What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?

Five years ago, amid much uncertainty, 400 British members of parliament voted to redefine marriage in the United Kingdom.

Then prime minister David Cameron announced that, despite having made no mention of the issue in his party’s pre-election manifesto, it would be MP’s who decided the fate of marriage.

Everyone agrees, whether they admit it or not. This is a decision of enormous significance. Therefore, it seems sensible to analyse the consequences of the potential change, within nations in which redefinition has previously been carried out.

In the United Kingdom, it has become abundantly clear that redefinition has affected many people, across many spheres. At first glance, these spheres appeared distinct from marriage redefinition. However, subsequent changes, have proved that they are entirely intertwined.

Gender: Current Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, has revealed proposals to abolish the need for any medical consultation before gender reassignment. Simply filling out an official form will be sufficient. A ‘Ministry of Equalities’ press release, explicitly announced, that the proposals were designed to: ‘build on the progress’ of same-sex marriage. Guardian journalist Roz Kaveney boasted that changing your gender is now: ‘Almost as simple as changing your name by statutory declaration’.

Manifestations of the ‘British gender revolution’ are not difficult to find. Transport for London, have prohibited the use of the ‘heteronormative’ words, such as ladies and gentlemen. Meanwhile, universities across the nation are threatening to ‘mark down’ students, who continue to use the words ‘he’ and ‘she’. Instead, ‘gender neutral pronouns’ such as ‘ze’, must be uniformly applied.

Such gender-theory radicalism has delighted Stonewall, the UK’s largest LGBT lobby. Their Orwellian tagline: ‘Acceptance without exception’, can be seen plastered on posters and adverts. Politicians, attempt to ‘out-radical’ one another, in the race to be an original champion, in the next emancipatory front of ‘Trans-rights’.

Freedom of religion: Much was made in the UK, about supposed exemptions, designed to ensure that believers would always be allowed to stay true to their convictions.

Five years later, the very same people who made ‘heartfelt promises’, now work tirelessly to undermine them.

Equalities minister Justine Greening, has insisted that churches must be made to: ‘Keep up with modern attitudes’. Likewise, the Speaker of the House of Commons, a position supposedly defined by its political neutrality, had this to say: I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right’.

It became clear, during last year’s general election, just how militant the LGBT lobby have become, following marriage redefinition. The primary target was Tim Farron, leader of England’s third largest political party, the Liberal Democrats. High-profile journalists had heard that Farron was a practising Christian. In every single interview thereafter, they demanded to know. Did he personally believe homosexual sex to be a sin? He practically begged the commentariat, to allow him to keep his personal faith and legislative convictions separate. For decades, he pointed out, he had out vocally and legislatively supported the LGBT Lobby. Likewise, he had long backed same-sex marriage, voting for it enthusiastically. This simply was no longer enough.

Shortly after the election campaign, Farron resigned. He stated that it was now impossible, for a believing Christian to hold a prominent position in British politics.

In a heartbreaking development and in spite of Britain’s ‘foster crisis’, aspiring foster parents who identify as religious, face interrogation. Those who are deemed unlikely to ‘celebrate’ homosexuality, have had their dreams of parenthood scuppered. Last year, in September, Britain’s High Court ruled that a Pentecostal couple were ineligible parents. While the court recognised their successful and loving record of adoption, they decreed that above all else: ‘The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence’. How has Great Britain become so twisted? Practicing Jews, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, who want to stay true to their religious teachings, can no longer adopt children.

Freedom of speech: In the lead-up to the Parliamentary vote, we witnessed almost incomprehensible bullying. David Burrows MP, a mild-mannered supporter of the ‘Coalition for Marriage’, had excrement thrown at his house. His children received death threatsand their school address was published online. Similarly, ‘Conservative’ broadcaster Iain Dale promised to, ‘publicly out’ gay MP’s, who did not vote for redefinition.

Many hardworking Brits have lost their jobs. Consider Adrian Smith, sacked by a Manchester Housing Trust, for suggesting that the state: ‘shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience’. Or Richard Page, fired for gross misconduct after articulating, that children might enjoy better outcomes, were they to be adopted by heterosexual couples.

Simultaneously, contrary to ‘steadfast’ government assurances, small businesses have been consistently targeted. Courts in Northern Ireland ruled that the Asher’s Family bakery had acted unlawfully. What crime committed by this tiny business? Politely declining to decorate a cake with a political message in support of same-sex marriage. The courts maintained that business owners must be compelled to promote the LGBT cause, irrespective of personal convictions.

Even the National Trust, a British institution with over 4.2 million members, has decided to join the bullying LGBT crusade. A message went out. Each of the Trust’s 62,000 volunteers, would be required to wear a compulsory same-sex rainbow badge. Those who said they’d rather not were told they would be ‘moved out of sight’until they were prepared to publicly demonstrate inclusive tolerance.

In retrospect, the silent majority in Britain remained silent for too long. Reflecting on redefinition, Ben Harris-Quinney, Chairman of the Bow Group think tank pondered that:‘Same-sex marriage was promoted in the UK, as an issue of supposed tolerance and equality. What we have seen, is the most unequal and intolerant outcomes of any political issue in recent history’.

Children: Across the UK, ‘sex education’ has been transformed and disfigured. TV programmes, aimed at children as young as three, promote ‘gender fluidity’, as an enabler of thoughtfulness and individuality.

At the same time, Ministers have denied worried parents the right to withdraw their children from primary school classes. Meanwhile, ‘outside educators’ teach children about sex positions, ‘satisfying’ pornography consumption and how to masturbate. Concerns regarding STI’s and Promiscuity, are derided as ‘old-fashioned’.

Independent religious schools are under intense scrutiny. Dame Louise Casey, a senior government advisor, recently insisted that it is now: ‘Not Ok for Catholic schools to be homophobic and anti-gay marriage’.Ofsted, the body responsible for school-assessment, has been wildly politicised. In 2013, Prior to the redefinition of marriage, Ofsted visited Vishnitz Jewish Girls School. They passed the school with flying colours. In fact, they went out of their way to highlight the committed and attentive approach to student welfare and development. Four years later, Ofsted returned. This time, they failed the school on one issue alone. While again, noting that students were ‘confident in thinking for themselves‘, their report, pointed to the inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment. As such, it was failing to ensure: ‘a full understanding of fundamental British values’. It is one of an initial seven faith schools that face closure.

I mentioned that I was writing this article to a good friend in the Conservative Party, back at home. He expressed his genuine concern. Had I not considered the consequences? Did I not realise that what I said in Australia could be found when I returned to the UK? ‘LGBT progress is an unstoppable tide’. He assured me, that it was ok for me to ‘privately’ believe that marriage was between one man and one woman. He even privately agreed, that the stuff being taught in primary schools was too much.

But to say it out loud? To actually have it in print? It would blight my career and my personal relationships.

Good God. How much more important the institution of marriage and freedom of thought, religion and speech. How much more important the future of our children, than any naïve career ambitions I might harbour.

It’s infinitely more.

by David Sergeant

Homosexualitatea un pacat

<< Ne-am propus prezentarea unui punct de vedere cu privire la homosexualitate, tocmai pentru că în ultima vreme auzim tot mai mult vorbindu-se despre faptul că tolerarea ei ar constitui un punct roşu pentru Romania în vederea integrării în structurile euro-atlantice. Aşa numitele “voci democratice” ale societăţii noastre româneşti, pledează pentru neosândirea unor asemenea acte, şi mai mult chiar, pentru considerarea actelor homosexuale la acelaşi nivel moral cu relaţiile normale dintre bărbat şi femeie în cadrul căsătoriei.

          De la capul locului, vrem să spunem lucrurilor pe nume şi să numim homosexualitatea păcat. Această perversiune reprezintă un atac îndreptat împotriva societăţii, împotriva naturii, împotriva lui Dumnezeu şi mai ales împotriva trupului omenesc, care ar trebui să fie un templu al Duhului Sfânt. Fie că vrem să recunoaştem, fie că nu, păcatul homosexualităţii este unul dintre cele mai mari eforturi pe care le face Satan pentru a distruge societatea şi rasa umană.

          Deşi mulţi oameni sunt tentaţi să creadă că homosexualii s-au născut în acest fel, noi credem că nu aşa stau lucrurile. “Nimeni, când este ispitit, să nu zică:”Sunt ispitit de Dumnezeu”. Căci Dumnezeu nu poate fi ispitit ca să facă rău, şi El însuşi nu ispiteşte pe nimeni. Ci fiecare este ispitit când este atras de pofta lui însuşi şi momit. Apoi pofta, când a zămislit, dă naştere păcatului; şi păcatul odată făptuit aduce moartea.” (Iacov 1: 13-16) Din acest pasaj scriptural înţelegem că nu Dumnezeu este sursa şi autorul răului din om şi implicit se face clar faptul că omul devine homosexual atunci când capitulează în faţa ispitelor lui Satan, căzând astfel în capcana acestui oribil păcat. Ceea ce face ca acest păcat să fie periculos pentru societate este faptul că homosexualii caută să recruteze tot mai mulţi în rândurile lor. Momindu-i în diverse feluri pe cei tineri, reuşesc să înmulţească ei înşişi rândurile celor apăsaţi de această plagă. Vrem să accentuăm dar faptul că noi nu credem că cineva s-a născut homosexual, ci că omul poate deveni homosexual atunci când nu se împotriveşte cu tărie ispitelor celui rău. Considerăm că acest păcat trebuie osândit cu tărie şi oamenii trebuie avertizaţi cu privire la consecinţele nefaste ale căderii omului în acest păcat.

          Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu, Biblia, cartea de căpătâi a tuturor creştinilor, prezintă în învăţăturile sale argumente concrete care se ridică împotriva homosexualităţii. Vrem să folosim câteva dintre aceste argumente în rândurile care urmează, tocmai pentru a ne justifica punctul de vedere, pe care ni l-am format privind această perversiune prin prisma standardelor morale aşezate de Dumnezeu pentru societatea umană.

          Dumnezeu a stabilit pentru om relaţii heterosexuale. Când Dumnezeu l-a creat pe om, “parte bărbătească şi parte femeiască i-a făcut” şi le-a poruncit să se înmulţească aducând pe lume copii(Genesa 1: 27, 28). Creatorul a făcut sexul cu scopul ca el să conducă la relaţii legitime între soţ şi soţie în cadrul căsătoriei şi să folosească perpetuării rasei umane pe pământ.

          Canaan a fost condamnat pentru păcatul homosexualităţii. Chiar dacă textul din Genesa 9 nu arată acest lucru în mod explicit, se pare că Ham, fiul lui Noe, a intrat cu astfel de intenţii păcătoase în cortul tatălui său şi i-a văzut goliciunea. Blestemul lui Noe a fost pronunţat asupra lui Canaan, fiul lui Ham, tocmai pentru ca noi să înţelegem că acest păcat al homosexualităţii se răsfrânge într-un fel sau altul şi asupra celor din jur.

          Dumnezeu a pedepsit Sodoma şi Gomora datorită acestui păcat. Cuvântul “sodomie”, pe care îl folosim adesea ca sinonim pentru homosexualitate, indică faptul că acest păcat era la el acasă în Sodoma şi Gomora, cele două cetăţi surori. Genesa 19:5, arată că oamenii din Sodoma practicau homosexualitatea în mod deschis şi tocmai datorită acestui lucru au fost nimicite. E uşor să înţelegem dar, că sodomia sau homosexualitatea atrage după sine mânia lui Dumnezeu.

          În legea mozaică homosexualitatea era grav osândită.  Levitic 18: 22 prezintă porunca expresă a lui Dumnezeu: “Să nu te culci cu un bărbat cum se culcă cineva cu o femeie” În acelaşi verset, Dumnezeu califică acest păcat drept “o urâciune”. În versetul 29 din acelaşi capitol Scriptura arată că “toţi cei ce vor face vreuna din aceste spurcăciuni, vor fi nimiciţi din mijlocul poporului lor.” Porunca lui Dumnezeu de interzicere a sodomiei este reluată apoi în Deuteronom 23: 17.

          Cărţile istorice ale Vechiului Testament prezintă în mod elogios pe împăraţii care au căutat să stârpească sodomia din ţară. Spaţiul nu ne îngăduie să dăm exemple de acest fel, dar pentru cei interesaţi într-un studiu mai amănunţit oferim câteva referinţe biblice: 1Împăraţi 15: 12; 1Împăraţi 22: 46; 2Împăraţi 23:7.

          Noul Testament de asemenea condamnă aspru homosexualitatea. Sunt mai multe pasaje care au ceva de spus împotriva acestui păcat, dar se pare că cel mai concludent este cel din Romani 1: 24-27 “De aceea, Dumnezeu i-a lăsat pradă necurăţiei, să-şi urmeze poftele inimilor lor; aşa că îşi necinstesc singuri trupurile; căci au schimbat în minciună adevărul lui Dumnezeu, şi au slujit şi s-au închinat făpturii în locul Făcătorului, care este binecuvântat în veci! Anmin. Din pricina aceasta, Dumnezeu i-a lăsat în voia unor patimi scârboase; căci femeile lor au schimbat întrebuinţarea firească a lor într-una care este împotriva firii; tot astfel şi bărbaţii, au părăsit întrebuinţarea firească a femeii, s-au aprins în poftele lor unii pentru alţii, au săvârşit parte bărbătească cu parte bărbătească lucruri scârboase, şi au primit în ei înşişi plata cuvenită pentru rătăcirea lor.” Acest pasaj nu mai are nevoie de nici un comentariu, deoarece exprimă în mod cât se poate de clar dezgustul lui Dumnezeu faţă de aceste perversiuni.

          1Corinteni 6: 9, vine să arate în mod explicit că sodomiţii sau homosexualii nu pot avea parte de Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu şi că sunt sortiţi pieirii. Singura şansă de mântuire a celor care practică acest păcat este pocăinţa, adică renunţarea la aceste practici şi întoarcerea la Dumnezeu.

          Pe lângă aceste argumente de natură biblică, împotriva homosexualităţii se ridică şi argumente de ordin moral şi social. Relaţiile sexuale de tip homosexual nu sunt naturale, ci sunt produsul nestăpânirii poftelor. Ca dovadă a faptului că aceste relaţii nu sunt naturale să ne întrebăm dacă s-a născut vreodată cineva dintr-un cuplu de homosexuali. De asemenea, când vom înţelege că nimeni nu s-a născut homosexual vom putea să ne dăm seama că homosexualitatea sfidează ceea ce este natural.

          Este important să arătăm că studii de specialitate vin să arate că cei ce practică această perversiune asociază în caracterul lor nişte însuşiri nedorite în societatea umană. Într-un grad mult mai mare decât la restul oamenilor, în caracterul homosexualilor este prezent egoismul, narcisismul, masochismul şi ura. Chiar dacă partizanii homosexualităţii încearcă să arate că prin comportamentul lor, ei nu afectează în mod negativ societatea, este evident că aceste nedorite caracteristici ale homosexualilor se răsfrâng asupra celor din jur

          Homosexualitatea este o ameninţare pentru perpetuarea rasei umane. Dumnezeu a rânduit ca oamenii să procreeze ca urmare a relaţiilor heterosexuale şi nicidecum prin această perversiune.

          Practicarea homosexualităţii este o ameninţare pentru vieţile oamenilor. Cred că nu este necesar să prezentăm ravagiile pe care SIDA le face între oameni în vremea de acum. Faptul că această necruţătoare boală este răspândită prin acte homosexuale este cunoscut de toată lumea. Din nefericire boala aceasta a ajuns să-i atingă pe mulţi semeni de-ai noştri tocmai prin mijlocirea homosexualilor. Astăzi SIDA a atins proporţii epidemice şi se pare că moartea multor semeni de ai noştri este rezultatul direct sau indirect al practicilor homosexuale. Societatea ar trebui să se protejeze împotriva unor astfel de practici care ameninţă vieţile atâtor oameni.

          Spre marea noastră surprindere, naţiunea noastră, despre care Nicolae Iorga spunea că “s-a născut în tinda bisericii”, tinde spre acordarea de libertăţi de manifestare practicilor homosexuale, care aşa cum am arătat sunt îndreptate împotriva societăţii şi împotriva lui Dumnezeu. Dacă acesta este preţul integrării în structurile europene, oare se merită să fie plătit? >>

parerile.blogspot.ro

         

The True Sin In The Garden Of Eden

Christians still can't handle the true sense of "good" in Genesis 3: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

In Genesis 3:6, between Eve and Santan, there was an act of fornication (from which Cain was born ). There were no real apples and no real trees (just a figure of speech). Otherwise how would Adam and Eve know they're naked? And why did that matter so much? (before)"Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame". (after) “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”.

And why did God said to Eve: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

And to the serpent: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed". Why would her seed mattter? Why all this matters? Because: the tree of knowledge of good and evil was Satan. He took the form of a snake only after God's curse.

So God hasn't punished Adam and Eve for eating an apple . That would be indeed very absurd.

Substitution of concepts. Sodoma zilelor noastre

Sodoma, un film documentar șocant al lui Arkadiy Mamontov despre propaganda homosexuală și pedofilă.

New York Allows Same-Sex Marriage, Becoming Largest State to Pass Law

Lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born.

The marriage bill, whose fate was uncertain until moments before the vote, was approved 33 to 29 in a packed but hushed Senate chamber. Four members of the Republican majority joined all but one Democrat in the Senate in supporting the measure after an intense and emotional campaign aimed at the handful of lawmakers wrestling with a decision that divided their friends, their constituents and sometimes their own homes.

 With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

 “I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

 Senate approval was the final hurdle for the same-sex marriage legislation, which was approved last week by the Assembly. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed the measure at 11:55 p.m., and the law will go into effect in 30 days, meaning that same-sex couples could begin marrying in New York by late July.

 Passage of same-sex marriage here followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states currently permit same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.

 At around 10:30 p.m., moments after the vote was announced, Mr. Cuomo strode onto the Senate floor to wave at cheering supporters who had crowded into the galleries to watch. Trailed by two of his daughters, the governor greeted lawmakers, and paused to single out those Republicans who had defied the majority of their party to support the marriage bill.

 “How do you feel?” he asked Senator James S. Alesi, a suburban Rochester Republican who voted against the measure in 2009 and was the first to break party ranks this year. “Feels good, doesn’t it?”

 The approval of same-sex marriage represented a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates, who just two years ago suffered a humiliating defeat when a same-sex marriage bill was easily rejected by the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. This year, with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the odds against passage of same-sex marriage appeared long.

 But the unexpected victory had a clear champion: Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who pledged last year to support same-sex marriage but whose early months in office were dominated by intense battles with lawmakers and some labor unions over spending cuts.

 Mr. Cuomo made same-sex marriage one of his top priorities for the year and deployed his top aide to coordinate the efforts of a half-dozen local gay-rights organizations whose feuding and disorganization had in part been blamed for the defeat two years ago.

 The new coalition of same-sex marriage supporters brought in one of Mr. Cuomo’s trusted campaign operatives to supervise a $3 million television and radio campaign aimed at persuading several Republican and Democratic senators to drop their opposition.

 For Senate Republicans, even bringing the measure to the floor was a freighted decision. Most of the Republicans firmly oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds, and many of them also had political concerns, fearing that allowing same-sex marriage to pass on their watch would embitter conservative voters and cost the Republicans their one-seat majority in the Senate.

 Leaders of the state’s Conservative Party, whose support many Republican lawmakers depend on to win election, warned that they would oppose in legislative elections next year any Republican senator who voted for same-sex marriage.

 But after days of contentious discussion capped by a marathon nine-hour closed-door debate on Friday, Republicans came to a fateful decision: The full Senate would be allowed to vote on the bill, the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Friday afternoon, and each member would be left to vote according to his or her conscience.
“The days of just bottling up things, and using these as excuses not to have votes — as far as I’m concerned as leader, it’s over with,” said Mr. Skelos, a Long Island Republican who voted against the bill.

Just before the marriage vote, lawmakers in the Senate and Assembly approved a broad package of major legislation that constituted the remainder of their agenda for the year. The bills included a cap on local property tax increases and a strengthening of New York’s rent regulation laws, as well as a five-year tuition increase at the State University of New York and the City University of New York.

 But Republican lawmakers spent much of the week negotiating changes to the marriage bill to protect religious institutions, especially those that oppose same-sex weddings. On Friday, the Assembly and the Senate approved those changes. But they were not enough to satisfy the measure’s staunchest opponents. In a joint statement, New York’s Catholic bishops assailed the vote.

 “The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled,” the bishops said.

 Besides Mr. Alesi and Mr. Grisanti, the four Republicans who voted for the measure included Senators Stephen M. Saland from the Hudson Valley area and Roy J. McDonald of the capital region.

 Just one lawmaker rose to speak against the bill: Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx, the only Democratic senator to cast a no vote. Mr. Díaz, saying he was offended by the two-minute restrictions set on speeches, repeatedly interrupted the presiding officer who tried to limit the senator’s remarks, shouting, “You don’t want to hear me.”

 “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Mr. Díaz said.

 The legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States is a relatively recent goal of the gay-rights movement, but over the last few years, gay-rights organizers have placed it at the center of their agenda, steering money and muscle into dozens of state capitals in an often uphill effort to persuade lawmakers.

 In New York, passage of the bill reflects rapidly evolving sentiment about same-sex unions. In 2004, according to a Quinnipiac poll, 37 percent of the state’s residents supported allowing same-sex couples to wed. This year, 58 percent of them did. Advocates moved aggressively this year to capitalize on that shift, flooding the district offices of wavering lawmakers with phone calls, e-mails and signed postcards from constituents who favored same-sex marriage, sometimes in bundles that numbered in the thousands.

 Dozens more states have laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Many of them were approved in the past few years, as same-sex marriage moved to the front line of the culture war and politicians deployed the issue as a tool for energizing their base.

 But New York could be a shift: It is now by far the largest state to grant legal recognition to same-sex weddings, and one that is home to a large, visible and politically influential gay community. Supporters of the measure described the victory in New York as especially symbolic — and poignant — because of its rich place in the history of gay rights: the movement’s foundational moment, in June 1969, was a riot against police inside the Stonewall Inn, a bar in the West Village.

 In Albany, there was elation after the vote. But leading up to it, there were moments of tension and frustration. At one point, Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, erupted when he and other supporters learned they would not be allowed to make a floor speech.

 “This is not right,” he yelled, before storming from the chamber.

 During a brief recess during the voting, Senator Shirley L. Huntley, a Queens Democrat who had only recently come out in support of same sex marriage, strode from her seat to the back of the Senate chamber to congratulate Daniel J. O’Donnell, an openly gay Manhattan lawmaker who sponsored the legislation in the Assembly.

 They hugged, and Assemblyman O’Donnell, standing with his longtime partner, began to tear up.

 “We’re going to invite you to our wedding,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “Now we have to figure out how to pay for one.”

source: The New York Times

Scapa de idoli | Turn off your idol

Fratele Branham face intr-una din predicile sale o comparatie a firii omenesti (lumesti si spirituale) cu cea a doi caini ( unul alb si unul negru). Pe care-l hranesti mai mult acela va domina. Iti hranesti mai mult firea lumeasca, pacatoasa? Aceea va pune stapanire pe tine. Infometati firea pamanteasca si hraniti-o pe cea a omului nou, a naturii divine. Noi nu mai suntem purtatori ai firii pamantesti, nu mai suntem partasi ai acestei lumi ci noi suntem o faptura noua, nascuti din Dumnezeu. Infometati-l pe Satan si hraniti-va cu bucate gustoase  si cu vinuri vechi si limpezite ( Isaia 25:6 Domnul oştirilor pregăteşte tuturor popoarelor pe muntele acesta, un ospăţ de bucate gustoase, un ospăţ de vinuri vechi, de bucate miezoase, pline de măduvă, de vinuri vechi şi limpezite.). Scapati de idoli si intoarceti-va la Domnul caci vremea revenirii este aproape !


"Să ajungă strigătul meu până la Tine, Doamne! Dă-mi pricepere, după făgăduinţa Ta." Psalmii 119:169

trezirespirituala.wordpress.com

Death Isn't Natural [external source]

On a Saturday long ago, our Lord Jesus was a corpse. This isn’t natural.

Problem is, death seems normal to us. Darwinian naturalism, along with most contemporary philosophies, assumes that death is the natural ending point to life. The Christian gospel insists otherwise, seeing death as an alien invader of the cosmic order, a curse from the Edenic fall, and a strategy of an enemy spirit to crush God’s image-bearing humanity (Heb. 2:14-15).

In Scripture, death is personified as itself an enemy, indeed the final enemy to be placed under the feet of a triumphant King Jesus (1 Cor. 15:24-26).

Death in all its forms, from animal predation to “natural” disasters to “old age” expiration, all point to the cold truth that God is not ruling the cosmos through his human mediators in the way he intended at the start.

In the present age, all people still grow old, get sick, and die. There is a sundering of the body from the soul, a violent act that tears at God’s original creational purpose of breathing his life into the man of the dust (Gen. 2:7). When a man dies, his flesh reverts back to the dust of the earth, a seeming contradiction of God’s creation.

There is one Man, however, who does not owe death as the wages of sin. He cannot be accused by the ruler of this age, because He alone has an untroubled conscience before the tribunal of God. He’s not a corpse anymore.

The resurrection of Jesus is the first wave of a counter-revolution that will turn back death’s tyranny and satanic rule forever.

Death isn’t natural at all.

thegospelcoalition.org