100 DAYS - CLAIMING BACK NEW ZEALAND
Islam is conquering Europe. And what’s happening here?
Why did Susan Devoy walk out? The lesson we should take from what happened to Lindsay Perigo’s defence of our once democratic rights. Don’t miss this below.***
It is impossible now to deny that the Europe whose foundations were laid on the Christian mandate of the Golden Rule is in its death throes. The civilisation it built, with its belief in the importance and uniqueness of the individual; of the importance of conscience; and the imperative to treat our neighbours as we would wish to be treated ourselves is being overtaken by a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism.
The glorification of a barbarism which gloats in the oppression, torture and killing of those brave enough to oppose it; the indiscriminate massacre of men, women and children – particularly those identified as Christian, as non-Muslim – or even the targeting of moderate Muslims…
View original post 2,408 more words
Rudyard Kipling called the cult the “thuggee cult” for what is now very evident for all the world to see.
John Cleese, love him or hate him, has a great take on political correctness
Anyway, click the link and see if you don’t agree.
Keith Sisman (my brother-in-Christ) posted this on his face book site. Traces of the Kingdom is another site you may be interested in.
Freewill – today society does not understand the issues concerning freewill, but just a few centuries ago it was a major concern. Kings ruled with absolute authority. The Roman Catholic Church likewise through the doctrine of Original Sin ruled with absolute power, often clashing with secular rulers. The ordinary person, the surfs, stood no chance. We are taught at school democracy started with the Magna Carta (Latin for “the Great Charter”), It was agreed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215 (Windsor is where Mr Obama wished happy birthday to the Queen last week). The Charter was first drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the aristocracy from illegal imprisonment and access to swift justice. It did nothing for the peasant and surf class (that’s you and me).
If we go back to 400BC much of Northern Europe (named after the goddess Europa) held to Freewill, it was a doctrine of the Celts and their priesthood the Druids. On the other hand the Romans held to Original Sin and infant baptism (it had to come from somewhere) denying Freewill.
In 390BC the Celts under a British King sacked Rome. This is not taught in history, it should be. We have both contemporary British and Roman accounts, it is not an invention. One of the invading Celtic tribes was later known as the Galatians, Paul wrote them a letter. This started a war with Northern Europa that lasted many centuries. The Druid headquarters was based in Britain, possibly Anglesey. Caesar was determined to destroy the Druids and he did a fairly decent job. In this period there were many minor kingdoms, at time of war these minor kingdoms would come together under a head king or emperor, an emperor was of imperial status, above that of a king.
When the gospel was spread in Northern Europa the Celts understood Freewill, it was their doctrine. I am not defending the Celts, they practised human sacrifice and for religious reasons sometimes ate their victims alive, this is the origin of the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation (cannibalism). Genesis 9:4-6 “But you shall not eat flesh in its life, its blood. And surely the blood of your lives I will demand. At the hand of every animal I will demand it, and at the hand of man. I will demand the life of man at the hand of every man’s brother. Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood shall be shed by man. For He made man in the image of God.”
Those being cooked made a great protest, thus instruments of music were introduced into this pagan worship alongside of singing to drown out the protesting, protecting the ears of the families of the victims. This is possibly the origin of Soprano singing. This took place in a stone circle, the centre of the circle was known as the core, which gives us our word choir. It is interesting the flesh was taken from the living victim from the groin area and then barbequed before eating. What is really fascinating this practice was worldwide suggesting a common place of origin – Babylon. The knife used was flint; the taking of flesh from a living human victim from their groin area using a flint knife by a priest was worldwide. Stone circles are dated far too early because of flint knives and chippings; metal was banned from worship areas. It was the same with Solomon’s temple (1 Ki 6:7) “And when it was being built, the house was built of finished stone made ready beforehand. And there was not heard in the house a hammer or an axe, or any iron tool, while it was being built” (Greens Literal Version).
I don’t mention this in Traces or the Devils’ Door because it is not a pleasant subject, I can go into greater detail but I do not think it is healthy and serves no purpose. This is though hrough my study the pagan origin of choirs, instruments in worship and the cannibalistic ongoing sacrifice of Transubstantiation. In a Roman Catholic temple (church) the choir is a part of a building, where the singers sang. The Celts called their worship circles and mounds – churches! The Roman Catholic Church has never formally adopted the instrument, it was allowed into worship for the peasant classes. The Romish Church spiritual sang acapella.
Back to Freewill. Where Freewill was believed as opposed to human depravity is where the church flourished after Augustine forced by coercion the pagan doctrine of Original Sin. It is from his time the church split and the Churches of Christ start to appear in history, separate from the Romish beast.
From Poor Richard
NASA: On second thought, maybe burning fossil fuels COOLS the planet
In Climate Change by Poor RichardDecember 22, 20151 Comment
A new study by NASA suggests that rather than raise the temperature of the earth, burning fossil fuels might actually be lowering temperatures. It flies in the face of all the alarmism out there and, once again, flies completely in the face of the phony “settled science” narrative.
Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialization where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.
Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced – which causes the global greenhouse effect.
While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols – also given off by burning fossil fuels – actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.
The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.
A NASA spokesman said: “To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth
“Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales.
“TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilised.”
The spokesman said it was “well known” that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet.
He added: “In a similar fashion, land-use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight.”
Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the “complexity” of estimating future global temperatures.
read the rest
Honestly, what this study is proof of is the fact that the “scientists” and politicians who continue to push man-made climate change hysteria don’t know much of anything about anything. They continually manipulate data, ignore data that doesn’t fit the narrative, and fill in all the gaps with blind guesses that simply fit the pre-determined outcome. And for some reason, we keep entrusting these people (who can’t seem to correctly predict much of anything) with the power to determine how we run our economies, how we regulate people’s liberty, and how we redistribute wealth globally.