2000 Year-Old Breaking News . . .
Vol: 82 Issue: 26 Saturday, July 26, 2008
Which of these two headlines from today’s international grab bag sounds like it is governed by a religion of peace and love? The first headline reads, “You Must be Nicer to Muslims, Britain is told by UN Human Rights Chief”.
The second headline says, “TV Rabbit Preaching Hatred Telling Young Muslims to Kill, Eat Jews”.
Both of these headlines emanate from the well-spring of the English-speaking world, the Mother Country to the Founding Fathers of both the United States and English Canada. That is important to keep in mind as we go along.
In the first story, the United Nations is scolding the British for failing to be more accommodating of Islam by ‘failing to take firm action to combat negative attitudes towards Islam.’
The UN sub-committee composed of ‘legal experts’ from nine member states — including Britain — said it was concerned ‘ negative public attitudes towards Muslim members of society’ continued to develop in Britain.
The UN’s ‘concern’ raises more questions than it answers. For example, the sub-committee is composed of legal experts from Ireland, Australia, Benin, Colombia, Equador, Egypt, Mauritius and Sweden. How do they know what the public attitude toward Muslims in Britain really is? Where did they get their information?
Secondly, the British were so overwhelmingly welcoming of Muslim immigrants that they are now in danger of losing their own unique cultural identity, according to many analysts.
So what happened to change their view of Muslims? Does the UN even consider that to be a relevant question? Should it be a relevant question?
That depends on your understanding of the term ‘sovereign’.
If the United Nations has the authority to order a particular segment of British society to change its attitude about another segment of British society, then they are subjects, rather than sovereign.
The definition of ‘sovereign’ as it applies to the nation-state is: “fully independent and determining its own affairs.”
The UN committee demanded the British government; “take energetic measures to eliminate this phenomenon and ensure that authors of such acts of discrimination on the basis of religion are adequately deterred and sanctioned.”
See this for what it is: an imperial decree from a faraway capital to an outlying province. It instructs the British to modify its social structure to conform to the Imperial model and orders the British to seek out and punish violators (“adequately deterred and sanctioned” is diplo-speak for “arrested and jailed”).
Note this decree specifies that Britain pass laws protecting the adherents to Islam under the guise of protecting ‘religious freedom.’ Why do I say, ‘under the guise’ of religious freedom?
Because the committee also issued an Imperial Decree to the Irish. Britain and Ireland have fought a protracted generational war over control of Northern Ireland. Ireland has been traditionally Catholic since the 4th century.
After England separated from the Vatican during the Reformation, the British carved a safe haven out for Irish Protestants, creating Protestant Northern Ireland and the Catholic Republic of Ireland.
The two separated politically in 1920 split entirely along the lines of Catholic/Protestant when Catholic Ireland demanded total independence. Irish Protestants objected to living under a Catholic majority.
Don’t miss this point as we move along: the existence of two Irelands, generations of sectarian warfare, uncounted deaths and maimings — over what? Irish dedication to their religious heritage. Their Christian heritage, whether it be Catholic or Anglican.
After telling England to grant Muslims ‘greater religious freedom’ , the UN committee told the (Catholic) Irish Republic open up its largely Roman Catholic primary school system to secular-education.
Evidently, the UN feels the Irish are less deserving of religious freedom than the Muslims. And apparently, the UN doesn’t much care that Ireland exists as it does because the Irish disagree.
In case the Irish didn’t get the point that an Imperial Decree nullifies Christian doctrine, the committee ordered the Catholic Irish Republican government in Dublin “to take measures to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies so that they do not have to resort to illegal or unsafe abortions”.
(Go ahead and kill each other — we don’t care — but you better be nice to the Muslims!)
Frankly, the delusions and transparencies are becoming so, ummm, transparently delusional that it almost feels unnecessary to point them out.
I opened with two headlines. Thus far, we’ve dealt with only one.
I included the second because it provides something of an answer to the question, ‘what happened to sour the British on Islam?’
Well, it actually puts the period on the answer. The answer begins with Islamic aircraft hijackings in 1968, Islamic hostage-taking in 1979, Islamic suicide bombings, starting in Beirut in 1983, Islamic jihad starting in 1991, the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid train attacks, the British subway attacks; — I told you it was transparent!
The second headline deals with concerns within Britain about a Palestinian children’s program featuring a pink Bugs Bunny lookalike.
First, a little background refresher on what the religion of peace and love is teaching its next generation under the protection of the Imperial UN:
“Tomorrow’s Pioneers” was first aired in April 2007, and features young host Saraa Barhoum and her co-host, a large costumed animal.
The show originally featured a Mickey Mouse-style character called Farfur who urged children to fight against the Jewish community and form a world Islamic state.
Farfur was later replaced by a bumble bee called Nahoul, who told viewers to ‘follow the path of Islam, of martyrdom and of the Mujahideen’.
He was ‘martyred’ earlier this year and replaced by the giant pink bunny, Assud, who tells children in his first episode: “I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up.”
This is what the UN’s Human Rights Committee wants the British to be more accepting of. When an ideology demonstrates itself to be fanatically devoted to homicidal ideals, what’s not to love?
According to the Bible, the government and administration of the antichrist rests on his control of three pillars of global power; a global government, a global economy and a global religion.
The prophet Daniel says the antichrist is a prince of the empire that he prophesied would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. That destruction was accomplished in AD 70 by Titus, a general and later, emperor of the Roman Empire. (Daniel 9:27)
The Apostle John pictures the antichrist as a political leader who rises up out of the sea of nations. (Revelation 13:1) Before this global emperor can arise, there must first be empire in need of one.
It is abundantly clear that most of the nations of the Western world would be only too happy to submit to one, should he arise. Even the world’s oldest continuous monarchy is prepared to bend its royal knee — even over an issue that has divided the monarchy since the days of Henry VIII.
That issue, ‘religion’ — is the second pillar upon which the antichrist’s infrastructure rests. John prophesied of a second ‘beast’ — the false prophet — who will elevate the antichrist to the position of deity. (Revelation 13:11-17)
Before there can be a global religion, there must first exist a perceived need for one. The war on terror seemed to be lighting a fire under the UN’s Millennium Peace Summit’s plan to create a United Religions.
Kofi Annan laid out the strategy in his final address to the UN as Secretary General. During the speech, which comes on the heels of the media-generated controversy regarding Pope Benedict XVI s quoting of a text on Islam, Annan said;
insensitivity towards other people s beliefs or sacred symbols – intentional or otherwise — is seized upon by those who seem eager to foment a new war of religion on a global scale.
Moreover, this climate of fear and suspicion is constantly refuelled by the violence in the Middle East . . . We might like to think of the Arab-Israeli conflict as just one regional conflict amongst many. But it is not. No other conflict carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge among people far removed from the battlefield.
Annan also proclaimed that the United Nations is the only solution to the world s woes. Yes, I remain convinced that the only answer to this divided world must be a truly United Nations , he said.
Climate change, HIV/AIDS, fair trade, migration, human rights – all these issues, and many more, bring us back to that point , he said, adding:
addressing each is indispensable for each of us in our village, in our neighbourhood, and in our country. Yet each has acquired a global dimension that can only be reached by global action, agreed and coordinated through this most universal of institutions.
All must play their part in a true multilateral world order, with a renewed, dynamic United Nations at its center to prevent this global religious conflagration.”
The Apostle John described this global religion as having two horns like a lamb, but which speaks ‘as a dragon’.
While Islam can (and has) integrated a kind of ‘Jesus’ (Isa) into Islam, there is no room in Biblical Christianity for a Third Testament or a non-Divine Jesus.
The UN recognizes that. Hence, England ‘must be nice to Muslims’ (to the degree of recognizing both madrassas and Sharia law), whereas, Catholic Ireland is ordered to disband its Catholic education system.
The third pillar upon which the antichrist’s infrastructure rests is his control of the global economy (Revelation 13:16).
Currently, the global economy is centralized under the control of the Group of Seven (plus, inexplicably, Russia) under the auspices of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, both of which are financial arms of the UN.
So, let’s tick off the relevance of just these two headlines to the Bible’s scenario for the last days — I want you to see just HOW relevant the Bible is to current events.
The Bible says that in the last days, God will send a ‘strong delusion’ but that delusion will only affect those “who received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.” But that delusion is so transparent that it completely baffles saved Christians that nobody else can see it.
In the last days, the Bible says the whole world will be conditioned to accept a savior, a messiah of sorts, who will seem to have all the answers to the religious, economic and political problems facing the world. The Bible says that at the heart of that conflict will be Jerusalem, and that the entire world will be consumed by the conflict over it. (Zechariah 12:1-2)
(Compare that to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan speech, “No other conflict carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge among people far removed from the battlefield. )
The Bible demands the existence of a global government (in need of leadership) a global economy (in need of leadership) and a global religion (in need of leadership.) The world demands global leadership, period.
Any leader will do, provided they like what he promises. It isn’t even relevant that they know he can’t deliver. (Check out Barack Obama’s World Tour)
Never in the history of man has it been possible to impose a global government, global religion and global economy. Not politically. Not administratively. Not technologically.
Throughout history, and up to only seventy years ago, efforts to unite the globe under a single government was a recipe for world war. Today, it is seen as the only option available to divert one.
The need for some kind of globally-acceptable religion is palpable — only the fundamentalists of the three largest religions would have any objection. The UN’s religion, as expressed by the UN’s decree, would extend ‘understanding’ to Islam and demand compromises from Christianity.
I can’t think of a better composite description than that of having two horns like a lamb, but with a doctrine that could make room for Islam.
The strong delusion isn’t Islam, however. It is the doctrine of political correctness that is delusional. Under that doctrine, making Christian doctrinal statements that are deemed ‘offensive’ by a body of ‘legal experts’ is worthy of international action.
But teaching pre-schoolers to kill and eat Jews is not.
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1st Timothy 4:1-2)