New Age/occultist Templeton's 'Prize for Progress in Religion'
Consider the spiritual leading of ... Presidents of the USA
Is it right to invite other religions to participate in a service of Remembrance that is at most nominally Christian? Obviously, at such an emotive time, when most of the world is supportive of the grief of suffering Americans - apart from the Muslims who were blatantly caught on camera rejoicing in the streets in Palestine and other Muslim countries - it is unwise to ask such a question. Or is it? Suddenly millions of people who normally pay lip service to 'God' began talking, praying and praising 'Him,' or at least the image they have of their god. However, there was little recognition that God has moral standards, or could be grieved by our behaviour and asking more than people cry out 'bless America' on their own terms. Few seem concerned that America pollutes its youth and the world with hedonistic, pornographic, movies, videos, and TV programmes, slaughters millions of unborn babies through abortion and mocks God with her immoral behaviour. It is these things that Islam will point the finger at (while ignoring the appalling sexual and physical abuse of their own women and their approval of the continuous torture and murder of those of other religions in the countries they control!). While grieving for the victims and survivors who have suffered such great loss, all Christians should be concerned that America, which has long forgotten God, repeatedly broken His laws and flaunted its immorality in His face, imagines that without true repentance it can so easily merit His blessing. Did Billy Graham's brief mention of repentance really address the need to truly turn from evil and embrace the God of the Bible? The very fact that this memorial service featured representatives of many different 'gods' shouts 'No!', for the Biblical God does not answer to any but His own name and is not pleased to be identified with false deities which represent demons: "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God" (1 Corinthians 10:20). Christ said, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7:37). The Ethiopian who asked to be baptized was told the only condition: "If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart..." (Acts 8:37). God does not force anyone to believe in and serve Him, but seeks the humble in spirit through the love of the cross of Christ (which Islam denies). God pleaded with His people Israel to repent, wept when they didn't, and urged, "Come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). Truly, our sins are scarlet, yet we deny it. Is the whole world 'going to Hell in a handcart'? Not if you believe in Christ, who saves to the uttermost, and follow His Word.
Analysis of the Gulf War gives us deeper insights into the miry political decisions that have dared Islam and her supporters to suggest that 'America had it coming'! Others emphasise that the Manhatttan/Pentagon atrocity murdered thousands of precious souls, but also took out the epi-centre of world trade and wealth in 'one-hour', equating this event with: 'Babylon is fallen ... In one hour..' (Revelation 18:2, 10,17,21, Jeremiah 51:6-7). While one part of the US planned to deal with those responsible - and their allies - there was a 'business as usual' attitude reminding us that Jesus said:
'the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah ... for as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark' (Matthew 24:37-38).
Business as usual in the USA? In Noah's day millions died, and only eight people were saved out of God's judgement. Billy Graham mentioned 'repent' - briefly - yet he is deeply involved in compromise himself, particularly with Rome and after accepting the New Age/occultist Templeton's 'Prize for Progress in Religion' ($1 million dollars in 1982!), which places him poorly for a national call to repentance from wealth, prosperity, compromise and apathy:
'Come out of her, my people, that you may not participate in her sins and that you may not receive of her plagues' (Revelation 18:4; cf. Jeremiah 51:6-7)
This is the instruction from our God, for He has great anger for the 'nations that are at ease':
'Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, And to those who feel secure in the mountain of Samaria, The distinguished men of the foremost of nations, To whom the house of Israel comes' (Amos 6:1)
'But I am very angry with the nations who are at ease; for while I was only a little angry, they furthered the disaster.' (Zechariah 1:15)
Woe to those who are indifferent to His love and purposes for Israel (Jeremiah 1:12-15), which the USA may be in danger of doing with changing stances in the leadership. But it is still America's great number of believing Christians, and her massive and prevalent support of Christian missionary work worldwide, which causes one to think that the September atrocity is more a wake-up call to the dangers of Islam and her world ambitions than an indication that 'Babylon' has moved from the Vatican to America!
Was this to be a new era?
While there is certainly a sense of hypocrisy that flavours most of the wrangling in the Middle East - and has been in motion since long before the State of Israel was founded over 50 years ago - are the Gulf War and the September 11th atrocity the direct result of US led Western errors in foreign policy? The USA was humiliated during the Carter presidency by Iran's taking of American hostages and their use for propaganda and manipulation. The Reagan administration rejoiced at Iraq's invasion of Iran and hoped they would destroy each other. If you consider the spiritual leading of both these Presidents of the USA you will know that Divine guidance from the Biblical God was not their first port of call. Carter is ignorant enough to be captivated by the spirit of the age and accept Mormons as his spiritual brothers, while Nancy and Ron Reagan were lead by demonically motivated sooth-sayers (1 Timothy 4:1). When Iran seemed to be winning, leadership of this ilk caused the USA and her allies to give Saddam Hussein the weapons and technology he needed to turn the tide - and continued to supply Iraq with the means of building its war machine, though it was clear that Hussein was utterly ruthless, having used poison gas even against his own people and murdered anyone who might be a rival for power. It was no secret that he shared Islam's hatred of the Jews and no surprise that he would, in time, turn these weapons against Israel and anyone else who stood in his way.
The weaponry provided was obviously far beyond Iraq's needs for self-defence and, incredibly, shortly before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US State and Commerce Departments approved the sale to Iraq of 1 million nerve gas antidote kits for defence. Since none of its neighbours had the capability of delivering such gas, it was obvious that Iraq wanted protection for its troops in case of a shift in the wind during its own offensive use of gas. Greedy for profits, the US literally sold Saddam the means and thereby encouraged him to attack his neighbours which, predictably, he did. Although the USA has inscribed on the dollar: 'In God we trust', for many Americans this is where it remains - on the dollar, not on the heart! Yet we also must remember that about 75% of donations to Christian missionary work worldwide comes from the USA! Will the atrocity lead to the enthronement of the Babylonian (religious) harlot on the back of the beast of wealth of the one-world religion (Revelation 17)? There are already signs of this emerging from the developing political religious economic 'Coalition of Nations', hence the opening of prayer at the USA day of mourning on Sept 14th to: 'O God of Abraham, Mohammed and Jesus Christ ...!'
Kuwait was a costly lesson, but it finally opened people's eyes and united almost the entire world to stop Hussein and to prevent similar aggression in the future and it is this continued stance that has rebounded on bin Laden and the Taliban. Meanwhile, permanent peace through the 'new world order,' which Gorbachev had proposed at the UN in 1988, is still the hope of the international community. In response to Hussein, war was supposedly going to be 'outlawed'. Soviet Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze made it clear to the UN in September, 1990, that Hussein's attack upon Kuwait was a 'threat to a new world order.'
Attempt to link September 11th with 'the Palestinian question'
The Gulf War was not fought merely over the price of oil, as critics suggested in questioning whether such a goal was worth the possible loss of life. The issue still remains, for some, the foundation of a 'new world order' of lasting peace. But now the pursuit of justice against terrorists such as bin Laden has brought another cry of 'appeasement' from some quarters in case the Islamic 'monster' is roused into worldwide jihad. Some could see that to allow Saddam to keep Kuwait would only encourage his evil designs and reminiscent of Chamberlains appeasement of Hitler for 'peace in our time,' which, as history demonstrated, lead to even more bloodshed in the end.
Even if Iraq had withdrawn from Kuwait, having raped, plundered and all but destroyed her, Saddam Hussein could not be left with his capabilities for future invasion and destruction intact. No neighbouring state could have rested secure if that were allowed. His threat has only been partially neutralized and bin Laden-trained terrorists will remain in the same state even if the man who funds and finances much of the terror is eliminated. If we are as near to the Rapture as the signs seem to indicate, then a solution to the Islamic threat will be effected to some degree. Moving in the direction of 'peace' in the Middle East may go some way to bringing a worldwide 'false peace' that will prevail when Christ takes His bride home, leaving the anti-Christ's bride, the false church, to welcome the imposter.
Any attempt to link September 11th with 'the Palestinian question,' as bin Laden attempted, is a cynical fabrication - just as Saddam's attempt failed. 'Justice for the Palestinians' was not Iraq's reason for invading Kuwait anymore than bin Laden's atrocity in New York was inspired by such thoughts. That ruthless murderers of innocent people (in bin Laden and Saddam's case their own people too!) and suppressors of basic human rights could attempt to become champions of 'rights for the Palestinians' reveals both their hypocrisy and that of the Arab world. It is astonishing to hear the hypocrisy of Muslims in Britain as they whine about the 'hypocrisy of democracy in the West', claiming our 'freedom is a lie' as it provides their pro-terrorist groups the freedom to train, fund and spout rhetoric in London under our rules of free speech! On 30th October, 2001, an opinion poll by an Asian radio station, Sunrise, showed that 98% of Moslems in London under the age of 45 would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would take up arms for Osamar Bin Laden! [according to Manzoor Moghal, Chairman of the Federation of Muslim organisations in Leicester]. The mis-guided 'Christian' journalist Graham Turner is looking rather sick in his 1989 claims that 'Muslims in Britain' lead exemplary lives that we should mimic. The hedonistic pagans who make up a large percentage of our population might be able to learn from the liberal Muslims who are not living according to Muhammad's rules of 'convert or die', but a fair percentage of our population are happy to live with 'tit for tat' reprisals and bin Laden et al have certainly misjudged that feeling! Incredibly, the Muslims who have stood up in our chat shows on TV, claiming that the US 'had it coming to them for causing the deaths of a million children in Iraq,' conveniently and hypocritically forget that Saddam, the naked aggressor who pressed an eight-year war against Iran at the cost of 1 million lives and raped Kuwait, refused to bow to demands for inspections of his armaments and has been the cause of this misery! How did he delude the Muslim world into believing that he wears the shining armour of the 'Defender of the Palestinians'? Because he demonstrates the prevailing prejudice against Israel. Claim your motives were the destruction of Israel - which is still the agenda for Yasser Arafat and every Islamic leader - and they will support even a Hitlerian figure. People seem to be ignorant of the fact that Arafat went on Jordanian TV in 1995 and re-affirmed that the PLO Plan of Phases is on track--the Primary Phase was to gain land inside 'Israel' to attack from! The naïve surrender continues in Israel despite the assassination of Rabin. Israel seems to have been lulled into slumber and forgotten so many lessons, including the strategic significance of the Golan heights. This speaks volumes for the Satanic nature of Islam! A careful examination of the history of Israel proves that Satan still plans to destroy her as he has attempted throughout the history of that nation. Dennis Prager of the Los Angeles Times pointed this fact out when the UN Security Council condemned Israel for its handling of the October (1990) Temple Mount incident in which 20 Palestinians died:
In that U.N. council sit nations every one of which condemned Israel for destroying the Iraqi nuclear weapons in 1982. In that council sit the Chinese butchers of Tiananmen Square, the totalitarian state of Cuba and the two greatest suppliers of weapons to Iraq - France and the Soviet Union. Here is tiny Israel... [which] a generation after [Hitler's] gas chambers, has to fit its children with gas masks because hundreds of millions of Arabs hate the Jewish state …