Picketing Sin and Boycotting Moral Failure ...when the gospel is reduced to political protest

Several years ago, many in the media and in the church were in an uproar that Madonna had done it again going too far with her book release, SEX, and her companion album, EROTICA. The "Queen of Sensual Shock" had consumers talking, governments banning, educators clamoring, librarians shuffling and, yes, evangelical leaders boycotting. What Madonna had actually done, in an ingenuous sort of way, is to bring to light what our world around us is wrestling with everyday; mainly a self-absorbed, narcissistic, hedonistic belief system absent of moral restraint. Biblically, it is what Judges 17:6 so succinctly states "...every man is doing what is right in his own eyes." That statement sums up the "Oprah Winfrey School of Theology" impeccably. But something more profound was being communicated as well... Madonna is more sold out to her sin, than many Christians are to their Lord.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY, HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY
What originally prompted the writing of this article had been the call to boycott Time-Warner and its many subsidiaries by leading Christian psychologist, author and radio talk show host, Dr. James Dobson, because of Madonna’s book and album release. I do understand it is a normal reaction to rise and sound a clarion call for moral leadership and accountability when one is faced with the open sensuality displayed in Madonna's book. I also truly believe that Dr. Dobson's motive was not self-serving nor incendiary when he had attempted to do so. But one has to ask him the obvious question, "how do you expect her to live apart from regeneration in Christ?" By her own confession, she is living as an unbeliever in Christ.

I ask you... why do we in the church constantly become outraged when we see non-Christians living like non-Christians? Why do we require that unbelievers live in some sort of comfortable legalistic righteous bubble before they come to salvation through Christ? Have we forgotten what we were like before we tasted the kindness of God in Christ for our salvation? Have we forgotten how we were slaves to various lusts and passions of our hearts? Have we forgotten how sinful we were apart from God's grace? Have we forgotten how depraved we were and to what depth of disobedience we plummeted? How dare we hold any non-believer in derision and set ourselves above them thinking we now as Christians could not ever succomb to the depth of sin they might be in. What arrogance; what self-righteousness; what non-Christlikeness. Oh may we remember beloved: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

One of the great reformational truths and Pauline doctrines in the New Testament is the sinful nature and depravity of man. We are conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5); by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1); dead in trespass and sin (Ibid.); utterly unable to save ourselves (Romans 3:19-25); and our own righteousness being valued only as dirty, filthy rags...(Isaiah 64:6).

However, under God's common grace, depraved people are still capable of doing acts of kindness and gestures of good will to their fellow man--though they have no eternal benefit. In other words, though we are totally depraved, we are not living out that depravity to the absolute fullest extent of its ugly condition. Man is created in the image of a holy God and therefore morally and spiritually responsible to his Creator for his actions. But at the same time, unregenerate people - though able to do acts of kindness and goodness to their neighbor - are completely incapable of living a life pleasing to and for the glory of God (Titus 1:15-16). That is why this "legislation of morality" is an effort in futility. At best, it is the "white-washing of the tomb" though inside is nothing but the stench of dead men's bones. Beloved, we should not be outraged when the world is living like the world; we should be outraged when the church fails to live like Christ (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

A MORAL MAJORITY? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES
Though we may applaud Mr. Dobson's sense of moral purity, the only relevant question on this or any other issue facing us in society today should be, what does the Word of God clearly say? Are we reacting from a "moral majority like" social consciousness or from a biblical worldview? How should we as Christians respond to the mandates and ethics of a fallen world? Is this a first amendment issue, as some have suggested, or is there a "higher law" at jeopardy? What does Scripture say in regards to civil disobedience? Can we cure the moral maladies by the political legislative process? When someone's ideology differs from the churches is the solution to heed the call by evangelical leaders to apply an economic squeeze on their financial enterprises until they comply with our pragmatic, spiritual agenda? In short, ladies and gentlemen, what do we do with Madonna?

I firmly believe, as I am sure Dr. Dobson does, that as Christians we must not be given over to situational ethics but to truth; and specifically to the truth contained in the Word of God. It alone can bring clarity for all things pertaining to life and godliness (John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:3-4). Therefore, let us endeavor to search the Scriptures and extract its principles that can shed light and provide meaningful dialogue and direction as to how we are to respond as Christians in the face of an ungodly generation.

It's easy to be outraged today. Whether you are from the liberal left, the conservative right, the moderate middle, Christian or atheist, people are promulgating for their rights while abdicating others freedom. This conflict for individual rights whether it be family values, sexual purity or sexual preference, religious freedom, the sanctity of human life or morality is thundering across America today. The flames of these issues are burning white hot against the dark standardless times facing this nation.

One of the most recent "social causes" that Christians seem to find themselves in is the ongoing fight for a constitutional ammendment defining marriage and family as "one-man, one-woman" against the trend these days to legitimize same sex marriage. While I totally agree with the conviction that same sex marriage is wrong and sin against God, it saddens me that one evangelical leader, a faithful-godly pastor, has said that he will spend the remainder of his earthly days, "until his last breath is taken", to get a constitutional ammendment passed that biblically defines what family and marriage according to God's Word should be. Again, at face-value this looks like a noble battle. But I appeal to you beloved to be thinking biblical Christians not reacting to social ills but proactively responding out of the truth of God's Word. What people need is not the constitutionalizing of moral standards contained in God's Word, but the call to repent of their sin and turn to God by faith and through grace in Christ Jesus in order to have the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life. How sad it would be if that particular pastor was reduced to being a political voice fighting for a constitutional ammendment on marriage, rather than being a herald of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are like drunks in a fog staggering without clarity of mind trying to find a place of sobriety and rehabilitation from the addicting and intoxicating ills that plague our lives and land. Each side has drawn their battle lines in the sand and by doing so; each side has drawn their weapons. The concern for us as Christians should be that many in the church are trying to use carnal weapons to fight spiritual battles. So how are we to act as believers in a fallen world to issues like the one being addressed above? Let's look at what the Word of God says.

THE CHRISTIAN IN COMPLETE ARMOR
First, our strength as Christians stems not from having access to the White House, rallying millions of born again believers in a moral majority, obtaining influence in the political/socio-economic realm, massing large scale petition drives, or organizing city wide marches down the corridors of main street U.S.A. Our power is solely found in the Lord. In the sixth chapter of Ephesians, the Apostle Paul gives us what William Gurnall calls "the Christian in complete armor". The armor is our feet shod with the gospel of peace; the belt of truth; the breast plate of righteousness; the helmet of salvation; the shield of faith; the sword of the Spirit. Out of the six pieces of armor listed take note that not one piece deals with human institutions, ingenuity, ability or means. Only spiritual ones. That is why it is called the armor of God!

The foe we face, beloved, is not made of flesh and blood, like Madonna, "but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places" (v.12). We are to "be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might" (v.10), as well as, to "put on the full armor of God that [we] may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil" (v.11).

The strength to fight spiritual battles is not found in us, but only in Christ the Lord. In other words folks, brace yourselves, we are inconsequential and impotent when it comes to using human means to execute spiritual warfare! 2 Cor. 3:5 removes all doubt when Paul says, "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God."

THE IMPOTENCY OF USING CARNAL WEAPONS TO FIGHT SPIRITUAL BATTLES
Secondly, the weapons we should use are not carnal but divine! It concerns me that when the church confronts sin in the world today, that our first thoughts are to picket, protest, march, boycott, generate publicity, lobby politicians, etc. Certainly the prophets of old had reason to protest the evils propagated against captive Israel. But Jeremiah says, "And seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare" (Jer. 29:7).

Paul had ample opportunity to wage a revolt against the Roman populace and government for the utter filth and degradation that filled the streets of Rome. But he didn't. What about the temple prostitutes at Corinth and the occult practices and genocide that Nero practiced? No uprising ever occurred in the Biblical record. Even our Lord had just reason for leading a people out of the horrific moral and political climate He encountered. But instead, Jesus said these amazing words to Pilate before He went to the cross, "....if My kingdom were of this world my disciples would be fighting..." (John 18:36). Do we think that we are more capable, sophisticated, wise, equipped, intelligent, perceptive, holy people than the prophets, the apostles, and even our Lord Himself? Truly we have made "flesh our arm" (Jer. 17:5) and are reaping the benefits of our lowly labor.

The Church in America has lost its impact, insight, and identity because it has lost its identification with the head of the Church, Jesus Christ. We are more associated with the political process - Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Christians than with the work of Jesus Christ. We have sought and become a political-economic force rather than a spiritual one. Why is it that we can assemble five thousand Christians to champion a cause or boycott an artists public display of sensuality, but at that same time its virtually impossible to gather five hundred Christians for prayer meeting? The problem with the world is not the world, ladies and gentlemen. The problem with the world are Christians trying to sneak into heaven incognito.

THE POWER OF DIVINE WEAPONRY
We have two weapons in the body of Christ: Prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-4; Ephesians 6:19-21), and the Word of God (Luke 4:1-12; Hebrews 4:12-13; Ephesians 6:18; Psalm 19:7-10; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Though they are few in number they are tremendously powerful.

Listen to the Apostle Paul as he describes the omnipotence of these weapons. "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful [literally powered by God] for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:3-5). "Every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God" - like pornography? Yes. "Taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" - like Madonna's book distributed to libraries? Yes. When we may accomplish all that through divine means to the glory of God, why would we ever resort to the foolish, fleshly, carnal human efforts of boycott?

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
I know that it sounds tremendously heroic and courageous to call for such action as a boycott, but is it more a sign of spiritual weakness that we do not trust the Lord to bring justice in His time, by His standard, in His way. I am not saying do nothing; don't get involved. But what I am saying is... do it God's way. Would we not rather see lives changed for eternity through the gospel than give ourselves over to economic-political evangelical manipulation?

Civil disobedience is only allowed Biblically under two strict circumstances: 1.) When the government commands us to do something that God prohibits; and 2.) When the government prohibits us from doing something God commands! Therefore, since our government has not mandated for every citizen of this country to buy, study, memorize Madonna's book and causing many to lust, covet, etc. and violate God's standard of holiness, the issue cannot be won through the legislative process. According to our country's laws she has the right to release her art and we have the right not to buy it. It's that simple.

IN THE WORLD BUT NOT OF IT
That brings us to the private sector. Certainly, no one would ask Dr. Dobson to withdraw all of his books from the same stores that sell Madonna's books (as he had said he would do-but hasn't); it would also be unreasonable for Dr. Dobson to organize and publicly insite a boycott of every bookstore that carries non-Christian objectionable material; every movie theater that shows an PG-13, R, and X rated movies; every magazine stand that displays all soft and hard pornography; every kind of venue that carries product unacceptable to the Christian ethic including Madonna's. If we take his line of thought to its logical conclusion, we would constantly be in a state of protest, boycott, banning, ostracizing and civil upheaval within the church. We would be paralyzed from doing what we should have been doing all along and that is proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ to a lost and dying world.

Let's turn the tables a bit. Years ago, Barbra Streisand called for a boycott on Colorado because they did not affirm her own ideology involving gay rights. Are we now going to boycott all her albums and films? Picket her rare concert appearances? Cease to rent her videos? Are we going to again use carnal weapons to fight spiritual battles?

We are asking Madonna to live a standard of righteousness that she is incapable of living. Romans 6:20 says, "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." She is not a Christian by her own admission. What people like Madonna need is not our protest, but to hear of the gospel of grace; salvation through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. "If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creation. All the old things pass away - behold all things become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). Wouldn't it be great to see Madonna become a new creation in Christ and to be our sister in the Lord!

The problems that plague our society are not political, economic, or even moral at their core - they are spiritual. We cannot fight spiritual problems with carnal weapons. May the world find us doing what our Lord has instructed us to do - not marching in the streets but on our knees; not protesting nonbelievers, but proclaiming the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Madonna saw thousands of Christians praying for her and proclaiming the gospel of grace rather than evangelical leaders calling for a boycott of her? Remember, Jesus Christ our Lord was known as a "friend of sinners", not a socio-economic political agitator.

In closing, may we all heed these four great truths that Paul gives to Titus as to how we are to live in a fallen world:

Recognize Your Duty
"Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be uncontentious, gentle, showing every consideration for all men" (Titus 3:1-2).

Remember your Depravity
"For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another" (Titus 3:3).

Rejoice in your Deliverance
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:5-7).

Render Good Deeds
"This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men" (Titus 3:8)

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/10/picketing_sin_a.php

The UN Plan for Global Migration
Part 1
by Berit Kjos - June 4, 2006

"The implications for state sovereignty are also complex.... All states should establish coherent national migration policies that are ... consistent with international treaty law."[1] UN's Global Commission on International Migration

"Why, oh why, is Bush so stubbornly rejecting the advice of his supporters even though that advice is consistent with the thunderous message from public opinion surveys?"[2] Phyllis Schlafly

A borderless world! Social solidarity! Economic equality! Housing and health for all! The feel-good togetherness of serving the greater whole.... The list of utopian promises stretches the imagination. How can this dream be fulfilled? What will it cost? Why is migration vital to this process? How free is our president to block this transformational plan?

This dream of a New World Order was born long before socialist visionaries (including Franklin Roosevelt and the leaders of the Federal Council of Churches) enthroned Communist Alger Hiss as the first head of the United Nations.[3] [See The Revolutionary Roots of the UN] Hiss was the primary author of The UN Charter, which summarized its vision in noble terms that few could criticize. "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS," it began,

"DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained... and for these ends to practice tolerance and... to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all.... Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco... do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."[4]

It took the Second World War to make the new system acceptable to the people. In the wake of that useful crisis, the masses willingly embraced the UN promise of "economic and social advancement of all" under the guiding hand of the new "international machinery."

In the decades that followed, most people seemed to dismiss UN treaties and declarations as "soft laws" and policies with little effect on national sovereignty. They didn't know the many ways UN declarations would permeate national laws and policies. [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules] The mainstream media didn't tell us. So when the The Global Commission on International Migration was launched by the United Nations Secretary-General and a number of governments on December 9, 2003, few saw the red lights.[5]

But America is awakening. An immigrant-friendly nation, it has welcomed grateful immigrants from around the world into its system. Now, it faces something something new. The word immigration implies people moving across a national border into another country. In contrast, migration simply means people moving. No border! It supports the vision of a borderless global society, and it intentionally clashes with national sovereignty, laws and independence. Thomas Sowell summarizes some of its current problems:

"Under affirmative action, combined with amnesty, [illegals] would have preferences in jobs and other benefits. Those who set up their own businesses would be entitled to preferences in getting government contracts. Their children would be able to get into college ahead of the children of American citizens with better academic qualifications. ... [I]f an illegal alien gets stopped for going through a red light... in many communities the cop is forbidden to arrest him.... Under a provision recently passed by the Senate, illegal aliens who forged Social Security cards not only get a pass, they get to collect Social Security benefits. ... We have seen what havoc such notions and practices have created after mass immigration under 'guest worker' programs in Europe...."[6]


This legalized lawlessness fuels the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept mass surveillance, universal data collection, and other intrusive strategies for worldwide control. And it gets worse:
"Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each."[7]

"The immigration reform bill now under congressional consideration would grant amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants.... CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today."[8]

"When Sept. 11 hijackers Hani Hanjour and Khalid Almihdhar needed help getting fraudulent government-issued photo IDs before embarking on their suicide mission, they hopped into a van and headed to the parking lot of a 7-Eleven store in Falls Church, Va. That's where scores of illegal alien day laborers ply bogus identity documents to other illegal aliens from around the world.... Nearly five years later, illegal alien day laborers like the ones who unwittingly assisted the 9/11 hijackers have virtually no fear of being arrested."[9]

A web of secrecy and a flood of misleading propaganda hides the truth from taxpayers who cover the costs. For example, the title of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" may sound good, but it actually undermines both security and prosperity for ordinary citizens. Wondering why their elected leaders ignore their pleas, many face rising lawlessness, unthinkable litter, lost jobs, and continual fear of violence.[10]

The reasons are simple. International regulations have already bound nations around the world to regional as well as global laws and policies. To understand their aims, let's look at the United Nation's Report of the Global Commission on International Migration [GCIM]. Chapter 6 warns us that "international migration is a complex phenomenon," and most states (nations)

"recognize the importance of international migration and seek to address it in a way that enables them to respect their international obligations."[1] What does that mean? Might the word "respect" actually imply "obedience" to international guidelines?

An illusion of national sovereignty

The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any "sovereign" action that might oppose UN policies. The UN Declaration on Human Rights illustrates this manipulative language well. Its Article 18 upholds "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..." Article 19 affirms "the right to freedom of opinion and expression...."

But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, its promise of "human rights" does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God's "offensive" truths -- or refuse to follow UNESCO's Declaration on the Role of Religion.[11]

The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground. In the numbered items below, notice the GCIM's promising assurance -- followed by a clear denial of traditional sovereignty:

"8. First, state sovereignty is the very basis for international cooperation....

"9. Second, with sovereignty comes responsibility. As the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) has observed, recent years have witnessed a reorientation 'from sovereignty as control to sovereignty as responsibility in both internal functions and external duties.' Sovereignty as responsibility has become the minimum content of good international citizenship. Just as individuals have rights and responsibilities as citizens of states, so states have rights and responsibilities as members of the international community. [Note: That responsibility falls primarily on the "rich" developed nations considered capable of hosting, funding and managing the world's migrating human resources.]

"10. ...The European Union (EU) can be viewed as an example of a group of states that have retained their sovereignty [Have they?]...

"11. ...States establish international bodies when certain issues – or ‘common goods’ – warrant a more formal and collective form of governance."[1]

The following points show some of the ways nations must cooperate with regional and global policies:

"15. If states are to address the issue of international migration in a coherent manner, they must have... criteria for the entry and residents of non-citizens that are consistent with international law. ... [T]hey should at minimum address the following issues:
• family reunion, asylum, refugee protection and resettlement;

• the prevention of irregular migration and the promotion of regular migration [The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation's population];[8]

• integration, including the rights and obligations of migrants, citizens and the state...
"17. All states should adopt a coherent approach to international migration that is consistent with international law and other relevant norms....

"21. ...This in turn requires effective data collection, policy analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation....

"23. ... develop an infrastructure that provides social, educational and legal assistance to migrants, and that helps the host society adapt to the presence of migrants;• ensure that resident foreign nationals are effectively represented by migrant associations... [A partnership between U.S. and Mexico provides such legal protection of "human rights" for illegal immigrants in the U.S. Small wonder it's hard for U.S. courts to deal with foreign criminals] [12]• build up a capacity for data collection and analysis, research, monitoring and evaluation."[1]

Regional integration

Regional integration, such as the European Union (EU), was planned long ago as a stepping stone toward global governance. Since the regulations for regionalism are established at the UN level, this initial merger of nations -- such as Canada, United States and Mexico -- redefines sovereignty and submits everyone to international controls. Ashley Mote, an independent member of the European Parliament, explains how this revolutionary system would swallow up any representative form of government:


"Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits.... We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them....

"The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road.... The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states... are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.

"...officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers.... But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government. ... The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure... designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

"...the EU’s parliament... is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. ... In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide."[13]

Today's euphemistic propaganda for regional governance continues to mislead the public. These statements by GCIM show only the positive side of the issue:

34. In the EU, for example, citizens of member states can move with relative ease from one country to another, enjoying the benefits of a common labour market....

35. Efforts have also been made to establish various types of economic integration and related freedom of movement agreements in other regions of the world, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)....

The Commission commends in particular the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), which aims to establish an integrated socio-economic development framework for Africa."[1]

In Parts 2 and 3, we will look more closely at how the beliefs, cultural values, poverty and lawlessness inherent to the migration crisis create a public mindset that welcomes other UN goals: universal surveillance, universal data tracking, a new kind of "human settlement," and collective participation in the dialectic process. With the Canadian, anti-Christian UN leader, Maurice Strong, as one of the guiding lights behind this revolution, my biggest concern might be the UN "laws" that ban Biblical outreach to this new "mission field" in our midst.

Meanwhile, study this chart [www.crossroad.to/charts/paradigm_shift.html] and remember God's promise to His people:

"...in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:37-39

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/migration-un.htm

The Great God Entertainment
by A.W.Tozer[1955]

A German philosopher many years ago said something to the effect that the more a man has in his own heart, the less he will require from the outside; excessive need for support from without is proof of the bankruptcy of the inner man.

If this is true (and I believe it is) then the present inordinate attachment to every form of entertainment is evidence that the inner life of modern man is in serious decline. The average man has no central core of moral assurance, no spring within his own breast, no inner strength to place him above the need for repeated psychological shots to give him the courage to go on living. He has become a parasite on the world, drawing his life from his environment, unable to live a day apart from the stimulation which society affords him.

Schleiermacher held that the feeling of dependence lies at the root of all religious worship, and that however high the spiritual life might rise, it must always begin with a deep sense of a great need which only God could satisfy.

If this sense of need and a feeling of dependence are at the root of natural religion, it is not hard to see why the great god Entertainment is so ardently worshiped by so many. For there are millions who cannot live without amusement; life without some form of entertainment for them is simply intolerable; they look forward to the blessed relief afforded by professional entertainers and other forms of psychological narcotics as a dope addict looks to his daily shot of heroin. Without them they could not summon courage to face existence.

No one with common human feeling will object to the simple pleasures of life, nor to such harmless forms of entertainment as may help to relax the nerves and refresh the mind exhausted by toil. Such things, if used with discretion, may be a blessing along the way. That is one thing, however, the all-out devotion to entertainment as a major activity for which and by which men live is definitely something else again.

The abuse of a harmless thing is the essence of sin. The growth of the amusement phase of human life to such fantastic proportions is a portent, a threat to the souls of modern men. It has been built into a multimillion dollar racket with greater power over human minds and human character than any other educational influence on earth.

And the ominous thing is that its power is almost exclusively evil, rotting the inner life, crowding out the long eternal thoughts which would fill the souls of men, if they were but worthy to entertain them. The whole thing has grown into a veritable religion which holds its devotees with a strange fascination; and a religion, incidentally, against which it is now dangerous to speak. For centuries the Church stood solidly against every form of worldly entertainment, recognizing it for what it was�a device for wasting time, a refuge from the disturbing voice of conscience, a scheme to divert attention from moral accountability.

For this she got herself abused roundly by the sons of this world. But of late she has become tired of the abuse and has given over the struggle. She appears to have decided that if she cannot conquer the great god Entertainment she may as well join forces with him and make what use she can of his powers.So, today we have the astonishing spectacle of millions of dollars being poured into the unholy job of providing earthly entertainment for the so-called sons of heaven. Religious entertainment is in many places rapidly crowding out the serious things of God.Many churches these days have become little more than poor theaters where fifth-rate "producers" peddle their shoddy wares with the full approval of evangelical leaders who can even quote a holy text in defense of their delinquency. And hardly a man dares raise his voice against it.

The great god Entertainment amuses his devotees mainly by telling them stories. The love of stories, which is a characteristic of childhood, has taken fast hold of the minds of the retarded saints of our day, so much so that not a few persons manage to make a comfortable living by spinning yarns and serving them up in various disguises to church people.

What is natural and beautiful in a child may be shocking when it persists into adulthood, and more so when it appears in the sanctuary and seeks to pass for true religion. Is it not a strange thing and a wonder that, with the shadow of atomic destruction hanging over the world and with the coming of Christ drawing near, the professed followers of the Lord should be giving themselves up to religious amusements? That in an hour when mature saints are so desperately needed vast numbers of believers should revert to spiritual childhood and clamor for religious toys?

"Remember, 0 Lord, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. The crown is fallen from our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned ! For this our heart is faint; for these things our eyes are dim." AMEN. AMEN.

Taken from Root of the Righteous, Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1955, p. 32-33

Because He Is God
recovering a reverence for God in ministry

Because He is God, He must be reckoned with. Because He is God, He must not be trifled with. Because He is God, we must love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength-and love our neighbor as ourselves. Because He is God, we ought to worship Him in spirit and truth. Because He is God, we esteem Him with an undivided heart as First Love. Because He is God, we must approach Him clothed in contrition and we tremble at His Word. Because He is God, we give Him the preeminence in all things.

Because He is God, he has given us His grace instead of His wrath; His love instead of His enmity; His mercy instead of His justice; joy unspeakable in glory instead of torment in hell for perpetuity. Because He is God, I have no right to myself. Because He is God, I must walk in love, and love others, as Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Because He is God, I must be willing to forgive as God in Christ has forgiven me. Because He is God, we love the brethren. Because He is God, I cannot harbor anger, wrath, clamor, bitterness, and malice in my heart toward another. Because He is God, I must turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and give someone my cloak if they want my coat too. Because He is God, I must be willing to suffer the loss of all things, to gain everything. Because He is God, I can rest in the surety that He is orchestrating all things for our good and His glory. Because He is God, I cannot repay evil for evil, wrong for wrong, hurt for hurt. Because He is God, we may rejoice when our hearts are breaking and our world has been shaken. Because He is God, our trials are blessings-invited guests and not strangers.

Because He is God, we keep our vows to our spouse even when he or she seems unlovable, unapproachable, unteachable, or uncaring. Because He is God, we train our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Because He is God, we cannot take another to court and sue for reparations. Because He is God, we have the right to be wronged. Because He is God, we love His Word more than daily food. Because He is God, pastors should preach the Word of God instead of being clever raconteurs. Because He is God, the church must discipline sin and not wink at it. Because He is God, I cannot cherish my sin, but must daily repent of it. Because He is God, I've made a covenant with my eyes. Because He is God, I must guard my heart. Because He is God, I must not be motivated by mans applause, but by His "well done." Because He is God, we cannot become unequally yoked with an unbeliever in any spiritual ministry or enterprise. Because He is God, all our possessions are for the Master's use-they are not ours; they belong to Him. Because He is God, we must deny ourselves, daily take up our cross and follow Him.

To do all to His glory, according to His divine purpose, under the authority of His Word, to seek His will more than earthly reward, to embrace the fellowship of His sufferings rather than the pleasures of this world even for a season, to live self-sacrificially in unreciprocated love and service to others-to do all this for no other reason than… because He is God!

http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2006/09/because-he-is-godrecovering-reverence.html

Plagiarism for the Glory of God?

I recently received the following e-mail that I wanted to share with you. Names have been removed to protect the sarcasm of the sender:

Brent,
You might want to check out this article, especially since you’ve been so busy lately — it might be a great time-saver! I hate to see you wasting all that time studying.

Knowing the author of said e-mail, I thought that I had a reasonable idea of what to expect when I arrived at the article. I was wrong. In fact, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I had seen “Rick Warren’s Tool Box” before, a website with article and resources claiming to help equip pastors, but I’ve honestly never spent much time there.

In case you haven’t guessed from the illustration by David Julian, the article essentially advocates plagiarism from the pulpit. The article’s author, Steve Sjogren, introduces the article with these words (I apologize up-front for the large number of block quotes following, but I wanted to very clearly let the article speak for itself):

There has been much talk in recent years on blogs and Web sites about how much of other people’s sermons are appropriate to incorporate into your own messages. When does it get to the point of “plagiarism”?

Sjogren then discusses an interview with Dr. Cho, pastor of “the world’s largest church in Korea” (which must mean he’s doing something right!). Cho was asked how he prepares his weekly sermons because “They’re so powerful.” Sjogren records Cho as responding:
Honestly, I have never given an original message in all my years of ministry here at Yoido Church. Each week, I preach word-for-word messages from either Billy Graham or W.A. Criswell from Dallas First Baptist Church. I can’t afford to not have a home run each weekend when we gather. I don’t trust my own ability to give completely original messages.

Sjogren then notes that he “regularly read(s) the blogs of my favorite communicators from influential churches around the United States.” I find it telling that he doesn’t refer to them as “pastors,” but that’s another point entirely. Sjogren then notes that each of these “communicators” (although at this point he does refer to them as pastors):

has recently come out on their blogging sites and admitted, curiously, the same thing. They get approximately 70 percent of their messages each week from other people – word for word according to them. They fill in their own personal illustrations and stories, of course. Two of the guys that I am thinking of as I write this have churches of more than 10,000 in attendance each weekend” (which, again must mean that they are truly honoring God, right?).

In case there’s any confusion about Sjogren’s own position towards this practice, he says quite clearly:

We need to get over the idea that we have to be completely original with our messages, each and every week. In my mind there is a tremendous amount of pride (let’s call it what it is) when we insist on being completely original as communicators. In our desire to give “killer messages” we are dishing out something far less. Think about it for a second: If you really were giving a killer message each week, would your church be the size that it is right now? Maybe you need to be open to doing things a different way.

I honestly couldn’t believe that I read that. So I re-read it and re-read it and re-read it until I was clear: Sjogren just said that it is prideful to carry the notion that pastors ought to write their own sermons, because we all share a desire to “give “killer messages,” which means “wowing” the “audience” every week! He then asks a very telling question: “If you really were giving a killer message each week, would your church be the size that it is right now?” My heart sank at these words. In Sjogren’s article we have reached the epitome of not only pragmatism, but of elevating numbers to the gauge of success or failure in ministry. In applying this message, Sjogren argues that leaders need to:

Stop all of this nonsense of spending 25 or 30 hours a week preparing to speak on the weekend. The guys I draw encouragement from – the best communicators in the United States – confess they spend a total of about 15 hours preparing for their message. As I have already said, they get 70 percent of their material from someone else. Remember, Solomon wrote that “there is nothing new under the sun …”

He then outright urges that we “Borrow creatively from others in the Church world” and that we need to “forget about originality – which is often a form of pride. Let’s begin to focus on effectiveness, and pray that we will be powerful at connecting with not-yet believers.” He then closes the article by stating:

A wise mentor of mine brought great liberty to me when he was coaching me in the area of how to put messages together. He said, “There once was a man who said, ‘I will be original or nothing;’ in the end he became both.” Dare to step out of the box. Regardless of what you have heard or been taught – hit a homerun this weekend with the help of a message master!
The real issues here are not even about originality, but about respect for the Word and obedience to Christ’s command of making disciples (Matthew 28:18-20) as our principle ends. Sjogren has reduced effective preaching to mere pragmatics and numbers. How do you know when you are preaching “homeruns,” when you have numbers and if you don’t have numbers, then you ought to consider cutting corners and refashioning your product! This is a blatant lack of respect for the Word and the Church and in the end, God will not honor such approaches. Large numbers sometimes mean that more ears are being tickled than souls edified (2 Timothy 4:3), yet such concerns do not seem to appear on Sjogren’s radar.

The very notion that we must preach “homeruns” is in itself misguided and borrows more from marketing than Scripture. Not that we do not strive for excellence, we certainly do, but the excellence that we strive for is properly understanding, explaining and applying the Word, not “wowing” our audience. If that happens in the process, that’s fine, but once that “wow” becomes our focus, we’ve lost sight of true preaching. The question of the

“communicator/preacher/pastor” as “entertainer is a crucial one. Is it possible that driving a Corvette and pulling things from the trunk while you preach on letting God deal with “your junk in the trunk” is perhaps going too far?

Is it pride for a minister to strive to adequately understand and apply the Word? Is it pride to think that a pastor ought to actually write the words he presents as his own? Is it pride to let our “yes be yes” and our “no be no” (James 5:12)? We cannot tolerate views such as this one that lowers the church from being the “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) to nothing more than a marketing model and business approach. We would do well to remind Sjogren that “we who teach will be judged with greater strictness,” (James 3:1-2) and that God’s business is never truly accomplished using man’s methods. What works for the world does not work for the church. Oh that we would be a generation that takes the preaching of the Word seriously rather than simply as a pragmatic means to an end…

1. Read Steve Sjogren’s article “Don’t Be Original - Be Effective!”


http://www.colossiansthreesixteen.com/archives/797

The President of Iran and the Shia Belief in the "Lost Cause"
By John Baker

Islam is divided up into many different sects, however the two largest sects are: The Shias (20%) and the Sunnis (70%).

To understand Iran, its President and his harsh rhetoric you must understand the differences between these two sects of Islam.

The main concentration of Shia Muslims is in Persia (Iran) and South East Asia, a little more than 80% of the Iranian Muslim population are Shia Muslims. A sense of exclusiveness characterizes the Shias. the Shia see themselves as an “elect” (al-khassa) living among the generality (al-amma) of Muslims, according to Shia Scholars.

Shia Belief revolves around the figure of Ali. A cousin of Muhammad the “Prophet” . Ali was the first male Muslim, and he was the son-in-law of Muhammad. He was the last of the four early Caliph’s who succeeded Muhammad as the rulers of Islam. Ali’s “charisma”, said to comprise of personal “chivalry” and “wisdom” is revered by Shia Muslims. Muhammad was supposed to have said of him, “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate”. Ali his wife Fatima (daughter of Muhammad, and namesake of the village in Portugal where the Catholic “Visions of Fatima” supposedly occurred) and their two sons: Hassan and Hussain, are the key figures in Shia tradition. They are also widely revered by Sunni Muslims.

The Shia’s believe that Muhammad chose Ali as his successor and that he should have therefore been the first caliph. The only caliph that both Shias and Sunni’s accept is Ali. In particular the Shias reject the first three caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.

To non-Muslims the causes of the Shia split with the Sunnis may appear obscure, but these are central to the parting of the ways. Shias believe that Ali should have been the first caliph of Islam not merely the fourth one – not only because he richly deserved the appointment but because he was Muhammad’s son-in-law. If Ali had been the first caliph, then his son Hussain would then have been caliph in place of Yazid, the very man who ordered Hussain’s death at Karbala.

The events of Karbala are of deep significance to Shias. After both his father and elder brother Hassan had been assassinated, Hussain led his family and followers against the caliph Yazid’s army at Karbala in 680, but they faced impossible odds. Hussains army of just seventy men were slaughtered on the battlefield by an army of thousands, and after the battle Hussains body was beheaded.

The idea of the martyrdom is crucial to Shias, who believe that, starting with Ali himself, all except one of the twelve Imams (that is, Ali and his direct descendents) were martyred. Loyalty to the ahl-al-abyt (the house of Muhammad) or Ali and his descendents – is at the core of the sect. The word Shia itself derives from “partisans” or group of supporters of Ali.

Shias believe that the each new leader of the community should be chosen by the previous Imam and they believe that he should be a descendent of Muhammad and thus Ali. For the Sunnis the caliphs held mainly political power. For the Shias their religious authority is far more important. . They could therefore regard Ali’s son Hassan as their Imam even when he had no political influence.

The Shia heartlands would remain in the region where the deaths of Ali and Hussain took place – present day Iraq and Iran. In particular the death, and in the manner it took place, of Hussain and his followers at Karbala ( the city of Karbala is in Iraq) have helped shape the Shia worldview. The need to stand up against all odds on a matter of principle, the readiness for martyrdom, total passion, disregard for death and acceptance of tragedy are familiar aspects of Shiism. It is termed by scholars as the “Karbala paradigm” or the “lost cause” paradigm. Iran’s foreign policy reflects this “lost cause” mentality and explains the President of Iran’s hard line stance, and how he views the world.

The main branch of modern Shiism is the Ithna Ashari or twelve Imam Shiism (twelvers) the majority of Shias in Iran and Iraq are twelvers including the President of Iran. According to this sect, the line of descent from Ali ended with the twelfth Imam, who is believe by Shias to not be dead but hidden (He was supposed to have went into hiding in 874 AD). I have spoken of the 12th Imam in a previous post. The 12th Imam is the Islamic “Messiah” (righteous descendant of the “Prophet” Mohammad, and from the same Arab tribe as Muhammad: the Banu Hashim, from which the Royal Family of Jordan claims descent). The concept of the hidden 12th Imam reinforces loyalty to the house of Ali through the belief that the 12th Imam will return one day as the Al-Mahdi (the expected one). It also strengthens the role of the Ulema (Shia community). For during the absence of the Imam the community was to await his return and be guided by its religious experts or Faqihs (Islamic Jurists). The Ayatollah Khomeini who came to power in Iran after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 was one such Faqih. And an Islamic council of Faqih’s are the ones who wield the main power in Iran today.

The Imam in Shiism is both the Political leader and religious guide who is himself “divinely” guided. He is the final authoritative interpreter of Allah’s will as formulated in Islamic Law, and thus has almost unlimited power. This concentration of power of religious authority is unique to the Shia and not accepted by the Sunnis. For Sunnis religious authority required to interpret lies in the consensus (ijma) or collective judgment of the community.

The Sunnis and Shias have divergent interpretations of history. For Sunnis, early Islamic success and power were signs of Allahs guidance and rewards to a faithful community as well as validation of Muslim belief and claims. For Shias, history was the enactment of the struggle and sacrifice of an oppressed and disinherited minority community endeavoring to restore Allahs rule over the entire earth. The struggle was to be lead by the Imam. The Shia were to struggle in Allah’s way, irrespective of the forces of “evil” ranged against them. The lives of the Imams were seen as embodying this struggle. Their martyrdom especially that of Ali and Hussain gave the Shia a model.

This leaves western nations with a paradox in dealing with Iran and its nuclear program. The more the western nations put pressure on Iran to abandon its Nuclear program the more Iran retreats into its “Karbala Paradox” view of the world. Viewing itself as being “persecuted” by the jahiliyyah societies (countries in a “State of Ignorance of the Guidance of Allah”). And this is how Iran and its President view the United States and not only the other western nations but other Muslim nations that do not have a government led by Faqih’s (Islamic Jurists) dispensing justice via Islamic Sharia Law.

But if the western nations led by the United States ease up the pressure on Iran, This allows Iran to pursue the primary goal of Islam and that is to overthrow all of the governments of the world who do not submit to Islamic Sharia law. As Islam regards the all people and nations of the world as three types of people: those who fight against Islam, those who have submitted to Allah and become Muslims and those who have submitted to Islamic rule but have remained in their own religion and pay the jazyah (infidel tax).

What is doubly dangerous about Iran’s President, since he is a twelver is that he has no qualms about starting a World War, as he believes that if enough Islamic blood is spilt and enough Muslims die it will bring the Al-Mahdi (the Expected one, the Islamic Messiah) forth to assist the Muslims in defeating the jahiliyyah societies, all other Religions and make the World Islamic and fully submitted to Allah.

(portions of this adapted from “Living Islam” by Akbar S. Ahmed)

Before You Jump To Defend the Pope

In these days of ever increasing attacks on Christianity it is sometimes easy to give into anger and take a stand before we know all the facts. In regards to the Pope’s speech that triggered all of the anger among Muslims, in this case both the Muslim’s were wrong for attacking the Pope in regards to him quoting a 12th century Byzantine King’s statement about Islam being violent and conquering by the sword to spread Islam, but the Pope while making a correct observation about Islam via the quote, used it in a speech that did not describe true Christianity and also one which was just one in a long line of speeches by himself and his predecessor Pope John Paul II promoting further interfaith unity.

The aim of the Catholic church in the 20th and now 21st century has been to re-define Christianity and more importantly the Catholic (Universal) Church as the head of a worldwide all-inclusive Church that includes not only all Christian churches (Catholic and Protestant) but Muslims, Jews, Hindu’s, Buddhists and other religions. The Pope’s speech at the University of Regensburg centered around the use of reason or logos (as logos has a dual meaning in the original Greek of: word and reason, reason as in a person’s ability to use intellectual reasoning) to better understand other religions and to use reason to see how the traditions of men cannot be ignored as opposed to rejecting reason and relying on Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura). And how Man made Philosophies are actually gifts form God to better understand God. In short his speech was an Ecumenical Speech appealing to those who wish to work towards an all-inclusive Universal Church and his speech was a criticism of all Fundamentalism, Islamic, and Christian.

But what happened when he made this speech? The Muslims around the world came out in a fury. And Evangelical Christians? They leaped to the defense of the Pope.

The Catholic church has already made it a part of Catholic teaching that Muslims have salvation. The following is from the Catholic Catechism. The Catechism is an official exposition of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church first published in French in 1992 with the authorization of Pope John Paul II:

Catechism 841) “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Page 242, 243)

What you see happening now is two separate groups. One led by the Catholic Church which wants to be head of the Global Universal Church and Islam which also wants to be the head of a Universal Religion and Government with Islamic Sharia law and everyone who is a non-Muslim “liberated” by Muslims to become Muslims, or if they decide to remain in their own religion, then a second class citizen in a worldwide Muslim Society, forced to pay a tax for the privilege of being left alive and having less rights than Muslims under Sharia Law. However The Catholic Church which has went into apostasy and idolatry will not give up the Divinity of not only Jesus but Mary as well. Oh I forgot to mention that the Catholic Catechism also teaches that Mary is a Co-Redeemer equal to Jesus. But Islam does not recognize the Divinity of Jesus but considers him only a Prophet. Nor do they recognize the Catholic Divinity of Mary.

Currently the Catholic church is making great headway towards a Global Universal Church. At an ever increasing rate Protestant Churches are moving ever closer to the Catholic Church through Ecumenical Dialogue. And with increasing pressure from Islam, they will eventually stand shoulder to shoulder with the Catholic Church. Completely undoing the Reformation of Martin Luther. Even Hindus’ in India are pledging their support for the Pope in light of the recent Muslim protest’s against the Pope’s speech. Hindu’s in India offering 30 million Hindu Soldiers to assist what they consider to be the Christian church in its struggle against Islam.

Now where should we as true Christians stand in all of this, where should our support be placed? We should stand back and become wise and discern the times. True Christianity is under attack from not just Islam but from the Ecumenical Movement of the Catholic Church whose aim is to erase the Reformation as just one step towards a Global Universal False Church.

I truly believe Ezekiel 38 will be the penultimate battle where Islam comes against Israel to wipe it out as a nation, but the nations that come against Israel will be destroyed and with it the violent form of Islam as we know it today. After the Battle of Ezekiel 38 the world will be so sick of what it deems Religious instigated wars that all religions will sit down at the table and agree an all inclusive “reason” and man based religion just as the current Pope wishes to build. The world will seem to be at peace and then the stage will be set for the arrival of “The Man of Peace” The Anti-Christ.

Oh but friends I intend to be long gone before all of that takes place. I hope you do too! If your not where you should be with the Lord friends now is the time to get right. We are on the cusp of the end of all things!

God Bless,

John Baker

The Pope's speech at The at University of Regensburg can be read in full here:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

Christians and Blogging: The Road to Hell?
By John A. Baker

The article below is to me very sad and sickening. It involves a “Christian” Blogger who began a campaign on his internet blog against R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries alleging Fraud in a recent purchase by Ligonier Ministries of a Christian Publisher. Now the “Christian” Blogger is basing his accusations on hearsay and rumor. He also uses very sarcastic and insulting language towards others on his “Blog site”

I have noticed that on an ever increasing basis so-called Christians are showing the true condition of their heart by the language they are using on their web sites and when commenting on other Web sites. Sarcasm and insulting language is rife. Not to mention making serious unsubstantiated charges against individuals and ministries.

Blogging has for some reason deceived many Christians into thinking they can say what they wish and how they wish. I am flabbergasted at how they come to this conclusion.

Is the internet and blogging somehow exempt from our Lord’s commandments in the word? I think not:

Titus 3: 9-11

“But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”

Matthew 18:15-20

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[a] 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

Deuteronomy 19:15-19

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. 16 If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. 18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, 19 then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Now there is a place for informing Christians of substantiated and proven heresies and wrong doings of Christians especially ones who occupy a place to have a large influence on other Christians for the express intent of warning other Christians against the heresy or blatant wrong doing. But the intent should never be to ridicule and insult another Christian, and this is what is happening in an ever increasing rate on the internet by so-called Christians.

Jesus himself said in:

Mark 7: 20-23

"What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Matthew 7:15-21

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Christians who engage in Sarcastic and insulting blogging on the internet are: a Bad Tree that bears Bad Fruit and are in danger of being cut down and thrown into the fire. Jesus says very clearly: “by their fruits you will know them Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

Insulting and sarcastic blogging is BAD FRUIT! And those who practice it are in danger of Hell fire! Just as Jesus says above: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” He is saying that if you bear bad fruit you are not going to heaven.

This needs to be reiterated especially to young people, who by far are the highest percentage of the Christian population who have blogs and online Journals.

God Bless,
John A. Baker


Lawsuit seeks to block blogger
First Amendment advocates decry 'prior restraint.'
Rene Stutzman Sentinel Staff Writer Posted September 5, 2006

SANFORD -- How much First Amendment protection do bloggers have? That's an issue now before a Sanford judge.Ligonier Ministries Inc., a Lake Mary religious publisher and broadcaster, is asking Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to stop blogger Frank Vance from posting any more slurs about its president, Timothy A. Dick.In the past five months, Vance's blog has described Dick as part of a "family of nincompoops," "a very corrupt man" and "a lying, thieving con artist," according to the lawsuit.Two weeks ago, Dick and the ministry sued Vance for defamation, asking for unspecified monetary damages.It also asked for something that judges have historically refused to impose on news organizations -- a publishing ban.Media lawyers call that "prior restraint.""It's just so repugnant to the First Amendment that you would request one," said Marc Randazza, a First Amendment lawyer in Altamonte Springs.

Courts have long held that plaintiffs should seek justice only after an item has been published or aired. But judges have been less certain about how to handle bloggers and other material on the Internet.There are tens of millions of blogs on the Internet. Increasingly, bloggers are being sued -- for defamation, privacy issues and the use of unnamed sources, according to lawyers specializing in Internet issues.In a very small number of cases, judges are slapping them and other Web sites with prior-restraint orders.In May, a federal judge in Roanoke, Va., ordered the shutdown of a Web site critical of a nearby military school after the site's creators, the parents of a boy who had been expelled, criticized the academy.And earlier this year, a Wisconsin judge temporarily closed an Internet chat room that had been sued by a county official angry about comments posted there by anonymous writers.

First Amendment advocates say those judges were wrong. Bloggers and Web-site operators are entitled to the same protections as other media, said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco,Greg Herbert, a First Amendment lawyer in Orlando, said, "I think a lot of judges don't know what a blog is."Ligonier, which filed the Sanford case, is a nonprofit, interdenominational group with offices in a business park. The company employs about 50 people, publishes religious materials and its founder, R.C. Sproule, broadcasts a radio show called Renewing Your Mind.Dick is Sproule's son-in-law.

The Orlando Sentinel was unable to reach Dick or the company's attorney, Daniel Brodersen, for comment.Vance, the blogger, is less well known. He won't say where he's from, except that he is in the United States. He launched his Web site -- vancetribe.blogspot.com -- in May and has a day job.

He writes only about Ligonier.He has criticized its choice of president -- Dick -- and the way the group acquired another religious publisher.Vance learned about the lawsuit from the Sentinel."To prevent me from publishing, I view as a very serious breach of First Amendment rights," he said by phone Friday.Some plaintiffs sue bloggers, asking for things they would never dream of asking from a conventional news organization, said Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association."They think they can push bloggers around," he said.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-blog0506sep05,0,6545015.story

Misinterpreting Daniel Chapter Two
by John Baker

Many prophecy teachers have tried to interpret the ten toes of Daniel 2 as the new European Union and the EU as the Revived Roman Empire. But it has never really fit. Additionally the two iron legs of the statue did not represent the East and West divisions of the Roman Empire, it represented the two idealogical divisions of the empire, that of the Stoics (one leg) and the Epicurians (the other leg). The Stoics were equivalent to our Republican party, and the Epicureans to our Democrat party.

The Stoics believed in Duty, Honor, Morals, Allegiance to the State, family. The Epicureans on the other hand were like our modern day relativists, they held that life was there to enjoy, they believed in a hedonistic and free lifestyle. These two ideologies battled against each other as the Epicureans became more debauched the Stoics became more hard line, this led to the Roman Republic changing from a form of Democracy to a Dictatorship. The Stoics seeing the only way to control the Roman Citizens, who had become rich and debauched ( and were known as the mob) was through a dictatorship.

But what is fascinating is that the Dictatorship, first through Sula and then Julius Caesar was granted by the Roman Senate on a temporary basis to be renewed as thought needed by the Roman Senate. Just as our modern Patriot Act has given our President almost unlimited power albeit on a renewable basis granted by our Senate.

By the time of Augustus Caesar the first true emperor for life in the Roman Empire, the Romans had quite a few scares to their security and quite a bit of internal upheaval within the empire, and they were rich and wanted to maintain their lifestyle at any cost and were willing to allow Augustus to gather about himself great dictatorial powers. What is interesting is that he was never known as the Emperor. Since Rome was a Democratic Republic, the citizens would never allow a person to have the title of Emperor. Augustus Caesar was actually known as the Prince of Rome. And he attained his dictatorial powers by being named as the Chief Justice of Rome, head of the Civil Service, and he was also given dictatorial powers in the conquered territories outside of Rome.

So he gained power by being given titles and named head of the parts of the Roman government that could wield great power and were formerly in the hands of multiple people. In this way he neutralized the power of the Roman Senate. Augustus further advanced his power by bringing stability to the Roman Empire after decades of external and internal instability. The Senate and the People showered him with more power out of a sense of Gratitude. These powers were only supposed to have been for him and his lifetime only. But when he died, in the name of preserving stability most of the titles and power went to his successors. We normally translate Caesar today the same as King or Dictator or Emperor. But Augustus and his successors were given the name Caesar as an honor to show their link back to Julius Caesar (Caesar being his actual last name and not a title) who was greatly loved by the Roman people. So a temporary and informal granting of power to the Caesars first with Augustus slowly over time became permanent. However the Roman Senate existed until the fall of the Western Roman Empire. And the Romans right up until the end considered themselves a Republican Democracy.

And it is true that the Western Roman Empire never really ended abruptly it just seemed to fade away as the Barbarian tribes infiltrated the Empire, intermarried with the Romans, and as the Roman Legions became a hired Mercenary force. The Barbarians came to make up the majority of the Legions strength and because they were its strength were able to raise up one of their own as the leader of the Western Roman Empire.

Where the two legs of the statue in Daniel 2 become the ten toes made up of iron mixed with clay is as follows:

When the Western Roman Empire finally collapsed what it left to all succeeding nations in that area and now the world, that followed it was its legacy of codified laws and form of government, and competing conservative and liberal ideologies, Justinian one of the last Emperors of a combined East and West Roman Empire codified all Roman Law, in other words he made it into a defined code of laws in books for the entire Empire to be used by Judges, Courts, Procreator Fiscals (Prosecutors), it became known as the Code of Justinian. All European Law is based on Roman Justinian codified Law. United States codified laws are based on European codified law, which is based on Roman Justinian codified laws, as is Central and South American law, African Law, Australian law. If you ever go into an Attorney’s office and see the shelves of Books, these books are the Codified laws for City State and sometimes Federal Law. All of this is based on Roman Justinian Codified law in structure and content. Also the two different competing ideologies of Stoicism and Epicureanism have filtered down through societies to today.

All modern Government Civil Services are based on the Roman Civil Service. Virtually all of modern society all over the world finds its roots in the Roman Empire. How our economy functions, banking, retailing, commercial activities etc etc. This was not so during the Communist era in Russia, Eastern Europe and China but since the fall of the Soviet Union virtually all of the World follows the same commercial and economic structures for their societies which find their root in the Roman Republic.

Our form of government owes much to the Romans, the form of our Senate, our Judicial System etc. Parliamentary governments in other countries find their origins in the Roman Republic. Where the Clay mixed with the Iron comes in is this: The iron is the foundations of the Roman Republic that have found their way into our societies, and how those foundations have an iron grip in perpetuating and accelerating humanistic governments. The clay represents popular democracy. Popular democracy mixed in with the iron of the foundational structures of the Roman Empire tempers its strength and weakens it.

How does all of this fit into an end times scenario, well it is not going to be a revived Roman Empire in Europe. If you read Ezekiel 38, it talks about the great Gog Magog war against Israel. Up until that time democracy is being spread across the globe, Christianity is continually becoming relative and compromised. As I have shown in some previous emails the Emergent Church movement and other movements are making Christianity more inclusive of other belief systems. Going so far as questioning the Divinity of Jesus, what you will end up with is a democratized form of religion where everyone has compromised and come to an agreeable position that includes everyone in the family of God and does not “discriminate” against anyone if you know what I mean. But there are always two main hold outs: Those who hold to true Christianity and Militant Islam.

The True Christians will be removed via the rapture, but Militant Islam will trigger Ezekiel 38. If you read Ezekiel 38 the devastation is so great that it takes Israel seven years to clean up the carnage of the destroyed armies. This event will be so horrible that everyone will cry for peace. It will destroy what we know as militant Islam and a reformed “peaceful” Islam will take its place. This war will bring abut the ten nation confederation of Daniel 2. And if you read Daniel 2 you will see that the EU stands by and does not prevent the Ezekial 38 war. This is because one: Europe has no military power, they have always relied on the U.S. since WWII to provide security for them, secondly the European native population is actually shrinking the death rate is more than the birth rate, but the birth rate and immigration rate of Muslims is very high, so the EU will be a weak and partially Muslim entity that will not have either the strength or the will to come against the Gog Magog federation.

The ten trans-national confederation headed by the Anti-Christ will be much larger than just Europe, if you notice the trend among nations today, it is to sign Free Trade Agreements. Such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Association) ASEAN(Association of South Eastern Asian Nations) etc. Mexico, The United States and Canada are moving towards closer integration. They may one day become an American version of the EU. These ten transnational entities will have a governing committee and will elect as their head a President of sorts and this is where the Anti-Christ will come in. He will be like any other politician; smooth, a great organizer, and diplomat. Laws will have come to a stage by this time to prevent any kind of “religious discrimination” as it will seem like the right thing to do as the horrible results of Ezekiel 38 will be so evident. The Anti-Christ will be given great powers as if you study history and especially the Roman Empire you will see that in times of instability people and governments are willing to give up all of their freedoms for a promise of security, and this will be the case for the Anti-Christ. Religious freedoms will be one of those freedoms taken away. And anyone viewed has having Religious views that “discriminate” against others will be labeled an enemy of the state. It will seem to all people as a necessity.

Also Daniel specifically says that the Anti-Christ will be from the Middle-East, most likely Syria. He wont be from Europe.

The EU is a shadow and type, just like Paul describes the events of the Old Testament being shadows and types for our admonition. Or for our understanding and learning of what to look for. The EU has elements just like the United States has elements that will be used within the 10 transnational confederation that the Anti-Christ will lead.

Some of the main ones are: A commercial and economic structure based on the American model. (Just as the world has adopted today) A type of Republican Democracy, a inclusive structure of many nations and, many religions dissolved into a single inclusive religion. Etc etc.

The woman who rides the beast is not the Catholic Church today per se. Catholic is Latin for Universal, so there will be a universal Church that will be the Harlot. She is a harlot because she has cheated on God and allied herself with the governments, compromised her beliefs to satisfy man instead of God. She will persecute and kill those who do not accept her just as false religions have always done throughout history. This is one of the reasons Rick Warren’s Social gospel is so dangerous and leads to the false Church, because he teaches an ideology called the 3 legged-stool. Where the Church is but one leg of Man centered society, government and civil organizations making up the other two. The Harlot rides the beast as the beast is society and she adapts herself to the society to be relevant, to wield power and to satisfy man not God. Just as false Christianity has always done throughout history and will find its fulfillment in the end times ten transnational coalition.

And lastly in regards to Muhammad’s wife Khadija being Catholic, there is no documented evidence to support this. What is known is that a cousin of Khadija was a Christian. But during the time of Muhammad’s life in Mecca there were various heretical sects of Christianity: Nestorians. Sabean’s there were also other Monotheistic Pagan Religions such as Zoroastrianism. So there is no link in that respect between Catholicism and Islam. And no one knows of what Christian sect Khadija’s cousin was part of.

Also in regards to Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. There is no link between her and Catholicism either. A recent prophecy teacher seemed to infer that the Three Fatima Prophecies were linked to her, and Islam. They are not. The only link is this. The three children who had the supposed visions of the Virgin Mary were from a town called Fatima Portugal. The town got its name because before Portugal was a country it was part of Spain and that area of Spain was at one time ruled by the Moors, who were North African Muslims and they named the town after Muhammad’s daughter Fatima. The Moors were eventually defeated by El Cid, remember the movie with Charlton Heston as El Cid and Sophia Loren as his wife? That is what the movie is about, the defeat of the Moors in Spain, who after their defeat fled to North Africa and Spain reverted to Catholicism.

In addition the interpretation of the statue in Daniel 2 is multilayered, It not only is interpreted: Babylonian Empire as the Gold head, The Medio-Persian Empire as the Silver arms and chest, the Greek empire under Alexander the Great as the Bronze Thighs, and the Roman Empire as the Iron legs, but it in a deeper level it shows in the inferior metals as you go down how the empires will be inferior to the previous:

The Babylonian Empire was an Absolute Monarchy, the Ruler could do what he wanted, when he wanted, he could change his mind on laws, decisions etc anytime he wanted. He was considered a God.

The Medio-Persian Empire was a coalition of the Medes and the Persians. The ruler once he made a law and it was written in the book of laws he could not change it. He was bound to it. He was absolute as long as he didn’t contradict a law he had written because to contradict his own word meant he was not a God.

The Greek Empire under Alexander the Great was a confederation of Greek States ruled by the Macedonian Republic which was governed by a ruling council who appointed a ruler from a hereditary family. Any one in that family could be chosen as the next ruler. The Ruler could only rule with the support of the council and in the Greek states we also see the inclusion for the first time of democratic principles in government.

The Roman Empire was a full blown Republican Democracy which was governed by a democratically elected Senate, the Empire eventually did degenerate into a Dictatorship but maintained the semblance of a democracy to the end.

So you see the degradation of the manner of government in the statue fits with the Metals becoming more inferior. Democracy is not God’s intended form of government. His government when it is set up after Armageddon will be absolute rule by Jesus Christ. God knows that man made democracies are the most degraded form of government because man will always if left to his own devices choose fleshly desires over Godly desires.

The concept of Messiah in Islam & the Anti-Christ
by John Baker

We are living in very interesting and prophetical times. I have studied Islam for over two years now and it never ceases to amaze me the things I discover even still, consider this:

In regards to the Al Mahdi below (or as known in Islam as the Islamic Messiah). If you scroll to the bottom of the article below: “The Concept of Messiah in Islam” where it says “WHO IS THE MAHDI?” it gives his lineage in points 1,2 & 3.

Now there is something very interesting here. The country of Jordan is also known as the “Hashemite Kingdom” or the Hashim Kingdom. This is because they are part of the Arab Banû Hãshim tribe. As seen in point 1 below. And if you go to their Family Web site: http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/rfamily_hashemites.html , their family tree is exactly as is detailed below for the Al Mahdi or Islamic Messiah. (Anti-Christ)

Now what is also interesting is that the Hashemite Family were also at one time the Royal family of Syria and Iraq, this was during and after the first world war when the Turkish empire crumbled and the Arab tribes rebelled, and the Banu Hashim tribe claimed the title “King of the Arabs” based on their claim of being descended from the Prophet Muhammad.

When the British were given the mandate to govern Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, And the French: Lebanon and Syria after World War I, they refused to recognize the claim of the Hashemite’s claim as King of the Arabs. As they did not wanted a single united Arab Kingdom to be set up covering all of the Middle East, and instead the Hashemites settled for the Kingdom of Jordan, and the British partitioned the rest of the Arab territories into the countries we see today, the British did this to ensure no single Arab tribe could dominate the Arab territories: http://www.kingabdullah.jo/main.php?main_page=4&lang_hmka1=1


Now the “little horn” from Daniel 7: “I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.”

King Hussein of Jordan before he died was always known as the “Great peacemaker” and his son has continued in that tradition. Since Jordan has no oil or great wealth it has relied on being a peacemaker as it is a small weak country and it is bordered on one side by Israel, and the other by Iraq, Iran, & Syria. So in any great Mid-East war it would one of the first crushed. Iran does not consider Jordan as a legitimate country as it was created by the League of Nations (United Nations) out of the old British Palestine mandate. During the war in Ezekiel 38, the Hashemite King is supposed to flee to and find refuge in Israel, ahead of Gog and Magog as they sweep westwards.

The “little horn” The Anti-Christ will come from the Hashemites. It is also interesting that many Scholars consider that Islam was not really a defined Religion during Muhammad’s lifetime but was actually a heretical sect of Judaism, and when the Jewish tribes in Arabia rejected Muhammad as a Prophet he changed his tone towards them and this is where we get the origins of the Hatred of Muslims towards the Jews. When the Jewish Tribes rejected Muhammad he directed his followers to stop praying towards Jerusalem three times a day just as the Jewish tribes did but turn their backs to Jerusalem and he had his followers turn towards Mecca and pray five times a day from then on.

The Al Mahdi, (Anti-Christ) will come to power after peace has been established after Ezekiel 38, he will be accepted as the Al Mahdi by the Arabs and he will be accepted as the “Messiah” by the Jews as he will possibly? Show how Islam and Judaism are actually one and the same. This will also resolve the issue of the Jews wanting to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount but the Muslim Arabs being opposed to it because of the Muslim Dome of the Rock. It seems to say in Bible Prophecy that the Dome of the Rock will be seriously damaged by an Earth Quake, and if that is so, and the Al Mahdi (Anti-Christ) comes to power and joins these two religions then a single temple for both is a very big possibility. And this is where it may seem he is honoring the Jews by rebuilding the Temple in the first 3 ½ years of the Tribulation and then at the end of the 3 ½ years, he defiles the temple by entering it and announcing himself as God.

The concept of Messiah in Islam
by Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi

INTRODUCTION

Islam, being the youngest of the three great revealed religions, shares many ideas and concepts with Christianity and Judaism because the origin of all three religions is the same God. One of those ideas is that of Messianism, the idea of expecting someone who will came as the savior to establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

In today’s talk, let us briefly look at the concept of messiah in Islam.

MESSIANISM IN ISLAM

Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last prophet and messenger of God. Muslims also believe that God will grant total and comprehensive victory to Islam over other religions. The holy Qur’ãn talks about this promise in three different verses. It says:

He (Allãh) is the one who sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with the guidance and the religion of truth so that He may grant victory to it over every religion."

(The Qur’ãn 9:33; 48:28; 61:9)

When and how will this promise of God be fulfilled?

According to the unanimously accepted saying of the Prophet Muhammad, God will bring about a saviour before the end of time to establish the global domination of Islam over all religions. In other words, the saviour will establish the Kingdom of God on this earth. In Islamic traditions, that saviour is known by the name of "al-Mahdi".

The establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth at the hand of the righteous people has been clearly mentioned in the holy Qur’ãn. God says:

We would like to bestow a favour upon those who have been oppressed in the earth and make them leaders and make them inheritors (of the world)." (The Qur’ãn 28:5)

He again says,

Certainly, We wrote in the Psalms (Zabur)...`As for the earth, surely My righteous servants shall inherit it.’" (The Qur’ãn 21:105)

Even the present version of Psalms has this promise of God in chapter 37:1-29 where it says: "And just a little while longer, and the wicked ones will be no more...But the meek ones shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace...The righteous themselves shall inherit the earth."

This shows that the belief in the saviour is not unique to the Muslims. The Christians and the Jews are also are waiting for him: the Christians are looking forward to the second coming of the Christ while the Jews are still waiting for the Messiah.

MAHDI IN ISLAM

The belief in al-Mahdi —as the embodiment of the messiah or the saviour who will appear at the end of time— is a belief in the fulfillment of God’s promise. It is a belief common to all Muslims based on the unanimously accepted sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.).

Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century historian famous for his pioneering work in philosophy of history, writes in his Muqaddima:

"It has been (accepted) by all the Muslims in every epoch, that at the end of time a man from the family (of the Prophet) will, without fail, make his appearance, one who will strengthen Islam and make justice triumph. Muslims will follow him, and he will gain domination over the Muslim realm. He will be called the Mahdi."

Ibn Khaldun clearly states that Muslims in each generation have accepted the belief in the Mahdi. The unanimity of this belief among the Muslims is furthered strengthened by the fatwa issued from the General Secretariat of the World Muslim League in Mecca on the 11th of October 1976. This fatwa was written by Shaykh Muhammad al-Muntasir al-Katani and approved by a committee consisting of four other scholars.

After listing the names of twenty companions of the Prophet who have narrated the Prophet’s statements on the Mahdi, and after giving the names of the scholars who have written exclusively on al-Mahdi, the fatwa says:

"The memorizers and scholars of hadith have verified that there are reliable and acceptable reports among the ahadith on the Mahdi; the majority of them are narrated through numerous authorities. There is no doubt about their status as mutawatir and sahih reports.

"And the belief in the appearance of the Mahdi is obligatory, and that it is one of the beliefs of the people of the sunna and jama’ah; and none denies it except those who are ignorant of the sunna and innovators in doctrine.

WHO IS THE MAHDI?

In trying to identify the person who will be the Mahdi and the Saviour, the only source we have is the Prophet of Islam. According to his sayings, the basic characteristics of Mahdi are as follows:

1. He will be an Arab, from the tribe of Banû Hãshim.

2. He will be from the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad

through his daughter Fatima.

3. He will be the descendant of Husayn, son of Fatima and ‘Ali.

4. He will appear in Mecca.

5. Finally, one of the most interesting thing that we find in the sayings of the Prophet

is that Imam al-Mahdi will be helped by Prophet Jesus.

We are told that Jesus will descend to the earth soon after the appearance of the Mahdi; he will join the Mahdi in establishing the Kingdom of God on earth; and he will pray behind Imam al-Mahdi. The true Christians will follow Jesus in accepting Imam al-Mahdi as the leader at the time and become Muslims.

Let me share with you a thought that I heard from my father:

In the Qur’ãn, God has selected Abraham and his descendants and preferred them over the others. Abraham’s children were from his two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. From the line of Isaac, we have all the great prophets of the Israelites (Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon and, finally, Jesus). From the line of Ishmael, we the Prophet of Islam and the Imams from his family, the last being Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi.

God has, by His decree, preserved the last representatives from both lines of Abraham for the establishment of His Kingdom. At the end of time, He will bring Imam al-Mahdi and Prophet Jesus together for the fulfillment of His plan.

This is the optimistic outlook that we have towards human history; and incidentally it also shows how closely the destiny of the Muslims and the Christians is linked together.

http://msnusers.com/14MASUMEEN/mybanner.msnw

http://www.islamicentre.org/articles/messiah.htm

http://www.islamicentre.org/articles/mahdi1.htm