Israel er ikke i krig med Hamas. Israel er i krig med Iran, som dog ikke er til stede på slagmarken. Det har man folk til. I hvert fald i første omgang. Ser man på et militært kort over Mellemøsten, viser det sig, at Israel er omringet af iransk trænede og finansierede terrorgrupper og militser i Libanon, Syrien, Irak, Gaza og Yemen, der alle venter på grønt lys fra Teheran. Hamas fik mobiliseringsordre den 7. oktober. De øvrige indsatsgrupper er klar til kamp. Iran er på tærsklen til at have atomvåben. Ikke til afskrækkelse som de øvrige atommagter, men til brug mod Israel, hvis den jødiske stat ikke kan besejres med konventionelle styrker. Da ayatollah Khomeini indførte det islamiske diktatur i Iran i 1979 aflagde han ed på at forpligte Iran til gennemførelsen af tre hellige jihad-kampagner: udslettelsen af staten Israel, nedkæmpelse af sunni-islam og etableringen af shia-islam som den dominerende ideologi på kloden. Khomeini nåede ingen af sine mål, inden han døde i 1989, men det betyder ikke noget for Allahs stormtropper. For i Islam står tiden som bekendt stille. Koranen foreskriver, at Allah ikke ser på resultatet, men på viljen. For mullaherne i Teheran er det derfor godt nok, at man hele tiden, skridt for skridt nærmer sig det første mål: at etablere en islamisk stat på Israels territorium. Fra Jordanfloden til Middelhavet. ”From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Israel kæmper for sin eksistens, ikke bare mod Irans konsoliderede militære styrker, men også presset af de øvrige led i ondskabens akse, Rusland, Kina og Nordkorea, som alle gerne ser den jødiske stat som en askehob. Vores to statsejede tv-stationer DR og TV2 lader sig dog ikke forvirre af disse realiteter, men beretter dagligt, at Israels militære invasion i Gaza synes at være en hævnaktion rettet mod Al-Shifa hospitalet. De perverse grusomheder den 7. oktober, hvor mere end 1200 israelere blev torteret og myrdet, taler vi ikke mere om. Nu protesterer vi mod Israels ’folkemord’ på civile palæstinensere fortrinsvis kvinder, børn og gamle. Hele det islamiske miljø i Danmark slutter op om denne fortælling ligesom den kulturradikale venstrefløj og kunstnergrupperinger.
900 nordiske forskere har i en fælles erklæring fordømt Israels invasion af Gaza uden at nævne Hamas’ massemord med et eneste ord. Fra nær og fjern bliver Israel bombarderet med krav om våbenhvile for at give plads til humanitær hjælp til civilbefolkningen i Gaza. En våbenhvile lige nu ville være en militær og politisk katastrofe for de israelske væbnede styrker. I Gaza er civilbefolkningen Hamas og Hamas er civilbefolkningen. De islamiske terrorister er ikke i uniform, men smelter ind i det civile miljø før og efter deres aktioner. Det er velkendt og ofte dokumenteret, at Hamas anbringer deres raketbatterier og militære støttepunkter tæt på skoler og hospitaler for at afskrække israelske modangreb. Og kommer de alligevel, har man jo heldigvis en række kvæstede mødre og deres døde børn at paradere foran den forargede verdenspresse. Hvis Israel holder ’humanitær’ pause i jagten på Hamas, vil det være en sejr for Iran, der omgående vil reorganisere sine Hamas-styrker og sikre nye forsyninger til sine islamiske kamptropper. Hamas’ raketter ville fortsat og uhindret flyve ind over Israel og sprede død og ødelæggelse i de jødiske bysamfund. Den krævede ’humanitære’ bistand i form af brændstof, fødevarer og medicinsk udstyr vil som altid blive opsuget af Hamas, som hermed kan revitalisere sin kampkraft.
Israel har ingen anden vej end at føre kampagnen til ende, indtil Hams er udslettet uanset de brølende protester fra kyniske islamiske medløbere i de internationale samfund. Nøglen til fred i Mellemøsten ligger i elimineringen af korandiktaturet i Iran. Den terrorbølge, der har ramt både de islamiske og de demokratiske samfund i de seneste årtier, er et direkte produkt af ayatollah Khomeinis mobilisering af den islamiske jihad-kampagne, som har forbitret og forgiftet den islamiske ideologi både i shia-islam og i sunni-islam. I første omgang er det derfor af afgørende betydning, at Israel gennem fjernelsen af Hamas tilføjer Iran et militært og ideologisk nederlag. Den iranske befolkning er et ældgammelt persisk kulturfolk, der vånder sig under det påtvungne korandiktatur. Det syder og gærer overalt i landet. Præsterne holder sig kun ved magten, fordi det iranske militær støtter dem til gengæld for at have kontrollen med Irans økonomi. Der bliver ikke solgt en eneste tønde olie uden at generalerne og obersterne får del i profitten. Irans militære ledere ved dog, at præstestyret lever på lånt tid og vil med glæde skaffe sig af med mullaherne, hvis de kunne bevare deres privilegier helt eller delvis i en sekulær stat, som er det, befolkningen ønsker og kræver.
Krig i bymiljøer med kamp fra hus til hus vil altid være en beskidt affære med betydelige civile ofre. Men det er Hamas, der selv har kridtet banen op. De tør ikke trække i uniform og møde Israel på slagmarken, men gemmer sig bagved civilbefolkningen, som derved sagesløst inddrages i krigshandlingerne. En sejr over Hamas vil være et stort søm i de iranske mullahers ligkiste. De arabiske nationer er af politiske grunde nødt til at fordømme Israels invasion af Gaza, selv om de hellere end gerne ser Hamas slettet fra landkortet. Inden Iran sendte Hamas på mordertogt ind i Israel, var de sunni-muslimske samfund tæt på at etablere fred og samarbejde med Israel. Når Hamas er væk og Iran stækket, vil vi atter se denne proces genoptaget og afsluttet. De arabiske oliestater må forberede sig på et liv med faldende olie- og gasindtægter og har stærkt brug for den avancerede israelske teknologi til denne omstilling.
Israels aktion i Gaza er således ikke en hævnakt mod Al-Shifa hospitalet, men en frihedskamp, der angår os alle. Det er en kamp, der i den sidste ende skal føre til en afvikling af de iranske mullahers rædselsregimente og derefter til den fred og det samarbejde i Mellemøsten, som både Israel og de arabiske stater inderst inde ønsker.
Interviewer: How much amount of milk does your cow produce? Farmer: which one, black one or white one? Interviewer: Black one Farmer: 2 litres per day. Interviewer: And the white one? Farmer: 2 litres per day. Interviewer : where do they sleep? Farmer: the black one or the white one? Interviewer: the black one Farmer : In the barn Interviewer: and the white one? Farmer: In the barn also Interviewer: your cows look healthy. What do you feed them? Farmer: the black one or white one? Interviewer: Black one Farmer: Grass Interviewer: And the white one? Farmer: Grass Interviewer: (Annoyed) but why do you keep on asking if black one or white one when answers are just the same?? Farmer: because the black one is mine. Interviewer: and the white one? Farmer: Its also mine.
CEO, Mentor (mentormoney.com). Bestselling Author, The Lemonade Life.
Aug 19, 2019,08:32am EDT
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg Photo credit: ASSOCIATED PRESS
People are still falling for this Facebook scam – and it needs to stop.
Here’s what you need to know.
Facebook Scam
If you’re on Facebook, undoubtedly you’ve seen this scam. Your friends have posted this message. Your mom or dad has posted it. You may have posted it too.
Here’s a popular version of the message (and there are other variations):
“Don’t forget tomorrow starts the new Facebook rule where they can use your photos. Don’t forget Deadline today!!! It can be used in court cases in litigation against you. Everything you’ve ever posted becomes public from today Even messages that have been deleted or the photos not allowed. It costs nothing for a simple copy and paste, better safe than sorry. Channel 13 News talked about the change in Facebook’s privacy policy. I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages or posts, both past and future. With this statement, I give notice to Facebook it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, or take any other action against me based on this profile and/or its contents. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of privacy can be punished by law (UCC 1-308- 1 1 308-103 and the Rome Statute. NOTE: Facebook is now a public entity. All members must post a note like this. If you prefer, you can copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once it will be tacitly allowing the use of your photos, as well as the information contained in the profile status updates. FACEBOOK DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SHARE PHOTOS OR MESSAGES.”
The message instructs Facebook users to copy and paste the message on their Facebook page so that users can prevent Facebook from sharing all their content, which supposedly is now becoming publicly available.
Here’s everything you need to know about this message in four words:
It is not real.
It is a scam.
Do not believe it.
There are many reasons why this message is a hoax, and here are a few. Let’s break it down further:
1. Don’t trust messages with missing words, poor grammar and incorrect capital letters
When you see language such as “Don’t forget Deadline today!!!”, you should take notice. First, it should say, “the deadline.” Second, “Deadline” should not be capitalized. Third, you probably don’t want to trust statements that end in three exclamation points.
2. Don’t trust messages that reference “court cases” or “litigation against you”
One day you’re innocently using social media. The next day you’re involved in court cases and litigation? Probably another red flag.
3. Facebook doesn’t own your content
When you sign up for a Facebook account, you agree to certain legal terms and conditions, including privacy policies. You can modify your privacy settings at any time, but you can’t unilaterally change (or exempt yourself from) Facebook’s terms and conditions, including its privacy policies. As a Facebook user, despite what this hoax says, you own your content, including all your photos and videos. Facebook does not own your content, nor has Facebook stated it owns your content or will make your content public. As a Facebook user, you grant Facebook a right to use, share and distribute your content in accordance with your privacy settings.
4. Posting a unilateral message with legalese doesn’t do anything
Posting a statement on your Facebook page that is contrary to Facebook’s privacy terms has no legal effect nor does it change Facebook’s privacy policies. Your relationship with Facebook is governed by the terms and conditions to which you agreed with Facebook as well as by existing copyright law. So, posting a notice won’t change any laws or privacy policies retroactively or in the future.
5. Facebook being a public entity is irrelevant
While publicly-traded companies may face additional regulatory scrutiny and have additional reporting requirements, being a public entity in itself does not give companies more rights to disclose your content or violate your privacy.
Recommendations
So, what should you do? Here are a few options to consider:
1. Stop posting this message on your Facebook page.
2. Change your privacy settings.
3. Don’t post content that you don’t want shared.
4. If you’re still not comfortable with the above options, you can always cancel your account.
Final Thoughts
When it comes to your privacy, it’s important to be diligent. However, posting this message won’t do the trick.
Angry comments and viral video rants hardly ever convey a truly Christian viewpoint. (Have you noticed?) Is it possible for us to have a civil discussion about what the Bible says?
Pro-homosexual statements and actions are occurring more and more in our world. It shouldn’t be surprising to see a Christian response to the contrary. Of course, some “Christians” aren’t exactly shining examples of tact and grace, though such a tone should always be our aim. The New Testament urges Christ’s followers to share the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). And the Holy Spirit enables us to explain what we believe with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
But it’s usually the inarticulate, angry-faced ranter who gets the spotlight in our ’round-the-clock news world. Those kinds of “Christians” don’t speak for me and they certainly don’t represent Christ. True Christians graciously express what Christians have believed about marriage and sexuality for 2000 years. Do we really deserve the scarlet letter B (“bigot”) now just for believing that the Bible teaches what’s best for families and for society? The Christian view of marriage does have a pretty good track record for promoting thriving civilizations, after all.
1. Why should I care? Like any father, I wonder what kind of world my children are going to inherit when they’re adults. I have two sons (12, and 5) and a daughter (2). Where the world is headed isn’t a huge worry that weighs me down, though, because I know the world belongs to God. Ultimately, He’s in control. In His mercy, he allows sinful people to do whatever they do, even as He gives them an opportunity to turn to Him.
Christians certainly need to pray, be humble, kind, and serve the less fortunate. But Christians also need to know the Bible and accurately explain it to others. Those of us who are U.S. citizens have been blessed with the freedom (for now) to speak and exert influence in the public marketplace of ideas, and we do that without fear. Hopefully, much of this article will impact the general reader, but my main purpose is to explain what true Christians believe and what the Bible actually teaches about homosexuality.
There is only one arbiter over the Christian faith: the risen Lord Jesus Christ. He has clearly spoken through His inerrant Word. While people’s personal feelings do have their place, they are less important than what Scripture says. This article attempts to convey the view held by proven Bible teachers worldwide. It is the view of people who not only meet the requirements of being a Bible interpreter but who, along with me, care about the eternal souls of people.
What Does the Bible Teach about Sexual Relations?
According to accurate biblical interpretation, the historic Christian view is that sex outside of the sacred bonds of male-female marriage is wrong. One practical reason the Bible forbids it is because of how powerful sex is. God created sex to be a strong adhesive, bonding two fragile souls together. This is why feelings of “heartbreak” often happen when people who’ve engaged in sexual intercourse then go their separate ways. In God’s good design, sex is reserved for a man and a woman who have entered into a legally binding marriage covenant. This kind of life-long commitment forms the basis for a garden-like relationship in which true intimacy can grow into a loving family. Multiply that same model many times over and a healthy society blossoms and thrives.
You may not agree with this view of human sexuality, but it’s what the Bible teaches. If the point of this conversation is to foster better understanding, let’s agree to accurately represent each other. To be a Christian is to be a reasonable person who promotes wholeness, joy, and genuine love. We aren’t judgmental prudes who are dead-set against anyone enjoying life. We are for human flourishing. We aren’t bigots or homophobes. Such name-calling is weak, and counterproductive, and it ultimately distracts from a fair consideration of the issue.
As human beings, we should uphold and defend each other’s right to freedom of speech, including humane disagreement. All people are created equal, but the same cannot be said for all ideas. Some ideas are better than others. Professing Christians who engage in hateful rants do a very poor job of representing Christ, and they do not speak for millions of ordinary Christians who unfortunately often get lumped in with the lunatic fringe of Christendom. Faithful Bible-believers shouldn’t be labeled ‘haters’ or be treated like Jim Crow for simply being true to the same historic Christian faith that led to the abolition of slavery, for example (contrary to the one-sided claims of men like James Cone).
2. Time out for a quick disclaimer: In recent years, it has become unpopular to question the LGBT claim, “God made me this way.” Such a question is being defined as “hate” by some. (And we’re not supposed to recognize this accusation of being a “hater” as a fallacious stratagem that undermines fair and productive dialogue.) However, there are good grounds to question such a claim, and I do so without malice.
But in light of this widely used tactic, I offer the following disclaimer to the reader:
If you are hide-bound by the dubious assumption that certain people are irrecoverably and genetically destined to act out same-sex impulses, and you habitually label as a ‘hater’ anyone who dares to question the belief that LGBT behavior is unavoidably mandated by one’s DNA, let me be kind and save you some time.
There is a truthful explanation for why people engage in LGBT behavior, but you probably won’t like it. You could continue reading this article, but it may do little good. On the other hand, there are probably more than a few readers who are genuinely interested in understanding why Christians so strongly oppose (or ought to oppose) the homosexual agenda.
If this openness to understanding describes you in the slightest, then read to the end and please add to the discussion with your comments. (Non-readers, please withhold your comments. Freedom of speech means that you’re free to write on your own blog or website. This article is an invitation for fair-minded readers to take part in a productive conversation.)
What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?
Notwithstanding the abysmal image projected by the aforementioned professing Christians, homosexuality is not some kind of “special sin” that God can never forgive. All sins separate people from God. Christ died to free people from sin. To be a Christian is to be a forgiven person. And, yes, even as a Christian, I have to admit that I am still tempted to sin and I still commit sin. But the fact that I acknowledge my need for ongoing confession and spiritual growth does not logically lead to the place where an entire advocacy group must be formed on my behalf to convince the world that being say, short-tempered, is okay. It isn’t being judgmental to simply repeat what the Bible says is Christian activity and what isn’t. Sin is defined by God in His Word. We are meant to read God’s Word and understand it.
Furthermore, no Christian should ever want to identify personally with a sin for which Christ died. The hyphenated coupling of the word “Christian” with activities for which Jesus Christ died is a recent phenomenon that has no justification in either Scripture or church history. Understood this way, the term “Gay-Christian” makes about as much sense as “Murderer-Christian,” or “Adulterer-Christian.” Sin is not a label. It’s what we’ve been freed from.
If it helps take the church, religious edge off the word sin, what the Bible calls “sin” can simply be thought of in common sense terms as destructive behavior that promises fulfillment but doesn’t actually lead to fulfillment. Sin is the lack of conformity to God’s holy requirements in the Bible. It begins with a false view of God, which then breeds disregard for God and, ultimately, gives birth to attitudes and actions contrary to God’s moral will (1 Thessalonians 4:3). But sin also has a destructive effect upon the sinner. Sin leads to a hollow, unfulfilled human soul.
To anyone who prefers to live by his or her own rules, Christianity, particularly the Christian view of sex, is highly offensive, to begin with. It makes a discussion like this tense already. So, when people act or speak in a graceless, mean-spirited way it only makes matters worse. What we’re after is a healthy exchange of ideas. And that is what happens when both sides agree to follow the truth, no matter where it leads. We’re all aware of the benefit derived from a caring physician who gives a truthful diagnosis. Let’s keep that image in mind as we look together at this issue.
Some diagnoses come as a shock, but the faithful, historic interpretation of the Bible calls homosexuality a sinful, self-destructive act. Yes, I realize this contradicts the sin-enabling view popularly offered under the guise of “compassion.” But such a view is wrong and not to be trusted.
The New Testament plainly lists homosexuality right alongside lying (1 Timothy 1:10), robbing, being greedy, swindling (1 Corinthians 6:9), gossiping and committing murder (Romans 1:25). Such broad lists like these are meant to convey one thing: we all have a sin issue. It’s bad news for everyone. But it’s not just bad news that affects individuals. Sin impacts society as a whole. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people,” says Proverbs 14:34. In other words, any society that condones destructive, sinful behavior (as Scripture defines sin) is a society that will weaken and decline.
3. So, does the Bible need to be revised? The bad news for those who engage in homosexuality does not go away simply by the spurious claim that somehow the Church has “misunderstood” these texts for centuries, only to be corrected by later revisionist scholars in recent decades. These New Testament Scriptures prohibiting any sexual sin outside the sacred bonds of male-female marriage are clear. Jesus said that Scripture stands permanently. It cannot be broken (John 10:35b). God’s Word, the Bible, is the binding authority over all people in all time periods, whether or not people acknowledge Scripture’s authority in the here and now or not. (Everyone will one day according to Philippians 2:10-11, et. al.).
For readers who are for the first time seeing Bible verses that condemn homosexuality, they aren’t quoted to be inflammatory. Rather, they are cited to make clear what Scripture actually says. Biblical standards of right and wrong have stood the test of time. You can ignore them at your own peril, but changing them isn’t a valid option.
When Did it Become Christian to Endorse Sin?
Feelings of same-sex attraction are often unwelcome and spontaneous for those who are tempted to engage in homosexuality. It is not sinful to be tempted. It’s sinful to yield. This truth about temptation applies to everyone, regardless of the sin. Those saying that homosexuality should be affirmed in the name of Christian love contradict the Bible.
When President Obama “made history” in 2011 by endorsing same-sex couples, he cited supposedly “Christian” reasons for doing so. Obviously, it is not a Christian virtue to hate people who sin. Christians are not against people who practice homosexuality (just as Christians are not anti-liars; we simply affirm that lying is wrong). Likewise, Christians are not against the people who become ensnared by homosexuality. But Christians do oppose sin (Psalm 119:118, 163), and we must kindly disagree with the president’s misguided view.
People who use the Bible to argue that accepting homosexuality is how we are to ‘love our neighbor’ wrongly omit the first half of what Jesus said in that context. Jesus actually said, “The great and first commandment is ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'” (Matthew 22:34-40). In other words, love for one’s neighbor is bounded by one’s primary allegiance to God. How can one claim to love God, yet despise what His Word says about homosexuality and disregard His design for marriage?
Who Gets to Say What the Bible Says?
Those who use the Bible to persuade others actually put themselves in a dangerous place. They presume to speak for God as one of His spokespeople. (And, yes, I include myself here.) According to James 3:1, such people are considered “teachers.” Teachers are subject to strict judgment both for their character and for how well they handle Scripture. Unfortunately, biblical literacy is at an all-time low, even in churches today. The naïve give equal weight to every opinion on or about the Bible and are apparently unable to discern the many illegitimate would-be teachers who are out there sowing confusion.
An authoritative teacher of the Bible possesses certain observable character qualities clearly spelled out in Scripture. Titus and 1Timothy tell us they are to be…
…above reproach, the husband of one wife… He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:5-9).
…above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach (1 Timothy 3:1-5).
Interestingly, one of the telling characteristics of a true teacher is his commitment to monogamous male-female marriage. If someone wants to argue for same-sex marriage on secular grounds, that is one thing. But to argue for same-sex marriage on biblical grounds and in the name of Christianity is not only absurd, but the one who does so — whether clergyman, farmer, judge, or president — puts himself personally under God’s condemnation as a false teacher.
Remember, what God forbids He forbids from a loving heart. He sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins (John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:21). He seeks to rescue us and bless us. In the Bible, God exclusively blesses male-female marriage (Mark 10:6, Hebrews 13:4, 1 Timothy 1:9-10). He condemns all sexual activity outside of that sacred relationship. When you engage in sexual activity outside of male-female marriage, it not only brings God’s judgment upon you but also brings about emotional harm (and sometimes physical harm or disease), regardless of whether it’s consensual, and regardless of whether the harm or the offense toward God is ever realized or acknowledged.
God is all for sex in the context of a loving, male-female marriage. He designed it. The joy and companionship found in Christian marriage will never be rivaled by any alternative. (For more on this, see Timothy Keller’s 11/14/11 address at Google NYC, or read his book, The Meaning of Marriage.) Sex is a powerful, wonderful expression of love that also demonstrates His creative genius. God isn’t against sex. Christians aren’t prejudiced against prudes. God is against the wrongful use of sex because He has our best interests at heart. It is the curse of sin that warps our minds and leads us to re-define happiness according to our own desires. We want happiness as we choose to define it. But God isn’t a willing recruit for anyone’s personal agenda. Instead, He wants to rescue us from ourselves.
The Core Issue of Sexuality: What’s Your View of God?
At the core of the topic of human sexuality, as with all topics, is either a sound understanding of God or a flawed understanding of God. People may say that morality can’t be legislated, but that simply isn’t true. Indeed, some view of God (conscious or not) undergirds every political decision and law that gets passed. This is not always apparent but is especially visible with issues surrounding the LGBT agenda. Unavoidably, someone’s view of morality is codified into human law, and the other views of morality are marginalized.
Rightly understood, the Christian view of sex is just as offensive to any unmarried teens and singles who are involved in premarital (heterosexual) sex as it is to a transvestite marching in a parade. God condemns all sexual expression outside of male-female marriage. So, the issue isn’t just about homosexuality. The rainbow flag that flies on government buildings simply provided the flashpoint for the broader discussion about marriage and sexuality. (Obviously, a brief article like this will not cover the issue exhaustively. This article and the hyperlinks embedded throughout are meant to provide a starting point for those seeking understanding.)
1. Shouldn’t Christians be trying to pass laws against eating shellfish too? (No.). Something should probably be said here about how the Old Testament fits together with the New Testament. Frequently, you’ll see people struggling to make sense of the laws about not eating shellfish and not mixing different kinds of cloth when they also see a law against homosexuality in the same context (see Leviticus 18:22 and the surrounding passages). They seem to think that they can discount the prohibition against homosexuality since the other laws have been nullified (see Acts 10:9-15). This has been called by some, “playing the Leviticus game.” Such Scripture twisting is all too common. The Bible actually is quite clear and consistent, despite those who misinterpret it (2 Peter 3:16).
One basic guideline for good Bible interpretation is that whenever an Old Testament moral principle is re-stated in the New Testament, it makes the moral principle binding today. The passages quoted above from Matthew, Mark, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Hebrews are all in the New Testament. They are excellent examples of this basic principle.
Perhaps, because biblical literacy is so abysmally low, people don’t seem to realize that after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ when the New Testament church age was ushered in, God abolished all of Israel’s dietary restrictions, ceremonial laws, and priesthood (cf. Acts 10:15, Colossians 2:8-23). (In other words, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, but that’s another article.) The New Testament upholds the prohibition of homosexuality, though the death penalty no longer applies to those who engage in homosexual acts. (Such strict punishment was only meant for the context of the theocracy of ancient Israel.)
2. Establishing a Theocracy is not the Christian goal. By the way, establishing a theocracy is not the Christian goal or ideal. Coercive human government (whether Christian or otherwise) is undesirable in the Christian view. An informed biblical worldview actually supports pluralism, democracy, and freedom. Christians do not aim to establish a theocratic government. But neither should Christians allow the coercive secularization of the government. Anyone claiming that Christian opposition to same-sex “marriage” somehow equates to theocracy is setting up a straw man.
Many people falsely believe that the Bible is just a human book. They claim that it’s been changed and cannot be trusted.1 But such arguments have been answered time and again both briefly and at length. For those who honestly want to know God and understand the Bible, the widely accepted text How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart is a good resource. Two short articles that may also be useful are “Choosing a Bible Translation” and “Use a Coherent Method of Bible Study.”
Is This Hate Speech?
Federal Reserve leadership and Barack Obama have turned truth upside down. Saying so may result in being wrongly accused of “hate speech” by the modern-day thought police. But the truth is, to refrain from speaking out about moral decay is actually hateful, fearful non-speech. Each of us will face God in judgment. Hebrews 10:31 says, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” And 2 Corinthians 5:11 says, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade [others]” (to do what?) …to “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance” (Acts 26:20).
But as you read all of these things, here are a few points to keep in mind about genuine Christians:
Christians aren’t out to judge others as if we’re somehow better in and of ourselves. We simply embrace God’s unchanging standard of morality and dare to differ with those who would assault it, change it, or ignore it. Human beings are frail, fallen, and limited in knowledge. Rather than trust our own wisdom, we ought to seek truth from a time-tested source. The Bible can be trusted. It’s the anvil of truth that has worn out the critic’s hammer throughout the ages.
Christians admit that they’re sinners and point to Christ as the solution for broken people who, like us, have gone against God’s healthy design for their lives. We’re no better than anyone. The solution is not to ignore God’s moral standard though. Nor is it ultimately helpful to try to change it by misinterpreting the Bible.
The Christian hope for homosexuals is not heterosexuality, but holiness. We’re not trying to make gays straight but take them straight to Jesus, just as we would anyone ensnared by sin. Once they trust Him, He gives them His perfect righteousness, frees them from sin, and changes them from the inside out (Titus 2:11-14).
What about Tolerance?
As for tolerance, well, genuine Christians are all for living at peace with those they disagree with. Many today confuse the word tolerance with “acceptance” or “affirmation.” People jump to conclude that anyone who refuses to legitimize homosexuality and/or endorse same-sex marriage is automatically a “hater.” But that’s not the case.
The historic meaning of tolerance is that we should live peacefully and respectfully together, though we disagree even in outspoken ways. One person aptly wrote: “Not tolerating someone for his narrow-mindedness is perhaps the epitome of intolerance.” (The Atlantic, “Being Gay at Jerry Falwell’s University.”)
Christians are called to something more than mere tolerance. We are called to express the truth of the Bible clearly. We are to do so with love, having as our aim the rescue and restoration of sinners. That’s what it means to love one’s neighbor. An article like this may not speak to everyone effectively. And, certainly, no Christian is perfect. Still, we aim for biblical principles to guide us when discussing sensitive subjects with others who differ.
One motivation that compels Christians to engage with people is that the truths of Christianity are public and universal, not private and parochial. The historical record of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection exists because it’s true, not because it’s a propped up religious myth. This fact has to bear on every life, acknowledged or not. Christians don’t view their neighbors as mere flesh and blood, but eternal souls who will one day stand to be judged by their Creator.
As for so-called “homophobia,” Christians don’t fear homosexuals, but fear for them, just as we would for anyone in bondage to sin of any type. We know what awaits (Revelation 21:8) all those who will not turn from their sin and turn to Christ.
Jesus frees sinners who turn to Him in faith: His sinless life, His substitutionary death on the cross, and His rising from the dead emancipate anyone who no longer wants to be enslaved by sin. In Christ, there is no more fear of judgment or punishment for the sins we’ve committed (John 3:16, 3:36).
That’s why Christianity positively declares that knowing Jesus Christ is the greatest thing in the universe. We are rightly related to the God who made us, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God’s grace. We want everyone to know this joy. It can’t be found in anything else on earth, only in Christ alone.
The Christian worldview not only makes sense of life, it includes the good news that God will restore all that sin has broken. In other words, the world we all want is coming — complete peace, justice, and human flourishing in the presence of God. You can be part of it, but not on your own terms. Christ forgives those who admit to being sinners and who call out to Him for rescue from sin’s control. By trusting Christ, you can be transformed into a person who lives in a way that pleases God. If you have the impression that Christianity is a negative, judgmental religion, I’m sorry but you’ve gotten the wrong idea.
Bible-believing Christians are concerned for fellow human beings who struggle with homosexual desires. We seek their good. We affirm the dignity of fellow human beings who also bear the image of God. We all need the light of truth shined into our darkness. Jesus said, “I have come as Light into the world so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness” (John 12:46). He said this knowing that people “love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19).
But instead of meeting God someday in condemnation, you can meet Him now in blessing. Wrong desires can be changed so that you begin to love the things He loves. Although I have been personally guilty of numerous sins, I am forgiven because Christ died and rose again for sinners like me. Jesus Christ gives a clean slate and new desires (Titus 2:11-14). The same offer of forgiveness and transformation extends to everyone reading this with a heart to understand.
1. Uniting around common-sense morality does not equal making the U.S. into a “Christian nation.” Admittedly, in the U.S., a number of our founders were Christians in name only. Some were merely deists. Still, the historic Christian faith was the worldview that provided the moral underpinnings of this country, and that worldview has weighty implications for matters of public life. One implication of the Christian outlook is that the improvisational morality of our times is, quite simply, a farce. A shifting moral foundation upholds nations about, as well as the Sahara, upholds skyscrapers. It goes without saying that condoning homosexuality represents a seismic shift in the moral landscape of the United States.
The implications of the rainbow agenda go far deeper than most people surmise by taking a superficial view of it. (See the article, “Five Gay Marriage Myths.”) Dr. Albert Mohler astutely observed that people must wake up and come to grips with what is at stake:
“Marriage is first and foremost a public institution. It has always been so. Throughout history, societies have granted special recognition and privileges to marriage because it is the central organizing institution of human culture. Marriage regulates relationships, sexuality, human reproduction, lineage, kinship, and family structure. But marriage has also performed another crucial function — it has regulated morality. Redefining marriage is never simply about marriage. It leads to the redefinition of reproduction and parenthood, produces a legal revolution with vast consequences, replaces an old social order with something completely new, and forces the adoption of a new morality. This last point is especially important. Marriage teaches morality by its very centrality to the culture. With a new concept of marriage comes a new morality, enforced by incredible social pressure and, eventually, legal threats.2
But What about Civil Rights for LGBTQ+ Individuals?
Martin Luther King, Jr. is a man greatly admired, and deservedly so. It’s been well-established that historic Christianity was the moral authority behind the abolition of slavery and the triumph of the Civil Rights movement. To the dismay of many, however, it has become common to hear LGBT advocates claim that they are “today’s oppressed people group,” as if people with same-sex attraction are the heirs of the Civil Rights movement. The moms and dads I know in the African American community, as well as many of its courageous and outspoken leaders, are deeply offended at the LGBT movement for hijacking the Civil Rights legacy and using it to impose their agenda.
The Bible affirms the dignity and worth of all people, regardless of skin color. But the Bible condemns homosexuality because it is a rebellion against the created order of male-female marriage (Romans 1:18-32). The Civil Rights movement was a welcome corrective to a pernicious evil — one that many professing Christians today are unfortunately still blind to, namely racism. Christianity is clearly opposed to racism but does not uphold the gay pride movement in the least. As one African-American writer put it, “gay is not the new black.”
Again, we are all sinners. We all have temptations that we struggle with. Some people struggle with homosexual desire. Others struggle with different sins. Honesty and humility about this is the pathway to peace. Coercing people to celebrate a lie will only prolong the cultural conflict and make matters worse.
Tampering with the definition of marriage is like tampering with the atomic structure of hydrogen. The abomination of homosexuality will never be on equal footing with God’s created order of male-female marriage. People of conscience will continue to firmly believe so. Some may call same-sex relationships “marriage” but such unions will never be acceptable under the Christian definition of marriage. Nor can they rival the joy and fulfillment found there.
Most people (not just conservative Christians) reject the notion of same-sex marriage when allowed to think about the matter in the privacy of a voting booth. Polls will probably always report a different story, as evidenced by Gallup recently. As hard as it is for some people to accept, millions of Americans just don’t believe in so-called “marriage equality” and for good reason.
1. Christians Really Do Love You. Genuine concern compels us to rescue people from drowning, not open the floodgates and drench the city. Apparently, the government leaders thought that opening the floodgates was the right idea. They made a rash move to shape society with their bully pulpit. So, how does one respond to a bully? Well, I’m just a dad. And like most American dads, I don’t have a clue how to remove myself from the Federal Reserve System. I realize there is a big political power behind the LGBT movement. I’m probably supposed to be a good little passive sheep and silently go along with the program. After all, I don’t have a tall building or a presidential office from which to issue history-making public statements. I edit a website. I teach the Bible and lead music at a local church. I don’t know where this article will go, but I write it because my life has been forever changed for the better by Christ as I came to know Him in the historic Christian gospel. I write because people are misrepresenting Christianity to justify wrongheaded ideas about human freedom. I write because people don’t seem to fathom the danger of twisting Scripture and defying God.
For me, the growing moral decay all around serves as a daily reminder of Matthew 28:20—that Jesus Christ is with His true followers even unto the end. Worse changes may be blowing in the wind for America’s children and grandchildren. But there will come a day of reckoning. The long view of human history is that the grand story doesn’t end with prideful sinners pulling their Creator down from His all-powerful throne (Psalm 2).
A piece like this might not avoid the typical rebuttals like “‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’ is just a mask for bigotry,” “Hate is not a family value,” or “Common sense is the first casualty of ignorance,” etc. People have the freedom to state such nonsequiturs if they want. I defend their right to say as they please. I’m most interested in reaching those who have the heart to understand and who want to discuss what is genuinely in people’s best interest. Those looking for a shouting match can count me out.
Christians don’t hate LGBT people. In their confusion, LGBT proponents distort the God-ordained beauty of human sexuality and cannot rest until everyone applauds their behavior. How incredibly sad! Why must it be skewed as “hate” to disagree with, yet have sympathy for such tragic people? Flawed views of God cause them to think that He’s either non-existent or He’s up in the heavens waving His rainbow banner of approval right along with them. Weighty chains bind their souls to empty promises of fulfillment that do not ultimately deliver. Only the short-sighted Christian cannot bring himself to pity or show kindness to a fellow human being caught in such deadly lies (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
Christians: Focus More on the Gospel, Less on Politics
When biblical truth resonates and takes root, people escape sin’s entrapment and begin living in true freedom as God defines it in Scripture. As a by-product, there can be a reversal of the moral decline in society. That said, saving society is not the Christian’s primary calling. Telling people the gospel of salvation is.
Rather than over-emphasize political action, Christians must major in compassionately proclaiming the gospel. The failed “Moral Majority” experiment of the 1970s-80s showed us that shrill debates and top-down legislation of Christian virtues don’t lead to lasting change in the hearts of people.
This is not to say that it’s unimportant for Christians to participate in the political process. We should be good citizens, not merely “values voters.” As citizens, we can and should call for biblical morality to be reflected in our laws. As mentioned above, someone’s version of morality will be codified into law. Bible-believing Christians should be involved in their local communities as both good citizens and faithful proclaimers of the good news of salvation in Christ. In the end, the Holy Spirit uses no other means besides the gospel to “turn the switch on” in people’s hearts and illumine the truth, beauty, and love of Christ. As we proclaim Him, we leave the work of changing other people’s hearts in His hands.
So, enough with the angry blog posts, snarky comments, and viral video rants. We’re not at war with people but with spiritual forces of evil who are holding precious captive souls (Eph. 6:12, 2 Tim. 2:26). God reigns in our hearts, so let us be gracious in our demeanor. In other words, the gospel is offensive, but we don’t have to be. Calling Christians to be people of both truth and grace is not a call to be soft on the Bible or to alter the gospel so that it’s more palatable to the masses. The gospel pointedly confronts blindness in those who are deluded that they can see. That’s an offense we will never avoid.
This article first appeared on June 1, 2011, on Christianity.com. Updated: January 16, 2015
NOTES:
1. On occasion, someone will point to a passage like 1 Corinthians 7:6 as grounds to say that Paul the Apostle often wavered between offering his own opinions and writing inspired Scripture. The spurious implication is then drawn that Paul’s writings against homosexuality may also be viewed as non-binding. But in 1 Corinthians, Paul was neither denying inspiration nor saying that he was merely giving a human opinion. Rather, he simply showed where he quoted Jesus from His earthly ministry (v. 10), and then he went on to write further revelation from God that had not been previously given. This was consistent with his ministry as well as the progressive way that inerrant Scripture was revealed until its completion at the close of the first century A.D.
This article is part of our larger Spiritual Life resource meant to answer your questions about the Bible, God, and the Christian faith. Visit our most popular questions on “What does the Bible say about…” questions answered by well-known Christians and theologians to find more inspiration. Remember that as you read these articles, the Holy Spirit will give you understanding and discernment to make the right decision for your walk with Jesus Christ! If you know others struggling with these faith questions, please share and help others discover the truth on these controversial topics.
It is not pleasant to think of a poor bunch of creatures in distress, but the passengers who visited the Faeroes last Sunday aboard an Ambassador cruise liner have at least received an apology for their upset. Some 78 pilot whales were driven into a bay and slaughtered in front of them in a traditional hunt which goes back to the 16th century. The company issued a statement saying:
We were incredibly disappointed that this hunt occurred, particularly at a time when our ship was in port, and have offered our sincere apologies to all those onboard who may have witnessed this distressing occurrence… While traditional hunts of this type have taken place for many years in the Faeroe Islands to sustain local communities, we strongly object to this outdated practice.
There is no word yet, though, of an apology to the Faroe Islanders for having to watch a shipload of cruise passengers disembark in their small capital city, Torshavn, take a few photos and buy a few trinkets before heading back to their ship for bed and board. Large cruise ships are a big enough curse as it is, without their crew and passengers coming to tut-tut at your way of life.
The killing of pilot whales by Faroe Islanders is not a conservation issue. Annually, they kill around 800 of the animals, out of a global population estimated at between 800,000 and 1 million. Moreover, if you want to reduce human harm to pilot whales, the Faeroes’ hunt is not where you would start. Pilot whales are notorious for beaching themselves, by the hundred – a fate which some believe may be made worse by noise pollution from ships. The animals have also been found to have high levels of the insecticide DDT and the PCBs – chemicals used in the electrical industry. So, if you are really concerned about pilot whales, you should maybe keep your cruise ships away from areas they inhabit.
Opposition to whaling on the scale practiced in the Faeroes is really just a product of our infantilised, anthropomorphising modern world
Opposition to whaling on the scale practiced in the Faeroes is really just a product of our infantilised, anthropomorphising modern world, in which some species seem to have acquired a sacred status. In the case of whales, their cause is helped by the illusion of a smile, which helps us imagine them with human emotions. If they looked as vacuous as a turbot we might be less inclined to elevate them to sacred status. Are they really more intelligent than other mammals that end up on our plates? Who knows. But in a strict utilitarian sense there is a moral case for whaling: take the life of a single whale and you can feed several hundred Faeroes Islanders in one go. It is a very different calculation if you are going to be fed on, say, whitebait.
But one thing is for sure: we might not take it kindly if a coachload of package tourists from the Faeroes turned up at a slaughterhouse in Britain and started objecting to us eating pigs, cows, sheep, and chicken. In fact, we might just be inclined to tell them to pack up their bus and hotfoot it back to Torshavn. If the Faeroes decide to ban cruise ships from their waters, I can’t say I would blame them.
Ross Clark is a leader writer and columnist who has written for The Spectator for three decades. His books include Not Zero and The Road to Southend Pier.
Dansk teenagepige valgte islam: Muslimsk ægtemand tæver hende ihjel foran børnene.
17-årige Aya Bonde Jensen fra Falster har livet foran sig, da hun i 2001 vælger en islamisk tilværelse, Et liv med shariatørklæde, tæsk og en besidderisk pakistansk mand.
Et skæbnesvangert valg, der kommer til at koste Aya Jensen livet. I efteråret 2018 udånder den blonde danske kvinde på Rigshospitalet i København.
Aya Bonde Jensen bliver dræbt efter tortur og grov mishandling i det islamiske ægteskab med velfærdsmigranten Kamran Khan. Et parforhold fyldt med ydmygelser, jalousi og kontrol.
I islam er kvinder mindre værd. En sandhed som danske politikere har ignoreret under årtiers masseindvandring fra muslimske lande.
Det får fatale konsekvenser.
Da Aya Bonde Jensens mor hører om datterens død, har hun ikke set sit barn i 16 år. Alle forbindelser til vantro familiemedlemmer og venner er blevet afbrudt.
Den chokerede mor identificerer Aya Bonde Jensen på Retsmedicinsk Institut. Den unge kvindes krop er så medtaget, at moderen ikke er i stand til at genkende sin afdøde datters mishandlede ansigt.
Den muslimske ægtemand har sparket, trampet og slået sin danske kone til UKENDELIGHED. 39-årige Kamran Khan har gennembanket Aya Bonde Jensen med et baseballbat af træ og metal, en hammer, en økse, en strømpistol og hvad den hadske pakistaner ellers kunne finde af værktøj til formålet.
En grufuld skæbne for en helt almindelig dansk kvinde, der lokkes ind i en verden af sharia og kvindevold.
Aya Bonde Jensen vokser op i den lille by Idestrup på Falster. Teenagepigen slår sig løs i den nærliggende ferieby Marielyst sammen med sine venner og veninder.
“Aya var en glad pige, der nægtede at bukke under for andres meninger. Hun var fantastisk,” fortæller veninden Christina Westlund.
Et teenageliv med drivkraft og gåpåmod. Aya Bonde Jensen får en tidlig interesse for drenge, og moderen lader datteren nyde provinslivet i fulde drag. Den livsglade teenager har sin seksuelle debut som 14-årig.
Aya Bonde Jensens tidlige ungdom byder på glæde og udfordringer, og den charmerende unge kvinde beskrives som ‘empatisk‘ og ‘social intelligent’.
Som 16-årig er det drømmen om en modelkarriere, der fylder hos Aya Bonde Jensen. Islam har endnu ikke kastet sin skygge over den unge pige.
Den spinkle blondine forfølger sin drøm, og hun stiller op i den lokale skønhedskonkurrence ‘Miss Teen Danmark’.
Aya Bonde Jensen forbereder sig i flere uger på skønhedskonkurrencen og er iført en stramtsiddende hvid badedragt og højhælede sko, da hun træder op på scenen.
“Det var megastort for hende. Hun var helt oppe at køre og havde købt en kjole i København og øvet sig på catwalk,” fortæller Aya Bonde Jensens mor.
Den smilende Aya Bonde Jensen løber af med sejren – foran et dusin andre piger. Den stolte skønhedsdronning kåres på torvet i Marielyst sommeren 2000.
Alt tegner lyst for den unge provinspige, der vil erobre verden.
Efter et efterskoleophold vil Aya Bonde Jensen begynde på et gymnasium i indvandrerbydelen Nørrebro i København.
I foråret 2001 flytter mor og datter til Nørrebro. Det skal vise sig at være en fatal beslutning. Kort tid efter møder Aya Bonde Jensen tilfældigt pakistaneren Kamran Khan i nærheden af hans forældres forretning på Nørrebrogade.
Aya Bonde Jensen forelsker sig i den mørklødede mand, der har grusomme planer med den danske teenagepige.
Den strålende skønhedsdronning siger farvel til bluser med korte ærmer og farvestrålende toppe og forvandles til den muslimske mands tildækkede ejendom – helt efter koranens forskrifter.
Det dansk-pakistanske par bor hos moderen i begyndelsen af forholdet.
Den opskræmte mor indser hurtigt, at vold og islamisk kultur går hånd i hånd.
Aya Bonde Jensen har tydelige tegn på vold på kroppen, og hun får af og til et blåt øje. Moderen opdager blodige spor i sengen på datterens værelse.
Kamran Khan, der er fem år ældre end teenagepigen, begynder langsomt, men sikkert at stramme grebet om sin danske partner.
Moderen forsøger at få datteren ud af forholdet med den voldelige pakistaner. Men en fremtid i sharialovens rammer frister den unge studine.
Aya Bonde Jensen dropper hurtigt ud af gymnasiet. På dette tidspunkt er hun gravid, konverteret til islam og fanget i et voldeligt islamisk parforhold.
Kamran Khan afbryder, på parrets vegne, kontakten med svigermoderen. Parret flytter derefter hen til Kamran Khans pakistanske familie og får deres første barn. En datter.
Som 17-årig bliver den umyndige teenagepige islamisk gift.
Herefter tildækker den danske pige sig altid med shariaklæder, når hun forlader hjemmet.
Den danske konvertit tager efternavnet ‘Khan’, og hun ender med at få tre børn med den voldelige pakistaner.
Kamran Khan mishandler også parrets tre børn – to sønner og en datter – der i dag er fem, 17 og 18 år.
“Jeg har set mor blive kastet på gulvet og blive trampet på ansigtet og hænderne til hun blødte.
Far blev bare ved,” fortæller den 18-årige datter under retssagen.
Den pakistanske statsborger Kamran Khan idømmes fredag i denne uge forvaring og udvises af Danmark for bestandigt efter endt afsoning.
Retslægerådet mener, at den pakistanske velfærdsmigrant udgør ‘en nærliggende fare for omgivelserne.’
Kamran Khan accepterer ikke dommen, og han anker på stedet.
Kamran Khan har i dag taget navneforandring til Abdul Wahab Khan.
Et kendt ‘trick’, når kvindemordere og børnemishandlere vil sløre deres identitet i de danske fængsler.
“Jeg forstår ikke, at et menneske kan være så mørk i sin tankegang og udføre de handlinger, han udførte,” fortæller moderen til Aya Bonde Jensen.
Den 34-årige skønhedsdronning bliver fundet livløs 2. oktober 2018 i sit hjem i Osted ved Roskilde på Midtsjælland. Hun udånder kort tid efter.
De smilende øjne er slukket, og livet er bogstaveligt talt tævet og manipuleret ud af en dansk kvinde
And the old man says no. Then the young man tells him he was his student, And the teacher asks:
“What do you do, what do you do in life?”
The young man answers:
“Well, I became a teacher.”
“ah, how good, like me?” Asks the old man.
“Well, yes. In fact, I became a teacher because you inspired me to be like you.”
The old man, curious, asks the young man at what time he decided to become a teacher. And the young man tells him the following story:
“One day, a friend of mine, also a student, came in with a nice new watch, and I decided I wanted it.
I stole it, I took it out of his pocket.
Shortly after, my friend noticed the his watch was missing and immediately complained to our teacher, who was you.
Then you addressed the class saying, ‘This student’s watch was stolen during classes today. Whoever stole it, please return it.’
I didn’t give it back because I didn’t want to.
You closed the door and told us all to stand up and form a circle.
You were going to search our pockets one by one until the watch was found.
However, you told us to close our eyes, because you would only look for his watch if we all had our eyes closed.
We did as instructed.
You went from pocket to pocket, and when you went through my pocket, you found the watch and took it. You kept searching everyone’s pockets, and when you were done you said ‘open your eyes. We have the watch.’
You didn’t tell on me and you never mentioned the episode. You never said who stole the watch either. That day you saved my dignity forever. It was the most shameful day of my life.
But this is also the day I decided not to become a thief, a bad person, etc. You never said anything, nor did you even scold me or take me aside to give me a moral lesson.
I received your message clearly.
Thanks to you, I understood what a real educator needs to do.
Do you remember this episode, professor?
The old professor answered, ‘Yes, I remember the situation with the stolen watch, which I was looking for in everyone’s pocket. I didn’t remember you, because I also closed my eyes while looking.’
This is the essence of teaching:
If to correct you must humiliate; you don’t know how to teach.”
Í einari grein á fjesbókini og á VP, ivast Sjúrður Skaale í mínari vitan, tá tað snýr seg um kríggið millum Ukraina og Russland, og mínar eygleiðingar hesum viðvíkjandi.
Lat meg siga beinanvegin, at Sjúrður Skaale ikki var til tiltakið, so hansara atfinningar byggja á eina grein sum hevur staðið í Norðlýsinum. Og tað er ikki eg sum havi skrivað hana, men blaðstjórin í Norðlýsinum.
Sjúrður burdi vita, at ein grein sum endurgevur nakað sum er sagt, als ikki sigur allan sannleikan. Og eg haldi tað er nokk so nasadjarvt av einum fólkatingsmanni, at leggja eftir mær við nøkrum ósannindum, sum hann hevur hoyrt og lisið frá einum triðja manni. Men lat tað fara. Tað grøvina ætli eg mær ikki í.
Eg nevndi ikki við einum einasta orðið, at samstarvið við Russland skuldi halda fram. Tað eg segði var, at um tað var slitið, so hevði tað avleiðingar. Og lýsti hvørjar avleiðingarnar vóru fyri uppisjóvarfisk. Og at virðistapið í utflutningsvirði liggur um 380 mió. kr.
At eg havi sagt og haldið at føroyska samstarvið við Putin ikki er so galið, er ein lygn frá enda í annan.
At Sjúrður Skaale skal læra meg og fortelja mær um Hitler og Pólland, ella fyri tann sak skuld um Russland og Ukraina, er hálvgun at niðurgera mína vitan á økinum. Tað má standa fyri hansara rokning.
Eg havi í nógv ár í mínum dagliga yrki havt tætt samband við fólk í Póllandi, Russlandi og Ukraina.
Fólk har abbin er skotin í Katyn, fólk har stórur partur av familjuni doyði undir sorgarleikinum Holodomor 1932-33. Og fólk, har fleiri í familjuni vóru send í Gulag helviti í Sibir.
Jú, Sjúrður. Eg kenni søguna, og haldi tað er nakað nasadjarvt at taka patent uppá at verða ”klókur” og empatiskur í hesum málinum.
Tað sum hendur nú er ein ræðuleiki, og kann undir ongum umstøðum góðtakast.
Men lat verða við at kasta við runu í hesum málinum. Tað er tað alt ov álvarsligt til.
At eg ikki skilji, hví Vesturheimurin hevur reagerað so kraftiga uppá álopið á Ukraina, er nú eitt sindur frekt at siga.
Tí sjálvandi geri eg tað.
Men kanska havi eg tað framum Sjúrð, at eg skal agera og navigera í heiminum hvønn dag, og tað krevur nøkur val.
Tað sum eg legði fram á Faroexpo var ikki ein meting av, hvat var frægari enn Putin og Russland, men bara ein konsekvensur, um samhandilin helt uppat.
Og tað endaði sum ein spurningur, um moral og etik, og um stigbendan av ræðuleikum.
Hvussu fyrihalda vit okkum til eitt land sum Turkaland, sum er einast land Føroyar hava gjørt fríhandilsavtalu við seinastu 30 árini.
Har 40.000 kurdar eru dripnir, 17.000 horvnir og 119.000 settir í fangahús, seinastu 20 árini.
Hetta var ein spurningur og ikki eitt svar. Og eg legði dentin á, at vit mugu torað at nema við hesar spurningar.
Og nei Sjúrður, eg havi ikki sagt at, ”Turkaland er líka ringt sum Russland”.
Tað er beinleiðis ósatt, og tað er hugstoytt at lesa hetta frá Sjúrð Skaale, sum hvørki hevur hoyrt ella sæð tað eg havi sagt og legði fram á Faroexpo.
Hendan dagin í Runavík nevndi eg ikki við einum orði, at Føroyar hava fyrimun av fiskivinnuavtaluni við Russland. Ikki eitt einasta orð.
Men eg nevndi ógvuliga objektivt, hvør avleiðingin er, um vit ikki samhandla við Russland. Og tað mugu vit eisini torað at seta orð og tøl á.
At spyrja meg í eini grein um tað álvarsmál sum kríggj er, um hjáveiðu hjá russiskum skipum, og um virði av hesi veiðu og avleiðingina fyri grunnarnar, er skeiv adressa.
Hetta mugu tey sum hava skil fyri hesum svara uppá.
Hvat bretar meina og halda, veit eg av góðum grundum ikki, tí eg havi ikki sæð nakra útmelding frá bretum.
Og tað havi eg ikki og tað fari eg ikki at taka støðu til, tí eg havi ikki nakra vitan á hesum økinum.
Men tað sum eg førdi fram var júst tað, at líka mikið hvat vit gera í hesum málinum, so hevur tað avleiðingar.
Tað er og verða fyrimunir og vansar.
Hvat er og verður við tí maritimu doktrinini hjá Russlandi, so kann eg bara staðfesta, at russisk skip kunnu koma í norska havn, og at Noreg er eitt NATO land.
Um tað kann lata seg gera hjá teimum við tí eftirlitið sum skal til, so mugu vit kunna gera tað sama.
Ì míni framløgu legði eg eisini fram, hvat ES ger tá tað snýr seg um fisk. (sí myndir niðanfyri)
ES innflutti í 2022 góð 18% meira fisk úr Russlandi enn í 2021, ella knapt 200.000 tons, í høvuðsheitum toskur.
Hetta til framleiðara í Hollandi, Týsklandi og Póllandi. Ein innflutningur á 7.4 mia kr.
Um tað er rætt ella skeivt at gera, tók eg ikki støðu til. Men vildi bara lýsa at tað er so.
Vit kunnu ikki verða naiv í mun til verðina vit eru í.
Leinkja til greinina í The Telegraph 22. mars 2023: TRÝST HER
Tað eru ongar ES sanktiónir ímóti Russlandi tá tað snýr seg um mat.
Tað eru og verða politikarnir sum skulu taka avgerð í hesum málið.
Og lat ongan iva verða um, at ta avgerðina virði eg fult og heilt, og soleiðis skal tað verða.
Eg legði fram á FAROEXPO bert eitt klípi av vitan um málið og tess avleiðingar. Og sum vinnufyritøka havi eg eina skyldu at lýsa málið eftir besta førimuni.
Á míni framløgu legði eg eisini dentin á, at vinnan skal nokk tilpassa seg. Tað er náttúran hjá vinnuni.
Men tað kostar, og onkur skal gjalda prísin.
Og eg endaði við at siga, at: BJARTSKYGNI ER VEGURIN FRAM TIL EINA BETRI FRAMTÍÐ. TÍ UTTAN TRÚNNA Á, AT FRAMTÍÐIN VERÐUR BETUR, SO VIL VINNAN HELDUR IKKI TAKA ÁBYRGDINA FYRI AT TAÐ VERÐUR SO.
Jú víst skilji eg álvaran í hesum máli, og kenni ræðuleikarnar í Ukraina, líka so væl sum Sjúrður Skaale.
Munurin er kanska, at eg ikki taki patent uppá moral og etik í hesum sorgarleiki.
Og nei Sjúrður.
Ikki havi eg sagt eitt orð um, at Erdogan og Turkaland er betur enn Putin og Kreml. Men eg segði at um vit ikki selja okkara uppisjóvarfisk til Russland, so verður hann seldur til Turkalands og Egyptalands og Nigeria, sum eru millum tey mest korruptu londini í heiminum og sum virða mannarættindi allarminst.
Tað er bara ein staðfesting.
Um tað er meir ella minni moralskt er ikki upp til mín. Men vinnan skal nokk tillagað seg hesi viðurskifti.
Føroyar eru eitt paradís á jørð, tá vit meta okkum við restina av heiminum.
Men hóast tað, so vera vit viðhvørt noydd til at taka avgerðir, sum eru truplar og hava avleiðingar.
Tíbetur kunnu vit í okkara landi taka hesar avgerðir demokratiskt, við allari virðing fyri hvørjum øðrum.
Tann svartskygdi grenjar um vindin Tann bjartskygdi vónar og væntar at vindurin broytist Tann royndskygdi (realisturin) tillagar seglini.
Tað fer vinnan til eina og hvørja tíð at gera, og virða ta avgerð sum politiski myndugleikin tekur.
Og lat tað verða sagt her, at tað var bert Høgni Hoydal frá politiska myndugleikanum, sum var í Runavík og lurtaði.
Tá russiski støddfrøðingurin og Gudsnoktarin Dr. Ivan Panin setti sær fyri at lesa Bíbliuna á hebraiskum og grikskum, fann hann út av, við støddfrøðiligum útrokningum, at Bíblian ikki kundi vera framkomin av menniskjum. Hann fann út av at teksturin í Bíbliuni hevði eisini talvirði, og at talið 7 skaraði framúr.
Hann las, á hebraiskum, fyrsta setning í Bíbliuni: “Í upphavi skapti Gud himmal og jørð”, og sá at setningurin hevur 7 orð (7 x 1) og 28 bókstavir (7 x 4). Hann varnaðist at “Gud”, “Himmalin” og “Jørðin” høvdu øll talvirði 14 (7 x 2). Hann royndi at seta tað hebraiska kenniorði til, men fekk sama úrslit.
Hann taldi so sagnorðini í setninginum og fekk talvirði 203 (7 x 29). Síðani tók hann hin fyrsta og hin seinasta bókstavin í orðunum og fekk talvirði 133 (7 x 19).
Síðani tók hann, fyri at royna nakað tilvildarligt, talið á tí fyrsta, mittasta og síðsta bókstavinum í øllum teimum 7 orðunum, og fekk talið 1393 (7 x 199). Hann helt áfram við tí sætta og sjeynda orðinum, og eisini tey góvu 7.
Ivan Panin sá at hann var við at verða yvirvunnin á sínum egna øki. Hann visti at hetta kundi ikki verða tilvildarligt. Sambært teimum støddfrøðiligu reglunum kundi nakað so tilvildarligt bert koma fyri 1 ferð av 823543 ferðum. Hann las víðari og fann út av at tað sama var galdandi fyri 2. versi, “og jørðin var oyðin og tóm” og í 3. versi, og í øllum hinum versunum í kapittul 1.
Ivan fann út av at Bíblian, íroknað allar ættartalvurnar, ikki bert var vanligur tekstur, men var eisini skrivað í einum 7-tals mynstri.
Hann sendi boð eftir tveimum vinum sum kendu væl tað hebraiska og grikska málið, og í 13 vikur máttu teir arbeiða saman, fyri, við hjálp av leksikon og útrokningum, bert at uppbyggja ein setning í hesum báðum málum eftir 7-tals mynstrinum.
Hetta sum Ivan hevði funnið útav, leiddi hann til umvending. Hann visti nú at Bíblian ikki er blivin til vegna tann kunnleika sum lærdir menn høvdu til grikst, hebraiskt og støddfrøði, men at hon var skrivað av heilagum monnum frá ymiskum samfeløgum, frá kongum til bøndur og frá hirðum til fiskarar. Hon er ikki framkomin við eitt skrivaraborð við hjálp av leksikon og útrokningum, men er skrivað yvir eitt tíðarskeið uppá 1600 ár, og av ólærdum og leikum monnum av ymiskum fólkasløgum. Hesir menn kendu ikki hvønn annan og livdu langt frá hvørjum øðrum, men teir høvdu eitt til felags – teir vóru Guds menn og vóru drivnir av Heilaga Andanum.
Ivan Panin kunngjørdi tað sum hann hevði funnið, í tíðindablaðnum New York Sun, og prógvaði tað út frá fyrsta kapitli í Nýggja Testamenti, sum byrjar við ættartalvu Jesusar við einum longum lista av nøvnum.
Í New York Sun skrivaði Ivan Panin hetta:
“Tann fyrsti parturin av ættartalvuni inniheldur 49 orð (7 x 7). Hesi eru samansett av 266 bókstøvum (7 x 38). Har eru 42 navnorð (7 x 6) og av hesum eru 35 persónsnøvn (7 x 5) og hini 7 vanlig navnorð. Av hesum 35 persónsnøvnunum eru 28 mannfólkanøvn (7 x 4). Hini 7 eru konufólkanøvn”.
Hann tók eisini frásøgnina um Jesu føðing við, sum stendur skrivað í versunum 18 – 25 í sama kapitli. Í hesum versum eru 161 orð (7 X 23), og eisini úrslitini av talvirðinum í hesum orðum kann býtast við 7.
“Royn at byggja eina líknandi frásøgn við 160 orðum á tykkara egna máli og eftir sama matematiska skema”, segði Ivan. Hann visti at tað var ógjørligt. “Og minst so,” skrivar hann víðari, “at tað sama ger seg galdandi í hinum kapitlunum líka út í seinasta kapittul hjá Matteusi, sum endar við 7 orðum sum hann ikki hevur nýtt áður. Hetta heldur fram hjá Markusi, Lukasi og Jóhannesi.”
Einaferð bjóðaði hann, alment, 9 kendum gløggum gudfrøðingum, trimum prestum frá ymsum trúarsamfeløgum og einum blaðstjóra til at vísa aftur hesi “sannroynd”, sum hann hevði funnið, og er tað nokk haðani uppstilling hansara av bøn Jesusar í Jóhannes 17 er at finna. Eftir hansara uppsetingum inniheldur hetta kapittul í tí grikska grundtekstinum hetta:
Eingin av mótstøðumonnunum kundu vísa hesum aftur. Teir viðgingu eisini at tað vóru 7 bønir í Faðir vár, at Jesus talaði 7 orð á krossinum, at hann gjørdi 35 undurverk og segði 35 líknilsi. Teir boygdu seg eisini fyri at bøkurnar í Bíbliuni ikki eru 66, men 63 (9 x 7), tí Sámuels- Konga- og Krønikubøkurnar ikki eru býttar upp í tvær í tí hebraisku bíbliuni.
“Og gloymið ikki”, ljóðaðu seinastu orð Ivan Panins, “at 7 persónar eru vaktir upp frá deyðum. 2 í Gamla testamenti og 5 í Nýggja testamenti.”
Dr. Ivan Panin nýtti 50 ár av sínum lívi til at gjøgnumganga alla Bíbliuna, og skrivaði 43.000 síður sum prógva at øll Bíblian sum hon er, heilt frá fyrstu Mósebók til Opinberingina, er uppbygd í hesum 7-tals mynstri.
Aðrar bøkur eru sjálvsagt eisini kannaðar, eisini koranin, fyri at vita um sama úrslit fekst, men eingin av teimum kláraði hesa roynd.
Í seinna brævi Paulusar til Timoteus stendur:
“Øll skriftin er innblást av Gudi og er nyttulig til lærdóm, til sannføring, til rættleiðing, til uppfostran í rættvísi, so gudsmenniskjað kann verða fullkomið, ført fyri at gera alt gott verk.”
A pastor transformed himself into a homeless person and went to the church that he was to be introduced as the head pastor at that morning. He walked around his soon to be church for 30 minutes while it was filling with people for service. Only 3 people said hello to him, most looked the other way. He asked people for change to buy food because he was hungry. Not one gave him anything.
He went into the sanctuary to sit down in the front of the church and was told by the ushers that he would need to get up and go sit n the back of the church. He said hello to people as they walked in but was greeted with cold stares and dirty looks from people looking down on him and judging him.
He sat in the back of the church and listened to the church announcements for the week. He listened as new visitors were welcomed into the church that morning but no one acknowledged that he was new. He watched people around him continue to look his way with stares that said you are not welcome here.
Then the elders of the church went to the podium to make the announcement. They said they were excited to introduce the new pastor of the church to the congregation. “We would like to introduce you to our new Pastor.” The congregation stood up and looked around clapping with joy and anticipation. The homeless man sitting in the back stood up and started walking down the aisle.
That’s when all the clapping stopped and the church was silent. With all eyes on him….he walked up the altar and reached for the microphone. He stood there for a moment and then recited so elegantly, a verse from the bible…..
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for the least of my brothers and sisters, you did for me.’
After he recited this, he introduced himself as their new pastor and told the congregation what he had experienced that morning. Many began to cry and bow their heads in shame. “Today I see a gathering of people here but I do not see a church of Jesus. The world has enough people that look the other way. What the world needs is disciples of Jesus that can follow this teachings and live as he did. When will YOU decide to become disciples?
He then dismissed service until the following Sunday as his sermon had been given.
Gaasedal's weblog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.