we are speaking of a glory that is ultimately beyond created comparison. “The glory of God” is the way you designate the infinite beauty and the infinite greatness of the Person who was there before anything else was there. In other words, it is the beauty and the greatness that exists without origin, without comparison, without analogy, without being judged or assessed by any external criterion. It is the all-defining absolute original of greatness and beauty. All created greatness and beauty comes from it, and points to it, but does not comprehensively or adequately reproduce it.

“The glory of God” is a way of saying that there is objective, absolute reality to which all human admiration, wonder, awe, veneration, praise, honor, acclaim, and worship is pointing. We were made to find our deepest pleasure in admiring what is infinitely admirable, that is, the glory of God. The glory of God is not the psychological projection of human longing onto reality. On the contrary, inconsolable human longing is the evidence that we were made for God’s glory.

How Central Is the Glory of God in the Bible?

The glory of God is the goal of all things. “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). All things were created for God’s glory (Isaiah 43:6-7).

The great mission of the church is to declare God’s glory among the nations. “Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous works among all the peoples!” (Psalms 96:1-3; Ezekiel 39:21; Isaiah 66:18-19).

What Is Our Hope? Seeing the Glory of God

Seeing the glory of God is our ultimate hope. “We rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:2). God will “present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” (Jude 24). He will “make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:23). “He calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (1 Thessalonians 2:12). “Our blessed hope [is] the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13).

Jesus, in all his person and work, is the incarnation and ultimate revelation of the glory of God. “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3). “Father, I desire that they . . . may be with me where I am, to see my glory” (John 17:24).

What Is Our Hope? Sharing in the Glory of God

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). “The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:21). “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7).“This light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Corinthians 4:17). “Those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8:30).

Summary

Seeing and sharing in God’s glory is our ultimate hope through the gospel of Christ.

Hope that is really known and treasured has a huge and decisive effect on our present values and choices and actions.

Get to know the glory of God. Study the glory of God, the glory of Christ, the glory of the world that reveals the glory of God, the glory of the gospel that reveals the glory of Christ.

Treasure the glory of God above all things.

Study your soul. Know the glory you are seduced by, and know why you treasure glories that are not God’s glory. Study your own soul to know how to make the glories of the world collapse like Dagon (1 Samuel 5:4) in the pitiful pieces on the floor of the world’s temples.

Hungering to see and share in more of the glory of Christ, the image of God,

Pastor John

By Bob Allen – Associated Baptist Press

Russian Baptist leaders have raised concerns about proposed revisions to the nation’s religion law — changes they contend would greatly curtail religious freedom in Russia.

Yuri Sipko, president of the Russian Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists wrote Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Oct. 20 expressing “alarm and puzzlement” at the new and unexpected development in church-state relations.

Sipko said that restrictive changes to Russia’s 1997 law “On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations,” were not revealed in a roundtable of religious leaders he attended in September, while the legislation is reportedly supported by Russia’s four designated “traditional” religions — Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.

Vitaly Vlasenko, director of external church relations for the Baptist union, said he believed the proposed changes were directed toward Roman Catholics and Protestants, which do not have their own geographical territories in Russia.

The document, which first appeared in mid-October, for the first time defines “evangelical activities.” It stipulates that only religious groups registered in Russia for at least 15 years can engage in missionary activity. Only leaders of evangelical organizations would have the right to preach. All others, including foreign visitors, would need written permission.

It would exclude from missionary work anyone ever convicted of inciting religious or ethnic hatred and other crimes of an extreme nature. Religious leaders said that would unduly burden pastors, who often do not know who has been convicted of what. It would also require religious bodies to close their doors to some members, effectively giving the government veto power over who may or may not join.

Other problematic changes include a requirement that minors not be present for religious activities without the express permission of their parents or guardians. Baptist leaders said requiring pastors to turn away young people would force them to violate Jesus’ commandment to “let the little children come to me and do not hinder them” recorded in the Gospels.

They also called it absurd that young people would be barred from attending church but not movie theaters, stadiums or discos. “Is a place of worship more dangerous than a secular location?” Sipko’s letter asked. “This legislation wants to define religious organizations as harmful, and that is clear discrimination.”

Sipko said the legislation would lead to “further moral decline” in Russian society and lead to “greater alienation between the privileged and non-privileged faiths.”

He said Russian Baptist leaders were also concerned about ambiguity in the law. For example, it prohibits religious organizations from “offering material or social benefits” to potential new recruits and bans the use of “psychological pressure or manipulation of consciences.”

Sipko said promising an alcoholic sobriety through treatment and church attendance might be interpreted as a “social benefit” and that a sermon on the last judgment and the need to repent could be deemed “psychological pressure.”

Vlasenko said the Russian Baptist group “is not against regulation of missionary activities per se, but we are certainly against their prohibition.” He said the union was asking its 1,750 congregations and groups to “unite for prayer and fasting” about the proposal and invited foreign churches to participate as well.

Vlasenko said he is also interested in hearing foreign legal expertise and from other churches that have had similar experiences in their relations with their governments.

Previous related Posts:-

Ami Ortiz Case Solved – ’Orthodox Jewish Terrorist’ Confessed – Watch Him Plant The Bomb

Another Arrest in Yaakov Teitel Case

Breaking news: Yaakov Teitel arrested in Ami Ortiz case

Potential breakthrough in Ami Ortiz case

Why did Yaakov Teitel terrorise Christians and Messianic Jews?

This is an excellent analysis from Yeze over at the Rosh Pina Project

Why did terrorist Yaakov Teitel act in the way he did?

Dina Kraft writes:

This Jack/Yaakov Teitel is being described as someone who acted alone in his attacks and planned attacks. But in an interview with Israel Radio yesterday, Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service (basically Israel’s FBI), said that even such loners need a spiritual or ideological base in order to thrive.

Leah Ortiz, mother of Ami Ortiz, remarks:

The public is being reminded that the investigation is continuing to root out terrorist sleeper cells that are hiding and camouflaging themselves among the local residents. The newspapers report, and journalists have told us, about an Orthodox group who hold to the doctrine of what is called “Redemption” which claims that the reason the coming of the Messiah has been delayed is because of the tolerance of the State of Israel for Christians, left wingers and Homosexuals. All of these groups are classified as false prophets that have to be dealt with.

Indeed, Teitel’s actions were the product of a worldview of despair, in which rational debate is cast aside in favour of brashness and combat. Treating Messianic Jews as deceivers and tricksters, Teitel became the ultimate deceiver. Teitel deceived Ami Ortiz with a gift disguised as a Purim package. Teitel deceived Israel’s authorities, living for years in freedom as past victims lay dead. Teitel deceived his own family, and ultimately I suspect, Teitel deceived himself into thinking that he was in some way doing God’s will.

The case of Yaakov Teitel should serve as a warning as to how far people can take their prejudices. In this case, violent words have bred violent actions – a fact acknowledged by Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. And there are surely more Yaakov Teitels out there, plotting domestic terrorism. The mother of one of the victims of the shooting in the gay nightclub in Tel Aviv has warned that there is another Teitel out there.

Tonight, another man from Shvut Rachel who was an acquaintance of Teitel, Yosef Spinoza, has now been arrested.

Both men are being defended in the media by Adi Kedar of the Honenu organisation.

When Teitel was arrested in October, Honenu spokesman Shmuel Meidad protested:

“They have accused him [Y. T.] of every [unsolved] murder [in the State of Israel] from [Haim] Arlosorov [in June 1933] to the murder in the gay bar,” Shmuel Meidad, head of the Honeinu Legal Aid Organization, said. “They even reported that he confessed but [defense attorney] Adi Kedar or any one else has not met with him.”

Who or what is Honenu?

It is an Israeli legal group which campaigns for the release of Jewish murderers from Israeli jails when Arab murderers are released. They are headed up by Shmuel Meidad, known in right-wing circles as ‘Zangi.’ Meidad has previously spent time in prison, as has Ariel Groner, responsible for handling prisoner affairs in Honenu, who was arrested in 2006 and spent three months under house arrest. Groner was recently arrested after he was noticed handing out leaflets inciting violence against homosexuals, as was Teitel.

This past week Israelis have marked the anniversary of the murder of Yitzchak Rabin in 1994.   Guess which organisation tried to raise money for Rabin’s assassin in 2005? That’s right: Honenu.

Haaretz reported:

Honenu is headed by a resident of Kiryat Arba, Shmuel Meidad. It was established in 2002 and rose to prominence for its defense of people arrested in protests against the disengagement plan. The Amir fund was started recently, and is being kept under wraps. No mention of it is made on the Internet site. The organization has a telephone center for donations that can be made via standing bank orders, by check or by credit card.

To ensure that the money goes to the Amirs, the donor must write “for the fund promoting Yigal and Larissa Amir’s rights” on the reverse side of the check. For a credit-card donation, the donor must speak to the fund’s directors.

Concerning Honenu, Nadav Shrangai wrote in Haaretz in May 2008:

In their requests to current MKs, Hanenu notes that not a single Jewish terrorist who was released early returned to hurting Arabs, and that the organization disagrees with comparisons between Arab terror and Jewish terror.

As far as Hanenu is concerned, even if justification of Jewish terror is wrong, it derives from “mistaken judgment against a background of compromised security, or personal factors related to judgment and the sense that one needs to exact revenge.”

Zangi himself recalls that president Weizman showed him both sides of his hand when he explained to him, in Weizman’s coarse style, why he decided to reduce the sentences of Jewish terrorists. “See my hand, Zangi? Everything I think – you think the opposite. And everything you think – I think the opposite. We both come from different worlds, but one thing we agree on: If you release Arab murderers, release Jewish murderers as well.”

Let’s assess: The likes of the child-murdering Samir Kuntar deserve to be locked away for life, and never allowed into free society again. Hezbollah’s campaigns to free Kuntar shows their utter contempt for society (if it wasn’t blindingly obvious already), and reveal a total lack of human decency. Yet Honenu’s argument is just as disgusting.

Arab murderers are freed in exchange for the the bodies of Israeli soldiers to be returned, so why not free Jewish murderers when Arab murderers are freed?

Let’s put the question another way: what if Israel frees an Arab paedophile for political reasons? Should it then free a Jewish paedophile, just to make things ‘fair’?

Consider also the way that Honenu latched on to the politics surrounding Gilad Shalit, not campaigning for Shalit’s return, but for the release of Jewish nationalist prisoners. Honenu cynically tried to exploit an impossible situation, focusing on the release of guilty criminals rather than the innocent Shalit.

Among those listed by Honenu for release were Ami Popper, murderer of seven Arabs.

And guess who has previously championed Honenu’s cause?

Shas leader, and Israel’s Interior Minister and Deputy PM Eli Yishai, whom we last met enabling Yad L’Achim to run riot, subverting Israel’s democratic law and abusing his position in the process.

Quite frankly, it is little wonder, that Gideon Levy describes Yishai as Jean Marie Le Pen with a beard. Yishai does nothing to counter the assumption by religious and political zealots that Redemption will only come when Eretz Israel is cleansed of its postmodern Amaleks.

More Teitel links Provided Via Rosh Pina

Woah, Greg Craven (vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University) has really had enough of atheists. He certainly doesn’t pull any punches in this article and I must say that I rather enjoyed it. I have to tip my hat to P Z Myers, who identified this article for my enjoyment.

TheAge.com.au

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer’s blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers – and perhaps especially Catholics – do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.

Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None – no matter what they do, they just can’t see the light.

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

Greg Craven is vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University.

(CNA).- Speaking to almost 15,000 people in St. Peter’s Square during the Wednesday General Audience, Pope Benedict XVI continued last week’s comparison of the monastic and scholastic theology in the twelfth century. In the area of theological discussion, the Holy Father cautioned against ethical relativism influencing the Faith.

Pope Benedict dedicated his catechesis to the twelfth-century debate between St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Abelard. He began by recalling, “to understand this confrontation between the two great masters, we must remember that theology is the search for a rational understanding, as far as possible, of the mysteries of the Christian faith.”

For St. Bernard, Benedict XVI explained, “faith itself is endowed with inner certainty, strengthened by the testimony of the saints and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and in case of doubt, by the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church.”

The Pope added, “In his view, the critical examination of reason risks intellectualism, the relativization of truth, that could even lead to questioning one’s own faith.”

“For Bernard, theology has the sole purpose of promoting the intimate experience of God, to love the Lord more and more,” he continued. “There are varying stages in this journey until the culmination is reached, when the soul of the believer is intoxicated by the summits of love.”

Above all, the abbot of Clairvaux taught that theology “must be nourished by contemplative prayer,” the Pope said.

Turning to Abelard, the Pontiff noted that “among other things introduced the term ‘theology’ as we understand it today, … originally studied philosophy then applied the results achieved in this discipline to theology.”

However, Abelard was a conflicted person. Pope Benedict explained that he had a “religious spirit but a restless personality, and his life was rich in dramatic events: he challenged his teachers and had a child by a cultured and intelligent woman, Eloise. … He also suffered ecclesiastical condemnations, although he died in full communion with the Church to whose authority he submitted with a spirit of faith.”

On the academic plain, the Holy Father said an “excessive use of philosophy rendered Abelard’s Trinitarian doctrine dangerously fragile.” In the field of morals Abelard’s teaching was not without ambiguity as he insisted on considering the intention of the subject as the only source for describing the goodness or malice of moral acts, ignoring the objective moral significance and value of actions.

“This aspect”, Benedict XVI went on, “is highly relevant for our own age, in which culture often seems marked by a growing tendency to ethical relativism.”

The Pope also underlined “some of Abelard’s insights, such as when he says that in non-Christian religious traditions there is already a preparation for the reception of Christ, the Word of God.”

The Holy Father concluded by stressing that “the theological confrontation ended with a full reconciliation between the two, thanks to their mutual friend, Peter the Venerable. Abelard showed humility in recognizing his errors, Bernard great kindness. ”

The below link from Albert Mohler, looks at the impact and implications of postmodernist pluralist thinking on faith:-

Is Truth Really Plural? Postmodernism in Full Flower

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

A new paper investigating the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDG) asserts that the project could do more harm than good. The paper finds the sweeping global development project generally views the poor as “a problem to be solved rather than partners in achieving their own development and success.” It explains that world leaders set forth the MDGs with high hopes in 2001, but now at the midpoint for achieving them, they have become susceptible to politicization and influence by special interests.

In “The Millennium Development Goals in light of Catholic Social Teaching” authors Brian Scarnecchia and Terrence McKeegan say that one major problem is that implementation of the 8 goals along with their 20 targets and 56 indicators has tended to be top-down, expert-driven and technological. This approach is championed by the UN’s chief economic advisor on the goals, Columbia University professor/technocrat Jeffrey Sachs but, the authors say, it fails to take account of the two bedrock principles of moral human development, solidarity and subsidiarity.

Quoting Pope Benedict XVI during his 2008 address to the UN General Assembly, the authors note that the UN’s poverty and hunger alleviation exacerbates the way the weakest have been left at “the margins of integral development, and are therefore at risk of experiencing only the negative effects of globalization.” “By promoting an ‘all-encompassing’ and ‘globalized’ culture,” they argue, the MDGs impart “false values that would tarnish a truly human way of life” and undermine national culture and traditions that support welfare at the lowest level.

For example, the goals for achieving primary education and reducing child mortality do not take sufficient account of the central role of the family. There is no UN treaty protecting the rights of the family as there is for the rights of child. Thus insufficient emphasis is placed upon the family, the most fundamental institution to child welfare according to the paper. The way the UN is promoting gender equality, “serves to instill a false notion that gender is a changeable social construct,” the authors argue.

The MDGs rightly promote the education of girls, but they do so primarily for the purpose of reducing their fertility, the study finds. Likewise, it finds that the goal of reducing maternal mortality does not treat women as whole persons but rather focuses on childbearing. Ensuring sustainable development similarly emphasizes population control.

The role of special interests is particularly evident in the relentless attempt to create a separate goal for “promoting sexual and reproductive health,” according to the report. It is the only one of the original expert-driven international goals that nations rejected when they adopted the eight MDGs. Instead, abortion proponents have had to settle with claiming a “target” under the goal aimed at reducing maternal mortality. While the claim has been refuted by UN member states, UN agencies such as the UN Population Fund and UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) continue to assert it.

Robert Araujo, S.J. notes in his preface to the paper, “It is no longer the goals that are important but the manner in which they are pursued….there is wide and growing divergence on how best to proceed.”

I have already posted on this blog, regarding the utter madness of the case, whereby a Judge has declared that ‘climate change’ is legally akin to a religion, here:-

JOYFUL BBC – CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BELIEF….

Pop across for a great article on this theme, from Ruth Gledhill over at the Times :-

When care for the environment is a religion

I particularly liked this comment, which is an issue I highlighted in my previous post:-

If environmentalism is a new religion, one of its adherents is the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, who in an interview with The Times urged a return to the ‘dig for victory’ grow-your-own veg lifestyle.

(I commented on a previous article on this blog, that the church exists to spread the Gospel, not shrubbery and a very quick witted commentator said, that we should be sowing seeds in hearts not mud)

And now compare all of this, to a new press release from Christian Concern for our Nation:-

Lord Monckton warns public about dangers to fundamental freedoms at forthcoming UN Copenhagen Summit

Lord Monckton has warned the public in Europe and the United States that the upcoming Copenhagen Summit in December this year will use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world unelected ‘communist-style’ government with enormous powers.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a politician, business consultant, writer and former policy adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota on 14 October 2009:

‘At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed — your president will sign it. Most of the third-world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the European Union, will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

‘I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

‘The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a ‘climate debt,’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been [messing] up the climate. We haven’t been [messing] up the climate, but that’s the line.

‘And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement’, Lord Monckton added.

(Click here to watch the full speech and here to watch the concluding remarks)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a treaty that most world governments are expected to sign in Copenhagen in December 2009 – including Britain and the United States.

A 181-page working document of the treaty does not mention the words ‘election’, ‘ballot’, ‘elected official’ or ‘vote’ anywhere in it. According to Lord Monckton, by signing this document, all the industrial countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, will forever take responsibility for the ills of other countries.

Page 6 of the document states:

‘PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining global carbon space … Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.’

Page 38, ‘28. The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.’

Page 122, ‘17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDC’s economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity …’

Page 27, ‘(b) Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or] All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups requiring special protection …’

Page 43, ‘41. (a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed country Parties.’ These funds will go directly to governments and ‘community organizations.’

Page 39, ‘33. [The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range of USD 70-140 billion) per year.’

The commitments of the developed countries are ‘economy wide.’ Page 58, ‘7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments.’

‘(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are voluntary …’ (Emphasis added.)

(Click here to read the draft treaty)

Lord Monckton, who disputed whether global warming is man-made, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate him on the science of global warming and asked the High Court to acknowledge nine of the number of errors in Gore’s work called An Inconvenient Truth. Addressing Mr Gore, Lord Monckton said, ‘and if you don’t dare, I want you to remain silent about that subject forever from now on’. Mr Gore did not accept the challenge. Other scientists have also asked Mr Gore to debate the science of global warming and he has consistently refused to do so.

James Delingpole, a broadcaster and journalist for The Daily Telegraph, wrote:

‘You have to be careful when talking about ‘One World Government’. Sooner than you can say ‘Bilderberg’, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies, and conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers. But I don’t think you need to be mad to be concerned about the issues raised by Lord Monckton in this speech.

‘I don’t know how accurate he is on the specific details, but Monckton is certainly right in principle. The climate fear industry is, I believe, the single greatest threat to national sovereignty (as we’ve already seen under the EU, with its directives on carbon emissions, landfill etc) and individual liberty of our era.

‘I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the Climate Fear Industry isn’t a theory,’ he added.

Earlier this week, the Swedish EU Presidency said at the Washington DC meeting with President Obama that ‘the climate negotiations in Copenhagen must not fail’.

In the United Kingdom, environmentalists are celebrating a second tribunal decision confirming on 3 November 2009 that strongly held views on climate change deserve the same level of protection as religious faith.

The Court of Appeal ruled employers should no more discriminate against workers for being green than for their religious or philosophical beliefs.

(Click here to see the CCFON report)

The new religion of ‘climate change’ really is in the ascendancy and is about to go global and take over the world, by the looks of it.

However, the real worry for me, is that half of Christendom seems to be buying into all of this political ‘climate change’ nonsense and actually promoting and siding with this new ‘religion’. Is it possible that Christians who do this, may actually find themselves riding upon a beast? Human salvation comes from Jesus Christ, not from turning off a light bulb.

A selection of previous related posts:-

Last Friday, global warming’s poster boy, Al Gore, spoke to the Society of Environmental Journalists’ convention in Madison, Wisconsin. After his speech to this flock of propagandists, there was a rare Q and A session. Among those asking a question was Irish filmmaker Phelim McAleer, director of Not Evil, Just Wrong, a movie critical of the global warming movement.

The Global Warming Movement (AGW) has taken on the worrisome attributes of a pseudo-religious cult, which operates far more on the basis of an apocalyptic “belief” system than on objective climate science.

The global waming fear mongers are increasingly being challenged as their predictions are not panning out and their thesis is being questioned by large percentages of the populations in various nations. In a new documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong,”

Resisting the Green Merchants of Doom

If you want to see more on ‘climate change’ from this blog then click here

Here is a link from Mercator published today which is highly relevant:-

When I say green, you say money! – The push for an international treaty at Copenhagen has little to do with climate change and much to do with money.

Another excellent link, with superb analysis as always from Melanie Phillips

The deep green sophistry of ‘religious’ equivalence

A ‘good report’ from Bill Muehlenberg

Some Good News on the Abortion Front

While there is often a lot of bad news concerning abortion, there are some occasional good news stories. Two encouraging events are worth recounting here. The first involves a leader in the pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood who has left that organisation and is now fully pro-life.

Abby Johnson was the director of the Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Bryan/College Station, Texas. She had worked there for eight years, but recently had a change of heart. So what caused the turnaround? She watched an ultrasound of a baby being killed in an abortion.

In an interview she said she could no longer go on with her work: “I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it.”

As one media account states, “She said she began to feel uncomfortable with Planned Parenthood’s business philosophy after the organization, suffering from the economic downturn, told her to try to bring more abortions in the door. ‘The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,’ said Johnson.

“Johnson resigned on October 6th, near the beginning of Bryan’s sixth annual 40 Days for Life campaign, and she has since joined up with the nearby Coalition for Life to begin praying near her old workplace. Coalition for Life is the local group that began 40 Days for Life, the national prayer and fasting campaign that was ongoing at the time of Johnson’s resignation.”

She was not the only one to leave the abortion business: “Johnson is one of eight abortion industry workers who left their jobs during the fifth coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign that concluded yesterday in 212 cities. She was the highest-ranking of the eight. Others who quit their clinic jobs included nurses, office staffers and security personnel.”

David Bereit, the national director of 40 Days for Life, was justifiably exuberant: “From that first campaign in 2004, we’ve prayed for Abby – and for all abortion workers – that they would come to see what abortion really is, and that they would leave the deadly business. In this case, those prayers have been answered. We are so proud of Abby’s courage to leave the abortion industry and publicly announce her reasons for leaving.”

The second good news item involves a new documentary which has been produced giving a powerful pro-life message as it highlights the sordid and greed-driven world of the abortion industry. It also involves the story of another key abortionist who has quit the business and is now an active pro-life campaigner.

Carol Everett had been a proud owner of five abortion mills in Texas, and she claims to have personally been involved in the death of 35,000 unborn babies. But she has now fully renounced her past life, and has written up her incredible story in an invaluable book: The Scarlet Lady (Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991).

I have reviewed this must-read book here:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/1992/06/19/a-review-of-the-scarlet-lady-by-carol-everett/

Let me offer two paragraphs from that review: “Abortion was definitely big business for Everett. She had ads in the Yellow Pages of five southern states, each with a toll-free number. Ads in newspapers offered coupons with 10 per cent discounts. Setting up clinics near high schools was an effective tactic. She even planned to set up a clinic by a mall so customers could go shopping while waiting for their abortion. Says Everett: ‘Greed – the love of money and the things I could have with it – blinded me. [I was] an abortionist who used whatever means available to get a woman to have an abortion for the sake of money’.

“This insatiable lust for money resulted in abortions being performed on women who were not even pregnant! Indeed, the temptation was to get every woman who came into the clinic to have an abortion. Says Everett: ‘Do you think an abortionist who works on a straight commission is going to tell a woman who has signed her consent form and has already paid in full that she is not pregnant?’”

The book was later reissued with a new, and most appropriate, title, Blood Money. That is the title of the new documentary which has been produced. It is a powerful expose of the abortion industry, and how the making of money – not concern for women – is the overriding motivation and consideration.

The film’s director, David K. Kyle, said at first he just wanted to do a general documentary on the evils of abortion, but as he “travelled around the country last September doing all these interviews with various pro-life leaders and women who had had abortions, the money part just kept coming up.”

“People are making millions upon millions of dollars off the murdering of innocent babies,” he said. People need to hear the truth about abortion he insists: “Abortion has consequences to it. It’s sold as a quick fix when you’re in trouble. You can go and have an abortion and the problem goes away. Well, we know from countless women that the problem does not go away. Women have long term consequences that they are going to have to deal with for years and years.”

A number of women were interviewed for the documentary, including Everett. Her claims are still shocking to hear, even though she has been sharing her story now for several decades. “We would give them [young girls] a low-dose birth control pill they would get pregnant on or a defective condom. Our goal was 3-5 abortions for every girl between the ages of thirteen and eighteen.”

Evidently the film has yet to have a distributor, so it has not yet been released. But a gripping trailer of the film can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaTywSDmls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efacebook%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ephp&feature=player_embedded

It is hoped that this film will soon be available and widely shown. It is a very much needed look at a bloody and disreputable industry. The various testimonies, stories, and interviews make for a powerful message, a message that needs to get out into the wider community.

These two recent activities are part of a slow but steady turning of the tide in the abortion wars. They are the result of long, hard and patient work – as well as much prayer and intercession. Let us all redouble our efforts, and help make this turnaround become an unstoppable pro-life avalanche.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110204.html

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2029012018.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082506.html

This is a cross-post, by Revd. Fr. Edward Tomlinson, from the The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

Last week Hollywood announced a multi-million dollar project to make a film called ‘Mohammed’. Not for reasons of entertainment but as a way of ‘reaching out’ to the Islamic world. Fair enough- but when is ‘Jesus’ going to be released in order to ‘reach out’ to Christians and promote the faith on which the nation supporting Hollywood was built? And when will the Islamic world reciprocate this gesture?

Yesterday the EU, to whom this government has handed power without electoral vote, ruled that crucifixes should not adorn schools in Italy. Was the crescent mentioned or treated with the same disdain? Of course not!

Last October Sony withdraw a computer game, and apologised unreservedly, because the backing music contained quotes from the Quran. It refused to apologise for, or recall, a game depicting a bloody massacre inside Manchester Cathedral.

On the BBC the abuse of Muslims in Israel is regularly reported on and highlighted. So it should be. But when do they report on the widespread mistreatment of Christians by Islamic regimes? [Editor's Note: When does the mainstream media cover Islamic aggression towards Israel?] A recent documentary showed the despicable treatment of Pakistanis by British yobs on council estates…but none are made showing the burning of Christian homes and widespread persecution in Pakistan.

Little wonder the Church of England felt a need, last June, to release a report lamenting the manner in which this government has ignored Christianity in order to focus attention and support on minority religions. Hazel Blear’s defence actually made me laugh- she negated this by demonstrating that she had recently met with Rowan Williams…..to debate inter-faith issues!! Exactly Hazel- you would never attend to discuss purely Christian issues or promote the work of the Church!

Why does a nation, increasingly secular but with a Christian constitution, ban air-hostesses with crosses, nurses who pray with patients, the sending of Christmas cards within council offices….whilst not doing likewise to minority faiths? Why does Christianity get the roughest deal of all faiths in Britain, despite being the majority player?

The answer is, I fear, deeply troubling. We Christians are afforded little respect by secular society (which in truth despises all religion) because there is little risk of us placing bombs on buses. Whereas Islam, despite only containing a tiny minority dedicated to acts of aggression, is sensitively dealt because such terrorism is working. Does this not play into the hands of those who hate?

And if I am wrong, answer me this….would the media have dealt with an Imam lamenting secular funerals in the way they dealt with me? Would a Muslim cleric ever be depcited with the lack of respect that most vicars now come to expect? We are either cast as bespectacled buffoons in situation comedies or raving lunatics lambasting common sense. What you will never see is the church treated with love or listened to with any serious interest. Of course much blame for this must lie with a toothless National Church that has been happy to play the benign but loving fool and which has largely rolled over in the face of aggressive secularism.

Let the reader understand. This is not an attack on Islam, most Muslims are decent people utterly committed to their understanding of faith. This is an attack on the present leaders of the West who, by the twin sins of promoting secular atheism and giving into fear of terrorism, are damaging our national identity as a Christian society and diluting our heritage, faith and culture.

Christians need to mobilise and fast. Not to acts of aggression and violence, which contradict all we stand for, but to standing up for the faith on which our nation was built. Let all who worship Jesus lobby, nag and challenge those in authority to give the Church a better deal. Heaven knows, we deserve it!

Oh my goodness, I just simply couldn’t resist the temptation to post on this. This is a terrible, fundamental and basic mistake and right on top of Christmas. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone.

Telegraph

Customers trying to access Hamleys.com were met with a web page displaying adverts for rival toy companies. It appears the site is now managed by a company called Network Solutions, a company that helps businesses market themselves on the internet, including helping register their domain name.

A quick click from the Hamleys site takes customers to John Lewis, Amazon, Argos and other rivals toy retailers.

A spokesman for Hamleys admitted its site was inaccessible for at least 36 hours. She said: “Yes, the domain name was not renewed. It was an extremely big oversight, and yes, the timing of it was very unfortunate.”

Read Article