STRANGE DAYS

Apocalypse soon media

Strange Days - blog

STRANGE DAYS
ARCHIVE

Year 2009 - 2010

Year 2008

Year 2007

Year 2006

Year 2005

Year 2004

Year 2003

Year 2002

Year 2001

Year 2000

Year 99 d

Year 99 c

Year 99 b

Year 99 a

Year 98

Oct 15, 2004

For over two years we have been covering the moves of Applied Digital Solutions' VeriChip implants, and it looks that what we at first surmised is turning into reality. I remember how ADS, when news first broke out, denied forcefully that their "invention" was to be implanted into people. I personally sent them an e-mail (over two years ago) to ask them this very question and they were in total denial. Well, it turns out that they were lying through their teeth since they ARE now indeed implanting it into human beings. So much for truth and honesty.

Certainly, sooner or later we will arrive at the focal point of Revelation 13:17, and the latest developments point to a "sooner" rather than a "later" timing.
Is the VeriChip the Mark of the Beast? Not at the moment, but it could very well become so. Indeed, there are several companies which are working on this particular branch of hi tech, however, and strangely, Applied Digital Solutions has been at the forefront of this scientific wave.
Are they conscious that their product could be misused or abused? They certainly are, but that doesn't make them agents of the Antichrist, but just another greedy and amoral business enterprise, to be kept under scrutiny. Now that the FDA has turned the green light to their efforts we will see a steady push toward this identification model.

God, in His infallible Word, foretold us that this was going to happen at a precise moment in time, warning us of the dreadful consequences which will befall those who take such mark (Please read our article THE MARK OF THE BEAST which expounds this event in depth).

This "moment-in-time" has never been so close.

FDA Approves Use of Chip in Patients
By BARNABY J. FEDER and TOM ZELLER Jr. Published: October 14, 2004 - NYtimes.com (abridged)

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the way for a Florida company to market implantable chips that would provide easy access to individual medical records. The approval, which the company announced yesterday, is expected to bring to public attention a simmering debate over a technology that has evoked Orwellian overtones for privacy advocates and fueled fears of widespread tracking of people with implanted radio frequency tags, even though that ability does not yet exist.

Applied Digital Solutions, based in Delray Beach, Fla., said that its devices, which it calls VeriChips, could save lives and limit injuries from errors in medical treatment. And it expressed hope that such medical uses would accelerate the acceptance of under-the-skin ID chips as security and access-control devices. Scott R. Silverman, chairman and chief executive of Applied Digital, said the F.D.A.'s approval should help the company overcome "the creepy factor" of implanted tags and the suspicion it has stirred.

"We believe there are far fewer people resisting this today," Mr. Silverman said. But it is far from clear whether implanted identification tags can overcome opposition from those who fear new levels of personal surveillance and from some fundamentalist religious groups who contend that the tags may be the "mark of the beast" referred to in the Book of Revelation. In Applied Digital's vision, patients implanted with the chips could receive more effective care because doctors, other emergency-room personnel and ambulance crews equipped with Applied's handheld radio scanners would be able to read a unique 16-digit number on the chip. The chip does not contain any records, but with the number, the care provider would be able to retrieve medical information about blood type, drug histories and other critical data stored in computers. The records could be easily updated.

Tiny radio frequency identification, or RDIF, tags similar to VeriChip have been embedded in livestock and pets in the millions in recent years as a more secure form of identification than external tags. But no device maker has yet been able to create a market for human implantable tags like VeriChip, which are the size of a grain of rice and are inserted under the skin of the arm or hand with a syringe. Applied Digital's distributors overseas have achieved some highly publicized, if limited successes. This summer, Rafael Macedo de la Concha, Mexico's attorney general, announced that he and scores of his subordinates had received implanted chips that control access to a secure room and documents considered vital in Mexico's struggle with drug cartels. Also, Solusat, the sole distributor of VeriChip in Mexico, says about 1,000 people have received the chip implants to link to their medical records. "You can have all the benefits of radio identification," a Solusat executive, Antonio Aceves, said, "but now it is inside your body."

In March, the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona began offering VeriChips to regular patrons who wanted to dispense with traditional identification and credit cards. About 50 "V.I.P.'s" have received the chip so far, according to a spokesman, which allows them to link their identities to a payment system. The program has been expanded to a club in Rotterdam also owned by Baja, and about 35 people there have signed up for the implants, the company said. VeriChip announced last week that it had signed a distribution agreement with a British company, Surge IT Solutions, which it said intended to use the technology to control access to government facilities. And Antonia Giorgio Antonucci, an Italian doctor, is leading a study using VeriChip at the National Institute for Infectious Diseases Lazzaro Spallanzani in Rome. "We want to see if the doctors think the device is practical or not," Dr. Antonucci said. Applied Digital has been free to sell VeriChip in the United States for nonmedical applications, but lack of acceptance of the technology made F.D.A. approval for medical uses a high priority. "I've believed all along that the medical application was the best, followed by security and financial applications," Mr. Silverman said.

But real privacy concerns have emerged. "At the point you place the chip beneath the skin, you're saying you will not have the ability to remove the ID tracking device," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a public interest advocacy group in Washington. "I think, increasingly, if this takes off - and it's still not clear that it will - the real social debate begins around prisoners and parolees, and perhaps even visitors to the U.S. That's where the interest in being able to identify and track people is." Indeed, the debate over civil liberties and privacy has made discussing any practical benefits of a technology like VeriChip harder.

Applied Digital has tried to counter such concerns by arguing that the implantation of chips is voluntary and the only records linked to a VeriChip will be those authorized by the person with the chip. But critics say that if the technology gains a foothold, employers, government authorities and others with power over individuals could dictate how it is used. For instance, if chips were to replace dog tags as military identification, the decision would not be up to the discretion of individual soldiers. The evolution of radio identification technology also concerns some critics. Passive tags like VeriChip do not broadcast radio waves and cannot now be used to track a person's movements. And current scanners cannot read the passive chip from more than a few feet away. But design advances or the addition of a separate power source for the chip could expand those ranges and make tracking possible.

Mr. Silverman has said that the current chip could help managers of high-security installations like nuclear power plants locate people in the building because scanners in doorways should be able to track who enters and leaves a room.

Applied Digital, which has been losing money for years, cautioned yesterday that it did not expect substantial revenue or profit from VeriChip anytime soon. But investors were optimistic enough about the F.D.A. news to send the company's shares up 68 percent, to close at $3.57 yesterday.

Shares of Digital Angel, a subsidiary of Applied Digital that makes animal tags and manufactures the VeriChip, rose nearly 29 percent, to $3.49.

Sept 8, 2004

The satellite beamed images of the Beslan school siege and ensuing bloodbath have demonstrated beyond all doubts that there is no end to human savagery and that despite all technological and financial well-being and ease of life, compared to the past, humanity continues its slide into decadence and evil. I wish I could say that from now on we could be spared this kind of barbarism but I would be lying to you. Indeed, we shall see more of it, and of a worse degree.

Sadly and again, the matrix is Islamic. A noted Egyptian personality, commenting on this last obrobrium, has admitted that practically all terrorists, in whichever part of the globe, are of Islamic origin. His reflection casts a critical eye and a heavy responsibility on the fundaments of Islam. Certainly, we must recognize that NOT all Islamists are terrorists, nonetheless, and as in previous similar attacks, few are the voices among them that dare speak up against the savagery perpetrated, as in this case, against innocent and helpless men, women and children. We have all seen the brutal methods that these beasts, devoid of whatsoever trace of humanity, have been capable of. No need to comment any further. What I I ask myself, instead, is this: "What are they trying to achieve, using such tactics? Are they so deluded to think that public opinion can be changed to their favor by this callous and barbarous acts?"

The answers could be many:
while there really exists, a so-called plan to extend and enforce Islam all over the world, (a tenet of their faith), I think the reason lies elsewhere. As history documents, through their military efforts they succeeded in the past in spreading their gospel across Europe, Asia and the African continent, until they were met with defeat and had to abandon their hopes of global conquest. With the passing centuries, their hopes appeared apparently quenched, but they were only waiting for a better day. If we want to point to a specific moment when this current resurgence started, we don't have to look that far behind. While there have been signs of Arab unrest to the colonization of their countries by the European powers, the true defining moment arrived with the revolution in Iran: On January 16 1979, the Shah left Iran at the end of a reign signed in corruption, oppression and repression. The people had enough and the Shah was not able to see what was coming his way until too late. The Ayatollah Khomeini, the exiled-in-Paris spiritual "leader" of the Iranian people, made his triumphal return to Iran on February 1, of the same year, with millions of Iranians turning out to welcome him. Methinks that the brave Iranian people that day got more than they bargained for, but these are the unexpected intricacies of events in motion.

The resonance of the Iranian happenings, and especially their challenge to America, (through the kidnapping of 66 American hostages) sent shockwaves of exaltations through a new generation of Islamists throughout the world. A new day was indeed rising for Islam and Iran, with its new hard-line interpretation of it, became a symbol of hope and to imitate, while a totally incompetent American President (Carter) remained in the sidelines unable to take the situation under control. So, this became the focal point that has lead to our present situation.

Contributing to this new Moslem consciousness, was the fact that they had something that the "infidels" wanted at all costs: oil and gas needed by the industrialized countries to power their economies. We will not enter here into the abuses and schemes of the powerful oil companies, who carry enormous responsibilities on all geopolitical affairs. That will be the subject of a future article. We need only to remember that the situation is more complicated of what it appears and that the love of money does indeed make strange bedfellows.

It has been said that Islam, which in its past attempt at empire did contribute to art, science and culture in the various countries under its hand, is today, confronted with a world-view which it cannot understand, absorb or permit to its members, at the risk of its very own survival. Unlike most other religious faiths, they view individual freedoms and liberties as absolutely irreconcilable with their faith. They do point out rightly to the decadence of Western society under Judeo-Christian influence, and they fear greatly the same happening to them. In this, I must say that I can appreciate this point of view, our "civilized societies having exchanged liberty for libertinage and the like. So, they worry, how shall we escape such a flood of immorality, coming in from movies, songs, art, TV, MTV, satellite, Internet and the latest break-trough of civilization, the cell phone? So, their reaction is an hysterical response to something they know deep-down that they will not be able to control.

Let's not forget as well that Islam is not the monolith which appears to be, at least to the public consciousness. Apart from the great split between Shiites and Sunnis, there is a notable number of splinter groups, ranging from the Dervishes, to the Moslems in name only.

All the above points have formed and encouraged an "enemy" who will stop at nothing to achieve its deluded goals. There have been intelligence reports of bigger exploits which are at various stages of preparation such as dirty bombs, suitcase nuclear bombs, the spreading of fatal diseases by self-infected terrorists and other delicacies which only a diabolical mind can conceive. Some of this may be urban legend, some may not. Enough to say that experts in this field are worried. We must accept that in our modern society it is practically impossible to stop a determined individual who decides to carry out an act of terrorism. People with this mindset, which we call terrorists know this well, and they are also very astute in using all the holes which, as in Swiss cheese, our free and open society offers.

By reading some of the gruesome happenings within the Beslam school, we must awake to the fact that these people are highly demonized. At one point in time, they have accepted and embraced the darkest thoughts that evil can produce. Their conscience is seared, they are voted to Satan, however they may call him. While we are aware of the Chechnia situation, there is no excuse at all for that kind of behavior. Again: nothing, absolutely nothing can justify shooting a child in the back.

"You will now them by their fruits. ..." Matthew 7:16
We pray and ask God to comfort the bereaved families of Beslan.

July 20, 2004

In the last decades, we have had so many "translations" of the Holy Scriptures that anybody living a mere 100 years ago would find this fact astonishing if not outright impossible. It would seem that publishing contemporary Bible translations has become the new sport of the high-end religious inclined. Ordinarily, we should be thankful for this overabundance of study means, but, as the proverb says, "it's not gold all that glitters." To the contrary, all this beehive of activity has prompted many stalwarts of orthodoxy to cringe in pain at every "new" version announcement. One of these days, I will post a list of all "contemporary" translations in the English language.

For the moment, I am sorry to present to you the latest effort of these scholars, and I am using the term loosely. Trouble is that the leader of the Church of England has given his enthusiastic stamp of approval to this degenerate and at times, blasphemous version. Now, it's not that we are talking about a Christian of solid morals and utmost orthodoxy, if a Christian at all. It is indeed very difficult to perceive traces of genuine faith in Dr. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, and in his public persona. To the contrary, we can openly witness his antipathy and challenging antagonism towards biblical fundamental truths which have guided Christianity through the centuries. As a leader he has a certain influence over his flock and while the Anglican Church is far from being an earth shaking movement, it still is the home to millions of faithful, among whom, I am sure, there are true and real Christians who must be infinitely saddened of the pathetic state of their denomination.

New Bible translation promotes fornication
Archbishop of Canterbury praises version for 'extraordinary power'
June 24, 2004 - WorldNetDaily.com

A brand-new translation of the Bible – praised by Britain's archbishop of Canterbury, that nation’s senior Christian voice – flatly contradicts traditional core Christian beliefs on sex and morality. Titled "Good as New," the new Bible is translated by former Baptist minister John Henson for the "One" organization, to produce what the group calls a "new, fresh and adventurous" translation of the Christian scriptures.

The 104th archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams – leader of the Church of England – describes it is a book of "extraordinary power," but admitted many would be startled by its content. "Instead of condemning fornicators, adulterers and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'," says Ruth Gledhill, the London Times religious affairs correspondent, "the new version of his first letter to Corinth has St. Paul advising Christians not to go without sex for too long in case they get 'frustrated.'" "The new version, which Dr. Williams says he hopes will spread 'in epidemic profusion through religious and irreligious alike', turns St. Paul's strictures against fornication on their head," adds the Times.

The One organization that produced the new Bible translation is dedicated to "establish[ing] peace, justice, dignity and rights for all." It is also focused on "sustainable use of the earth's resources," challenging "oppression, injustice, exclusion and discrimination" as well as accepting "one another, valuing their diversity and experience." According to Ekklesia, a London-based "theological think tank" that supports the "One" translation:

The translation is pioneering in its accessibility, and changes the original Greek and Hebrew nomenclature into modern nicknames. St. Peter becomes "Rocky," Mary Magdalene becomes "Maggie," Aaron becomes "Ron," Andronicus becomes "Andy" and Barabbas becomes "Barry."

In keeping with the times, translator Henson deftly translates "demon possession" as "mental illness" and "Son of Man," the expression Jesus frequently used to describe himself, as "the Complete Person." In addition, parables are rendered as "riddles," baptize is to "dip" in water, salvation becomes "healing" or "completeness" and Heaven becomes "the world beyond time and space." Here's how Williams, the top Anglican archbishop, describes the new Bible: "Instead of being taken into a specialized religious frame of reference – as happens even with the most conscientious of formal modern translations – and being given a gospel addressed to specialized concerns … we have here a vehicle for thinking and worshipping that is fully earthed, recognizably about our humanity."

In addition, notes Ekklesia, the archbishop praises Henson's translation for eliminating "the stale, the technical, the unconsciously exclusive words and policies" in other translations. Here, according to the London Times, are a few sample passages:

Mark 1:4
Authorized version: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
New version: "John, nicknamed 'The Dipper,' was 'The Voice.' He was in the desert, inviting people to be dipped, to show they were determined to change their ways and wanted to be forgiven."

Mark 1:10-11
Authorized version: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from the heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
New version: "As he was climbing up the bank again, the sun shone through a gap in the clouds. At the same time a pigeon flew down and perched on him. Jesus took this as a sign that God's spirit was with him. A voice from overhead was heard saying, 'That's my boy! You're doing fine!'"

Matthew 23:25
Authorized version: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"
New version: "Take a running jump, Holy Joes, humbugs!"

Matthew 26:69-70
Authorized version: "Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, 'Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.' But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest."
New version: "Meanwhile Rocky was still sitting in the courtyard. A woman came up to him and said: 'Haven't I seen you with Jesus, the hero from Galilee?" Rocky shook his head and said: 'I don't know what the hell you're talking about!'"

1 Corinthians 7:1-2
Authorized version: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
New version: "Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual offenses. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner."

1 Corinthians 7:8-7
Authorized version: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
New version: "If you know you have strong needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated."

We avoid writing about politics like the plague, but there are exceptions. The passing to a better life of US President Ronald Reagan is one of those. You may read a lot of his incredible political and social achievements, but I would rather recall what really made him a great man. You will not read or hear articles such as the one that follows in the mass media, whose interest focuses rather on big events, big exploits, big blunders, BIG BIG. And because they avoid the small things they regularly miss it. Should they ever learn that it's those small things that make the big story and that make a man, big.

Ronald Reagan’s Rainbow
To his eternal ranch.
By Paul Kengor

Ronald Reagan was a man who had it all. It is difficult to identify an American who lived a fuller, or greater, life — what he understatedly called "An American Life." In nearly everything he did, Reagan succeeded wildly. When he left his parents' home in 1932, he landed a coveted job in radio. Then came the movies and television, in the heyday of each medium. In the 1930s, when most of America suffered, Reagan soared. By the 1940s, he was one of the top box office draws in Hollywood and received more fan mail than any actor at Warner Brothers except Errol Flynn. His hosting of the number-one rated television show GE Theatre from 1954 to 1962 made him one of the most recognized names in America.

Of course, after that, he entered politics and twice won the governorship of the nation's largest state and the presidency of the world's most powerful nation. And I'm certain that his epitaph will be that he was the president who won the Cold War.

Where did this record of achievement begin? It started with humble origins: at the Rock River at Lowell Park in Dixon, Illinois, where a teenage Reagan lifeguarded seven days a week, 10 to 12 hours per day, for seven summers. He was the rock at the Rock River, always watching. He saved the lives of 77 people there: "One of the proudest statistics of my life," he said later. Saving a drowning victim is not easy under any circumstance, but it was especially difficult in the treacherous Rock River, where the swirling water is so deep and murky that swimming there today has long been banned.

Still, the job was a labor of love for Reagan. "My beloved lifeguarding," he later called it. Even when Alzheimer's meant he couldn't recognize his closest friends when they visited him in his Los Angeles office in the 1990s, Reagan could point to the painting on his wall, a colorful illustration of the spot where he patrolled the Rock River, and longingly reminisce.

On November 5, 1994, Ronald Reagan handwrote a letter informing the world that Alzheimer's disease was riding him into "the sunset of my life." That choice of words was astonishing: Alzheimer's is a horrific disease that robs memories. In just a few years, Reagan wouldn't even remember the White House.

How could he refer to that impending doom as the sunset of his life? Was he ignorant of the disease? Not at all. As president, Reagan made eight separate statements on Alzheimer's — an average of one for each year in the White House. It is chilling to read those words today. Alzheimer's, said Reagan, is an "indiscriminate killer of mind and life" — a "devastating" sickness that "deprives its victims of the opportunity to enjoy life." It "ranks among the most severe of afflictions, because it strips people of their memory and judgment and robs them of the essence of their personalities. As the brain progressively deteriorates, tasks familiar for a lifetime, such as tying a shoelace or making a bed, become bewildering. Spouses and children become strangers." "Slowly," reported Reagan, "victims of the disease enter profound dementia."

Reagan had unwittingly forecast his own demise.

So, how could Reagan, obviously knowledgeable of Alzheimer's, describe the onset of his disease as a coming sunset? I've watched sunsets on the California coast, indeed from the very "Ranch in the Sky" that Reagan did. The answer was Reagan's secret weapon: his optimism. He called it an eternal optimism, a "God-given optimism."

He first discovered that gift through his mother, Nelle Reagan, who (along with Nancy) was the most important person in his life. Nelle instilled in her son the Christian faith so fundamental to his very being. She taught him that the twists and turns in the road are there for a reason. The bad things are part of "God's plan" for the good. There is a rainbow waiting around the bend. God, Reagan reasoned, was in control and worked everything for the best.

Reagan preached this theology in his memoirs and in countless private letters that today sit in the Reagan Library. It became a kind of grief ministry. He would write to a widow: It's a tragedy that your husband died and I write to send my deepest condolences; if it's any comfort, God has a plan....

In 1962, the woman who shared such thinking with Reagan died of what the family called "senility;" what we today would likely diagnose as Alzheimer's. Yet, Reagan remained optimistic. His mother's death, he told friends, was a step through an eternal window-to that rainbow waiting around the bend.

 

"How we die is God's business," Reagan told his daughter Patti. Our duty is to accept it. As a 17-year-old, he wrote a poem called "Life." Here is a revealing excerpt:

"Why does sorrow drench us
When our fellow passes on?
He's just exchanged life's dreary dirge
For an eternal life of song. "

All of this explains how the eternal optimist, in that November 1994 letter, could be positive even as Alzheimer's was crowding in, about to cast his mind into oblivion.

It is telling that in that brief letter to the American people, Ronald Reagan mentioned God and faith four times. "When the Lord calls me home," he wrote, "I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future."

Since that good-bye, it has been an unpleasant ten years for a man — and his family — whose life was so richly blessed; he enjoyed precious few sunsets. Now, at last, Ronald Reagan can rest in peace.

Enjoy that rainbow, Mr. President.

Before I move on to the "anti-Semitic" charges which from many quarters have been leveled at The Passion, I need to address one particular mail which we received on the movie, in which the writer questions the fact that a human being could impersonate Jesus Christ constitutes blasphemy. This is less trivial than it seems. I remember that in past biblical movies, extreme care was taken as not to show the face of the actor playing Jesus, like in the rightly famous and excellent Ben Hur. Then, in the sixties of our past century, a new trend started and it was no longer off limits to show the face of the actor playing Jesus. Many actors have taken the role and their faces have become iconic. We must recognize that in the last decades sensibilities and morals have changed (haven't they ever?) and things just unthinkable at former times, are now mainline, and I am not talking only about showing the face of "Jesus." Yet it remains truly incredible how the decline of our civilization can be measured by this single fact.

So, I am faced with one more problem to ponder and of a very profound nature. We do live in a very visual world, where computer-aided imaginations can reproduce or fabricate otherwise unimaginable events and persons. When Jesus walked the earth, there were no technical means to immortalize His appearance and neither had the art of painting progressed to the point to leave us even a minimal reproduction of Him. Well, if God has chosen so, He must have His very good reasons, idolatry being on top of the list, probably. After all, in His Commandments, He has severely forbidden any such reproductions.

The Jesus face that today we take for granted has been in the works since the Italian Renaissance, when artists, usually sponsored by the Catholic church, adapted their cultural habitat to Biblical episodes and personages, right down to the clothes and buildings. In more recent times, hyper realism in representation has taken the place of the former fantasized depiction. In the movie Jesus of Nazareth, in my opinion probably the best movie about Jesus ever shot, we get as close as possible to what may have been. Gone is the blue-eyed, blond haired Jesus of yesteryears and in trots the new model, accurately Jewish right down to the nose. The problem remains however that nobody knows how Jesus really looked like and the iconic Jesus which we have been impressed with, will cause a shock to most believers when they will see the REAL Jesus. This is why, God, in His Wisdom, has forbidden the usage of images and statues as means of representation and worship.

And now let's move to the "anti-Semitic" charges. Is Mel Gibson anti-Semite? I don't know and I accept his explanation that he declares himself not to be one. However, he has been raised by a father who is indeed a blatant anti-Semite (among other weird peculiarities) and while we should not judge Mel by his father beliefs, we must also understand that being raised in such a household may produce some undesirable side effects. I have a read a scholarly review of the movie which, among other things pointed out the fact that the way the movie was assembled, borrowing from the four gospel narratives, (and apart from the Anne Catherine Emmerich true anti-Semitism) shows a deliberate manipulation of accentuating some points of the narrative over others. Borrowing from the different narratives instead of following a single one permits, even so subtly, to reach an altered result. Then, as I said above, I do believe Mel's distancing himself from the accusation, even with some reservations.

Many leading Jewish associations have not lost the occasion to attack the movie and in the process, to make fools of themselves. I will even say that their loud ranting are principally responsible for the huge success of the movie, having created an oversized aura of expectation, mystery and controversy several months before the movie was even presented.

I would like to remind the Jewish movers and shakers that I did NOT hear their voices of protest when blasphemous movies and plays like "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "Corpus Christi" were released, (and funded by Jewish money) but from their quarters came rather heaping praise for such filth.

Now, as a Christian, I understand Israel's place in the plan of God and I do share a sincere love for the Jewish people as the Word of God in so many verses, so eloquently makes clear, and their destiny is clearly prophecied:

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.
Romans 11:1-2

In the book of Romans, the Word admonishes us not to underestimate Israel's position in God's Plan:

For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written ...
Romans 11:24-26

So, anybody who thinks otherwise toward Israel is out of sync with God. At the same time, we must acknowledge the insistent charge of anti-Semitism which is leveled against anybody who dares criticize some acts by Jewish persons, associations or by the State of Israel. This is not at all acceptable as no one, except God is above criticism. The Jews should carefully note that many otherwise supportive opinions are turned against them by their fastidious, pressing and in most cases, peregrine attacks, while, sadly, they show an utter lack of wisdom in understanding who their friends are.

Are the Jews responsible for the death of Jesus?
The Word makes no mystery of what transpired at that time:

Pilate said to them, "What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said to him, "Let Him be crucified!"
Then the governor said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they cried out all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified."
When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it."
And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children."
Matthew 27:22-25

It is an inescapable fact that that crowd, spurred by the religious leaders, pronounced the death sentence upon Jesus. But it is also a true fact that not all Jews participated to that sentence (see Luke 23:51, Luke 23:34, Acts 5:28, 1Cor. 2:8).
While the Jews, as a people, share the grievous burden for the rejection of their Messiah, we should not for a moment lose sight of the fact that Jesus came to redeem the whole world even as He admitted that the Jews were the appointed people to whom He was sent first. Their temporary rejection has opened the door for everyone else to receive the Grace of God. Since we are all sinners, including the Jews, we all need to be justified before God, and the ONLY justification He will accept is our faith on the Sacrifice of His Son Jesus and His shed Blood, as the propitiation and absolution of our sins. There is no longer place for the Law or for any other means to obtain the pardon of our sins, no matter what unscrupulous men have tried to impose upon Bible ignorant people.

So to the question as to whether the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, we must answer with a resounding "Yes, they are, and so are the Romans, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Americans, the Italians, the Indians ....
And you.
And I."

After a year of controversy and not-so-veiled attacks, The Passion of the Christ movie has finally been released and it is off to a smashing start. We have received several mails about it and frankly, I am surprised by all the questions this movie is generating, notwithstanding the main one of anti-Semitism which has accompanied the movie from its very inception. I want to add a few comments to what this event (and it is an event, no less) means to Christianity, and to the world at large.

I haven't seen the movie, but after having read several reviews it's practically as if I had. In all truth, I don't think I will go see it once it will show up in my part of the world, and for good reasons, the most important being that I feel very saddened whenever I read the Bible verses that describe Jesus' sufferings. I have skipped reading them for years whenever I get by them. Oh, I know perfectly well what those verses say, but I do not want to go over them again. They document such an outrageous series of cruelty and evil acts as to leave one dumbfounded as to the level of savagery to which human beings are able to fall. And to me it's incomprehensible, apart from His Love, why God allowed that to happen. So, since by all reports the movie does delve at length on the tortures inflicted to Jesus, I don't think I will go see it. But there are also other reasons.

From my research, and believe me, I have done my homework, there is something positive and something negative to say about the movie, as it befalls all true events. Let's start with the good report:

The movie, and this is commonly known, depicts the final 12 hours leading to and including the crucifixion death of Jesus Christ, and a brief epilogue of His Resurrection. The spoken track contains the supposedly original languages spoken at the time, but there are comforting subtitles for those who are not familiar with the events. Mel Gibson, the director and producer of the movie had originally dispensed with subtitles, since the narrative is so familiar, but distributors have their own rules and he was kind of obliged to use them. It is a no-holds-barred retelling of those events, with blood (seemingly) splattering the audience as human cruelty has rarely been so dramatically depicted.

To all those accusing Mel of being a closet sadist, it should be remembered that a crucifixion was no picnic and that the Romans were no sissies when meting out corporal punishment on their enemies or supposed such. The real thing was certainly much worse than the movie's depiction.

"Why is it necessary to show so much graphic details?" some have complained. My guess is since the Hollywood crowd has been "educating" us to such a preposterous level of blood and gore, anything less than that would probably not register or even be laughed at. Mel is an actor and knows his business well, so I am sure he knew what he was doing when directing the movie. It's really incredible to read how some movie critics have torn apart the movie for its purported violence, while heaping praise upon the likes of Quentin Tarantino, another director, who has made a carrier out of ultra-violent movies in which shooting and chopping up people in full living color is the main and only ingredient. Hypocrisy in action, but then expecting righteousness from Hollywood is far far out science fiction, wouldn't you agree?

Then there is the charge of anti-Semitism, but I will reprise this in the next installment.

The negative part of this event is that Mel has not been totally faithful to the Scriptures but he has embedded in the movie his own peculiar views which while not distracting from the main theme, do subtly mix with the Gospel Truth. For someone who has been claiming all along that his movie was to adhere strictly to the Scriptures this equalizes to manipulation, since he raises his own views to an improper level . It has emerged that Mel, a devout Catholic, subscribes to a pre-Vatican2 view of his denomination, Trydentine Mass and all, while scorning all that has happened to the Catholic Church since, including the Popes. He is very extreme in his views, and while he has every right to them, that amounts to less than honest dispatching them as gospel truth, which they are not. In one interview he expressed doubt whether his wife is saved since she does not apparently share his views, while he places the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (his brand) above all. So much for the WORD of GOD.
Moreover, Mel has been influenced and has utilized the writings of a couple of Catholic mystics, principally the Catholic nun (Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774 - 1824) mystic, stigmatist, visionary, and "prophet") whose book, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" is replete with typical visionary mysticism of the era. Catholics have this thing about mystics and visionaries and it goes with their baggage, but it is not acceptable to equate a mystic vision to Truth. Studies have shown that many so-called mystics were (and are) strongly repressed persons, who indulge in their particular fantasy to create a world in which they can take refuge and find support to face everyday life. While this borders on psychosis, it is not much different than let's say, Hindu holy men who do all kind of unthinkable stuff (like extending an arm out for days until it shrivels, or staring at the sun until they are blinded and so forth) to get an audience and an appellative of holiness. It's the same mental instability which, clothed with religiousness, gets a better rap than the "ordinary" nut case.

La Hemmerich is not only that, but even worse. I have read some of her chapters and I wish I hadn't. The lurid details she narrates and the plain unbiblical statements she makes are enough to charge her with blasphemy. But, alas, Catholics seem to thrive on that stuff. I simply don't understand how can they reconcile the Bible, in which they profess to believe, with such supreme and totally errant silliness. It would seem that they are very easily fooled, but then so are the other denominations, only at different levels. This happens when the Word of God is not respected as the sole arbiter of right and wrong and when we introduce other parameters in judgment (like "tradition" for the Catholics or "experience-first" for the Pentecostals).

In the next installment, in a few days, we shall examine the anti-Semitic charges.

February 10, 2004

Increasingly unmoored from clear Judeo-Christian and common law principles about what's right and wrong, our courts have become so caught up in secondary considerations about consent and the need to not judge too harshly the lifestyle choices of even the pathologically ill, that they're losing sight of the most obvious and simplest of principles, such as "Eating people is wrong."
Quote from
The London [ON] Free Press ^ | February 6, 2004 | Herman Goodden

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the point of view of the "civilized" West is fast turning amorally pagan, and again, it is not only my single perception but a fact shared by many, as the above quote by a common journalist proves. There is a quite revolution going on, whose object is to rid our societies from every trace of the Judeo-Christian ethic which, has governed and has been the underpinning of their progress, expansion and success. How sad, absurd and regrettable that we are turning against what has made us an example of freedom and of hope, all in the name of a malpracticed "freedom," ridiculous political correctness and let's say it, a pronounced hate of Christianity in particular and anything "religious" in general.

Of course, once we abandon the criteria which have governed our societies for ages we find ourselves in Neverland, where all things are possible but none are sure. One case in point is the recent story about Armin Meiwes, the so-called Cannibal of Rotenburg. Surely his story has been widely told and retold to the last gruesome detail, but it's not the part that concerns me. Rather, I am pointing out two serious points about this sordid affair, one being Mr. Meiwes revelation about a network of people at some level involved with cannibalism, and two, being the total inability of the judiciary to handle the case. Please read the following report:

Cannibal reveals man-eater network
From The Times' Roger Boyes in Kassel January 7, 2004

ARMIN Meiwes, the increasingly confident Cannibal of Rotenburg, has been helping police unravel an international network of man-eaters. From Austria to the US, willing victims going by names such as Hansel and Gretel queued up to be eaten by or at least exchange butchering details with the 42-year-old former soldier.

The chilling groundbreaking trial in Kassel, now in its fourth week, on Monday exposed not only the scope of modern cannibalism but also Mr. Meiwes's deluded ambitions for a world in which eating people could solve problems of famine and overpopulation. Police witnesses told of two "truckloads" of printed emails and Internet exchanges between Mr. Meiwes and the web of cannibals or potential victims. Detective Isolde Stock said: "We downloaded over 3800 photographs from his computer." The sheer volume of evidence has taken the court by surprise.

Mr. Meiwes had earlier talked of a cannibal network of at least 800 people across the spectrum of German and European society, including dentists and teachers. He admitted being in contact with 400 people. But after a year's investigation, the police have managed to track down only 200 of those. They include an American who was looking for a victim to chop into three segments and then dine on, and a German who wanted to be eaten around the table on Russian Orthodox Christmas. The police would not have been able to dig so deeply into the man-eating maze without Mr. Meiwes's cooperation.

Sounds like a joke or a Hollywood b-movie. Actually that kind of b-movies are now full fledged A-movies, given the recent box-office success of the "Hannibal Lecter" series and given the growing decadent appetite of modern moviegoers.

Well, the trial has ended and Meiwes got ONLY 8 years and some months, which with "good behavior" (meaning he will not bite anybody while behind bars) will become 4 years, after which he is free to go about society seeking whom he may devour, just like his inspirer, the devil.

The legal establishment, in the spirit of the enlightened modern jurisprudence, is de-facto telling us that anything goes between consenting adults and that old standards like "Thou shall not kill" are no longer applicable in our society. The triumph of liberal rationalism and situational ethics. To me, utter stupidity and fatal blindness.