Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican

Maps of the Roman Empire in Rome. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 In Bible terms the Pope and Putin are massively important players in prophecy. Daniel 7 tells us about the Pope and Daniel 8 about Putin. Daniel 7 tracks the little horn (a horn is a ruler) who comes out of the Roman Empire who speaks great things against God and changes the times and seasons. The ruler described is the religious power of Rome headed by the Pope who claimed he was the Holy Father – they even changed our calendar! The little horn of Daniel 8 is different. This is NOT Rome. This horn comes out of Greece – he was Antiochus Epiphanes. But a latter day king of the north exists – this time in Russia.

Tomorrow(on June 10) Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet with Pope Francis at the Vatican, with conflicts in Syria and Ukraine likely to top the Holy See's agenda.
Putin last called on Francis on November 25, 2013. The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Thursday the meeting would take place in the afternoon of June 10; Putin is expected to visit Russia's pavilion at the Expo world's fair in Milan, where June 10 has been slated as Russia's national day.


After nearly a half-century of hostility between the Vatican and the Kremlin during the Cold War, a major breakthrough came just after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 when the Soviet president, Mikhail Gorbachev, met the Polish-born pontiff, John Paul II.
After a 2009 visit by then-President Dmitry Medvedev, Russia and the Holy See upgraded their diplomatic relations to full-fledged ties, with ambassadors..

>  CLICK HERE FOR THIS WEEK'S WWW

Related articles

• War is Peace: US Needs External Enemy To Ensure Internal Unity
• The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: An echo from the past and an omen for the future
• The United States, Rome And Why The Situation Today Is Grim
• The United States, Rome And Why The Situation Today Is Grim
• May 30: The Holy Roman empire was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire"
• Early Christians accepted
• Erdogan announces the Ottoman Empire, the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2, is RESURRECTING AGAIN!
• Erdogan announces the Ottoman Caliphate, the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2, is RESURRECTING AGAIN!
• The Soul of the Marionette
• Wallsend's Segedunum fort welcomes major Roman Empire exhibition

Silence of the world about rocket attacks on Israel

Can it be that there is an internal feud with Hamas?
The  jihadist Salafi group, the "Omar Brigades," who sympathizes with Islamic State, claimed responsibility for firing a rocket from Gaza which hit Israel's south on Saturday. It also claimed the previous recent firings at Israel.

At the start of the weekly cabinet meeting, Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he hasn't heard a word of condemnation from the world about three rocket attacks from Gaza over the past two weeks. Netanyahu says it will be "interesting to see if this silence continues when we use all our strength in exercising our right to defend ourselves."

He vowed that the 

"hypocrisy that is spreading around the world will not restrain us from defending the citizens of Israel. That is how we have operated and that is how we will continue to operate."

 > Read: Netanyahu: World is silent in face of rocket attacks on Israel

Related articles

• Israeli strikes at Gaza Strip after rocket attacks from Hamas rival the Omar Brigades
• Gaza Strip Could Be Perpetuated Into War Again
• Israeli aircraft strike, PM accuses world of ignoring Gaza rockets | Reuters
• Israel: Rocket Attacks Prompt Airstrikes
• World Briefing | Middle East: Israel: Rocket Attacks Prompt Airstrikes
• Gaza Rocket Strikes And israeli Air Strikes Resume
• Netanyahu Slams World For Silence On Gaza Rocket Attacks...
• Israeli PM slams world 'hypocrisy' on Gaza rocket attacks
• Netanyahu slams global hypocrisy
• ISIS-Linked Islamic Extremist Killed in Confrontation With Hamas Security Forces in Gaza

Which Christian sect is the only true Christian church?

Lunatic outpost poses good question: Which Christian sect is the only true Christian church?

How many times do we not hear one or the other church saying they are the only one right church? How often do we not hear people saying they belong to the one one true church?

TrolLOP had a former Baptist, now Jehovah Witness, come to his/her door the other day. After talking to her for awhile, he/she asked her if she now believes that the Jehovah Witnesses are the only true Christians. She said yes. But TrolLOP was taught that if you weren't Catholic you weren't really Christian. And that is what we often hear Catholics saying that they are the only true universal church of God, based on the task given to saint Peter the first pope of their church.







LoP Guest remarked that the Roman Church banned the Bible, and changed the word;

 claims the pope is the 'vicar of christ'

When we look at the Roman Catholic Church we also can see that they do not mind bowing down in front of graven images of the one they claim to be God and of human beings they consider to be 'saints' who can do holy or sacred things for them. Though the God of the Bible is clear we may not have other gods in front of the God of gods and may not bow down in front of graven images which can do nothing for us.

Those Catholics we could also see in the journals on television yesterday also like to burn candles as an 'offering' for god and talisman to succeed in certain things (this time of year the final exams).

LoP Guest considers all Protestants God's people and gives the impression she thinks all of them belong to the true church of God.

Whether they are Jehovah's Witness and do not believe in this or not. We are all God's people, although some may interpret the Bible differently, some more wrong than others.

TrolLOP wants

to ask the Christians here, is there only one true Christian sect/church and which one is it?

> http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-548525.html

+++

Related articles

• Science Is Now Working With the Roman Catholic Church
• Jamaican Catholic priest weds, switches to Anglican
• Towards Genuine Interfaith Dialogue
• Catholic group exposes Red influence in the Vatican
• Protesters Occupying Roman Catholic Church In Scituate May Be Forced Out
• Cliff Kincaid - Catholic Group Exposes Red Influence in the Vatican
• Pope Hasn't Watched TV Since 1990
• Pope secure his rights in Jew-free "Palestine"
• Salisbury church's 140th anniversary cause to reflect on community

Forum 18: Old Testament is banned religious literature in Azerbaijan

Coat of arms of Azerbaijan Türkçe: Azerbaycan arması Azərbaycan: Azərbaycan Respublikasının Dövlət Gerbi Русский: Герб Азербайджана (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Panorama.am sends a notice:

On 14 July Azerbaijan's Supreme Court is due to hear a challenge by Kamran Abdiyev to a fine of 18 months' average wages, for distributing religious literature which has not undergone the compulsory state censorship. "Kamran Abdiyev has no lawyer, and will be representing himself at the hearing," Judge Gulzar Rzayeva told Forum 18 News Service.

According to the article, the five Sunni Muslims are among eight prisoners of conscience being held at the National Security Ministry (NSM) secret police Investigation Prison in Baku to punish them for exercising the right to freedom of religion or belief. Two of the other prisoners of conscience are Jehovah's Witnesses women and the eighth prisoner is a Shia Muslim. State censorship of religious texts is strictly applied and the Old Testament, the writings of Islamic theologian Said Nursi, and some Jehovah's Witness texts are on a police list of banned religious literature.
The article reads that in the latest extension of the powers of the State Committee for Work with Religious Organizations, anyone organizing foreign travel for religious purposes, including pilgrimages abroad, now requires a license from the State Committee of Azerbaijan.

Continue reading: http://www.panorama.am/en/society/2015/05/28/azerbaijan-forum18/

Related articles

• Forum 18: Old Testament is banned religious literature in Azerbaijan
• Azerbaijan: "He was acting as a bookseller illegally"
• Which Christian sect is the only true Christian church?
• At Least 41 Dead in Religious Attack on Pakistan Bus
• Gunmen put down 43 people in Karachi bus
• 12 worst ideas religion has unleashed on the world: Conflict, cruelty and suffering - not love and peace
• Religion used as defense for man in Fresno charged with murder

Overdracht van mening te vrijwaren

Standbeeld van William Tyndale, Victoria Embankment Gardens Bronzen standbeeld onthuld op 7 mei 1884. De beeldhouwer was Sir Joseph Edgar Boehm. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In hoe verre mogen ouders, opvoeders of met kinderen omgaanden hun mening over brengen op die kinderen?

Hoe ver reikt de vrijheid van meningsuiting?

Eeuwen hebben mensen getracht vrij hun gedachten te uiten. Eeuwen is er weerwerk geboden aan hete vrij uiten van gedachten. Ook is er eeuwen druk uitgeoefend op mensen om hun kinderen op een of andere wijze op te voeden. Van alle kanten heeft men pogingen ondernomen om de mensen te indoctrineren en hun vrijheden te beperken.

Eeuwenlang bestond er geen vrijheid van meningsuiting, geen vrijheid van godsdienst en geen persvrijheid. Wie zich uitsprak tegen de gevestigde orde (de kerk of staatshoofden) kon rekenen op zware vervolging, verbanning of in veel gevallen zelfs de doodstraf. Het vuur werd je vaak letterlijk aan de schenen gelegd.

Vele gezinnen zijn heel voorzichtig geweest om de buitenwereld niet te laten weten wat zij in huis beleefden, hoe godsdienst hielden, wat zij lazen of waarin zij geïnteresseerd waren.

Heel wat mensen die toch durfden in het openbaar te zeggen wat zij dachten werden goed onderhanden genomen en indien zij toch niet wilden zwijgen werd er wel komaf met hen gemaakt.  Johannes Hus, William Tyndale, Michael Servet, Latimer en Ridley en vele anderen werden op de brandstapel terechtgesteld omdat zij het waagden om vraagtekens te zetten bij de leringen van de machtige katholieke kerk. 

De vluchtelingen stromen die wij vandaag in de wereld zien zijn niets nieuws onder de zon.  Ook in de oude tijden gebeurde het dat massa's mensen de vlucht moesten nemen omdat datgene wat zij wensten te geloven en op te volgen niet strookte met de regeringsleiders of met de 'mainstream' godsdienstige groepering, weze het zogenaamde christenen, maar ook boeddhisten, hindoes, mohammedanen en anderen.

Wij moeten niet zo ver terug gaan in de geschiedenis om te zien hoe een gestoorde geest er op stond dat er slechts één waar ras ter wereld mocht zijn met één waar geloof in een eigen volk. Voorheen kende Europa religieuze vervolging van Franse Hugenoten, Engelse puriteinen, en andere groepen protestanten die noodgedwongen elders een veiliger heenkomen moesten gaan zoeken.

Velen van ons kennen nog de hevige discussies in eigen streek omtrent geloof,  puriteins of veel te libertijns gedrag.

Zij die zulk een gekibbel rond het gedachtegoed beu waren zochten hun toevlucht in een Nieuwe Wereld, maar daar ziet men nu dat vele van die achterkleinkinderen hun eigen familiezoektocht naar vrijheid van meningsuiting verraden. In de Verenigde Staten van America dreigt het zeer puriteinse denken het te halen en proberen zeer conservatieve christenen hun wil op te dringen aan anderen.

Daartegenover krijgt men diegenen die zich meer in de hoek gedrongen voelen en heftiger gaan reageren. Geen wonder dan ook dat in de States de atheïsten fel te keer gaan.

In onze maatschappij komt na het voorval met Charlie Hebdo en de veroordelingen van rechtbanken in bepaalde landen van gelovigen, de vraag van vrije meningsuiting weer in het vizier. Tot hoe ver kan men gaan bij het zeggen van dingen of bij het uitvoeren van dingen.

Mij valt het zo bijvoorbeeld op dat als men de Gay pride heeft daar niet wordt opgetreden wanneer twee mannen seks bedrijven in het openbaar met een penetratie langs achter. Maar moesten een man en vrouw normaal een intense lichamelijke liefde-akte uitvoeren in het openbaar zouden zij opgepakt worden wegens zedenschennis. Waarom is het enige (meer beestachtige) wel toegelaten terwijl het andere (voortplantingselement) niet toegelaten is?

Waarom gaat men nu tekeer tegen mensen die hun kinderen in het christelijk of in het islamitisch geloof willen opvoeden terwijl anderen hun atheïstische en discriminatoire gedachten wel vrij op hun kinderen mogen poneren?

Wie geeft het recht om een rechter te laten bepalen hoe een moeder binnenshuis haar kind welke opvoeding wenst mee te geven. Waar haalt een rechter het vandaan om zo bijvoorbeeld te besluiten dat het praten over God en het bidden waarbij kinderen aanwezig zijn schadelijk zou zijn voor het kind.

Heeft hij zich al eens beraden over wat de televisie in vele huiskamers binnen brengt terwijl er daar ook kleine kinderen aanwezig zijn? Zijn die ouders die zulke beelden voor de ogen van hun kinderen laten verschijnen dan niet meer strafbaar?

In welke mate mag of mag een ouder niet zelf kiezen in welk geloof hij of zij een eigen kind kan opvoeden?

Iedere ouder moet zelf het eigen recht hebben om vrij te kiezen in welk geloof het kind moet opgebracht worden. Het is trouwens de ouders hun eigenlijke taak om de kinderen ethische en geestelijke vorming te geven. Zij zijn in de eerste plaats verantwoordelijk om aan hun kinderen te leren wat goed is en wat slecht is.

Datgene wat de rechter Clifford Bellamy, van het vredegerecht of Family Court in de zitting in Leicester beslist heeft kan een gevaarlijk precedent vormen om de vrijheid van ouders in te perken.

+

Reactie op voorgaand artikel: 

Parents forbidden to pray in front of their children or to take them to church

 ++

Related articles

• that beautiful, dangerous, radical, challenging, liberating Bible...
• Confessions of England's last poachers: Folk heroes - or common thieves? Whatever your view, these shameless yet magically evocative father-and-son memoirs are irresistible
• Putting one's foot into it
• Employment: PhD Scholarship, "The sense(s) of scripture in William Tyndale's Works", Liverpool Hope U
• Atheist Minister May Face "Review" by United Church of Canada Leaders Who See Her as a Heretic
• Norway repeals blasphemy law in symbolic snub to Charlie Hebdo attack
• NIGER, AFRICA: In just a few hours, Muslims burned down, destroyed, and ransacked at least 80 Christian buildings including 69 churches
• Top Writers Battle Over Charlie Hebdo Receiving Award
• A pen of delusion

Parents forbidden to pray in front of their children or to take them to church

Is it really worrying when a child can react in a conversation with verses from Scripture. In the United Kingdom some see in it a form of indoctrination of that child. that is what we might conclude when we hear lawyers and child psychologists talking against the right of an 8 year old boy choosing for the words and care of his mother.

In May a devout mother made a legally binding promise, backed up with the threat of criminal sanctions, never to talk to her son about her religion, take him to church or even say grace at meals in a doomed attempt to stop him being taken into care, amid claims that she was “indoctrinating” him, a judge has disclosed.

How is it possible that judges can prohibit parents to pray or talk about their belief in front of their children or even not allow them to take them to church?

The court-case in England may create a precedent and make it very difficult for parents to give their children a religious background. Quite easy it is to say they are indoctrinating their children. I naturally do not know, but can not imagine the JW mother through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques to implement her beliefs as to take it or the child having her to leave. Naturally I also find it wrong she would not want to have her child to go to her father. She should know it is also the rightful parent of the child, having the same rights as her to educate his child and to tell about his believes, like she does.


Having teachers saying the boy also rejected other children and that he had only a small friendship circle, describing him as “one of the most worrying children in our school”, does not have to indicate the mother is in such a way dominant to her child she manages it not to make friends with children of an other belief.

Details of the case were disclosed in a written judgement handed down by Judge Clifford Bellamy, after a hearing at the Family Court, sitting in Leicester, in which he set out his reasons for making an interim care order. {Indoctrinated son 'troubled’ by mother’s religion is put into care}
He found that the boy had suffered emotional harm as a result both of the conflict between the parents and, specifically, “immersion by his mother in her religious beliefs and practices”.
He concluded that she was doing this “with the intention of alienating him from his father”.
But the judgement disclosed that a social worker at the centre of the case rejected this assessment and believed that, while the boy was damaged by the conflict between his warring parents, the mother’s religion was not the cause. {Indoctrinated son 'troubled’ by mother’s religion is put into care}

I also would not think there lies the problem with the mother talking about God, taking her child to the Kingdom hall of the JW and reading Watch Tower publications. Far what I do know of those publications they should give enough balance to the kid to stand stronger in a society of different thoughts,  though this seems more to do with an introvert child that has worries brought on it by the damaging divorce, and not with damaging faith.

It disclosed that at one point in the proceedings the mother went to the Court of Appeal to challenge an initial care order and made a number of strict undertakings in an attempt to stop the process.

These included not to take him to her local Kingdom Hall — the Jehovah’s Witness meeting house — or any other such gatherings; not to talk to him about religion at all; not to allow him to go on to the church’s website or watch religious DVDs; and, if he raised the issue, to attempt to change the subject.{Indoctrinated son 'troubled’ by mother’s religion is put into care}

+

Find also:

A British judge rules that mother can’t indoctrinate son with religion

Related articles

• Indoctrinated son 'troubled' by mother's religion is put into care
• Leicester City players sorry for racist orgy
• University Leaders Make Pledges Toward Greater Gender Equality
• Leicester City Investigating Players After Thailand Orgy Video Surfaces
• Care UK (NHS)
• Pro-EU SNP treasonists want EU indoctrinated youth to vote in UK referendum
• Players apologize after racist orgy in Thailand