Friday, 24 July 2009

Blasphemy - or Freedom of Speech?

Islamic nations' "defamation of religion" ambitions make progress at UN
A coalition of 57 Islamic countries — the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) — this week won United Nations backing for a draft resolution that would outlaw "defamation of religion" throughout the world.
The resolution was passed 85 votes for to 50 against with 42 abstentions in a key UN committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year. It is non-binding, but regarded as another step in a long-term strategy by the OIC to make anti-blasphemy laws mandatory in all countries.
Campaigners against the OIC's campaign say that it poses a severe threat to freedom of speech. Bennett Graham of the Becket Fund said: "It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy. Those arrests are made legitimate by the UN body's (effective) stamp of approval."
Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure "renaissance" of the "Muslim Ummah" or community.
While the current resolution is non-binding, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN's Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a "new instrument or convention" on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch, which also opposes the resolution said: "Each time the resolution comes up, we get a measure of where the world is on this issue, and we see that the campaign has been ramped up."
While this year's draft is less Islam-centric than resolutions of earlier years, analysts note it is more emphatic in linking defamation of religion and incitement to violence. That "risks limiting a broad range of peaceful speech and expression," Mr. Neuer said.
The 2008 draft "underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national regional and international levels." It also claims "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
But Western nations — in particular Canada — insist that ideas, such as religion, cannot be protected by human rights legislation. They say that human rights are for humans. They have no objection to the protection of

individuals from discrimination on the basis of their religion, but are adamant that religious ideas must remain open to debate and criticism.
The United States told the UN High Commissioner: "Defamation carries a particular legal meaning and application in domestic systems that makes the term wholly unsuitable in the context of religions. A defamatory statement ... is more than just an offensive one. It is also a statement that is false."
"From the human rights side of things, this is the opposite of what is supposed to be happening," said Becket's Mr. Graham. "Instead of protecting an individual, this resolution protects an idea, and relies on hurt feelings as a source of judgment. It can only lead to a jurisprudence of hurt feelings."
Canada says governments have abused laws against defamation or contempt of religions to "prosecute and imprison journalists, bloggers, academics students and peaceful political dissidents."
The Iranian parliament, for example, is currently considering a draft amendment to its penal code that would impose capital punishment for apostasy. But in an irony, given Canada's stance, an anti-blasphemy law remains in the country's own Criminal Code. Experts point out, however, that it has not been used for a prosecution for more than 70 years.

Against the Islamisation of Europe

The doctrine of Islam states that anyone who leaves (or changes) their Islamic religion is to be killed (Bukhari Hadith). Islam is a dualistic political ideology of war and conquest. All unbelievers must be brought under the control of Islam until the entire world is under Islam. The kaffir (unbeliever) can be raped, murdered, enslaved, beheaded, tortured, etc. There are no boundaries, no taboos, where treatment of the kaffir by Islam is concerned.

Islam is a unified civilization of which religion is a part, a small part. The majority of the Koran is about how Muslims are to interact with the unbeliever, well over 60% of the text. This means that the Koran is a political document. One cannot know how to be a Muslim just from Koran alone. The central idea in Koran is jihad. Jihad is timeless and universal. Islam is at war with all non-believers forever.

The mosque is the centre of Muslim life in any community in which Muslims reside. The case has been made that non-violent Muslims do not know their doctrine. Some even suggest that non-violence means “moderation” – the non-violent Muslim is shown as proof of the non-violence of Islam itself. But this is not so, since the doctrine is clear that aggressive violence against the kaffir is mandated, therefore violent jihadists are just observant, devout Muslims, they are the moderates. They are moderate because they follow the doctrine and the commands of both Allah and Mohammed. The extremists are those who do not participate in Jihad. These are hypocrites and apostates. Such people who do not fight the unbelievers can rightfully be killed by jihadists as being outside the family, Umma, of Islam.

When adherents do not know the doctrine of Islam, they learn it from their Imams. All Imams know the doctrine quite well. What happens when the non-violent adherent hears, from the pulpit of the mosque, the commands of Allah to do jihad and kill the unbelievers wherever they are found? They must act. Few will leave Islam, because leaving the religion of peace is a death sentence offence. Most will participate in jihad war against the unbeliever (kaffir) with money and with words, some will do violence. Those who die in jihad are guaranteed a direct trip to paradise and access to beautiful girls forever. The non-violent adherent must act if they are to remain Muslim. Allah says in the Koran that he knows that some will not want to do jihad, but the obligation remains, Allah knows what is best -people do not.

Because democracies are tolerant and open societies, in the main, they are welcoming to Islam. They are welcoming to Islam because their peoples do not understand that Islam is at war with them; they do not understand that Islam does not assimilate; they do not understand that the purpose of Islam is to overturn the host culture and change the host culture to an Islamic state. No Muslim can give allegiance to any country other than a caliphate, no Muslim can give allegiance to a system of law other than the law of Allah and Mohammed, Sharia. This is clearly stated in doctrine. Muslims who give such allegiance may be good citizens but they are not good Muslims. This is a fine point that many find difficult to understand.

Muslims are forbidden to have friendships with Christians or Jews. This is clearly stated in Koran. In addition, Muslims are commanded to kill Jews; this is also clearly stated in doctrine. When the Muslims are actually friends with kaffirs, to Islam they are hypocrites (bad Muslims) or apostates. Being a good Muslim and being a good citizen of a democratic state is doctrinally impossible for a Muslim who follows his “religion”.

Islam is at war with the kaffir, everywhere and forever. It does not matter if you believe this or not; your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. This is the truth and the command of the Koran, and the Sira of Mohammed as well as Hadith – the doctrine of Islam. If Islam is at war with all kaffir everywhere and the purpose of this endless warfare is the literal end of all non-believers (Koran is clear that no other religion is allowed anywhere on the planet other than Islam) and their cultures; one must come to some conclusion about the value of his/her culture and whether or not it is worthy of defending.

Because democracies are based upon openness and tolerance and individual freedoms, democracies are open to Islam. Islam builds mosques – these are the centres of Muslim culture, politics, religious practice, everything in the Muslim community. While we are aware that many if not most of all new mosques built in Europe, the US and around the world are supported by Saudi oil money this is not the most important point. The critical factor is that every mosque has the doctrine of Islam, Koran, Sira, Hadith as its central intellectual/spiritual/political core. The doctrine itself is hostile to democracies and is a doctrine of warfare, violence, intolerance, hatred, cruelty and brutality that is as yet unsurpassed in human history.

When the doctrine is known, and the history of Islam and the appalling things that have been done by adherents because of its commands, it is difficult (that is, impossible) to defend Islam or any aspect of it.

Islam is a political ideology fundamentally hostile to democracy. It is intolerant and brutal in the extreme. It is often said that terrorists and jihadists have hijacked the “religion of peace” and “misinterpret” the doctrine of Islam. This is a lie. This kind of lie, about the nature and true character and history of Islam, is called “taqiyyah”, sacred deception. It is an obligation (as stated in the doctrine) for all Muslims to falsify the truth of Islam to kaffirs everywhere. This results in the kaffir being confused and unable to effectively respond in defense of their cultures and lands, countries and people. It is extremely effective. Koran is a blueprint for war. The effectiveness of jihad is seen by the success of Islam in spreading across the world and annihilating cultures and civilizations as it goes. The body count of jihad since Mohammed started his endless war is conservatively estimated at 270 million murdered victims.

What of democracy then as it faces the challenge of advancing and emboldened and oil wealth rich Islam? What of democracy as new mosques are built daily and the demands of Islam increase at the same pace?

Democracy is the condition of freedom, tolerance, and equality. This condition was passed down to us by our founders and secured for us over generations by our brave warriors who fought to sustain these ideals and this condition of freedom. Many who know little of democracy, history, politics, and know nothing whatever of Islam believe that democracy is a process and not a condition.

These ill-informed ill-educated people believe that democracy is ever changing and if a minority desires concessions that are inherently anti-democratic, reactionary, intolerant, and cruel it is all perfectly acceptable if these forces use the processes and structures of democracy to enact their anti-freedom desires. Those who seek our destruction know our ways, our systems, our doctrine, our legal system as we know nothing of theirs. We are at a disadvantage to these aggressive forces of hate and intolerance and anti-freedom because we are almost entirely ignorant of their purposes and their foundational doctrine, Koran, Sira, Hadith – the doctrine of Islam.

The process of democracy is that process which protects the freedoms and structures of equality and tolerance that were passed down to us and secured for us by our forebears. Democracy is a condition of freedom that must be defended, it is not a process by which we surrender those same freedoms that others gave their lives to secure for us and future generations. Our role as lovers of freedom is to sustain democracy again so that our children can enjoy its freedoms, tolerance, and appreciation for the individual.

Democracy is not a process, it is a condition.

If democracy is a condition of freedom and tolerance and equality and not a process, then what must our response be to forces whose purpose is the destruction of democracy? The response must be to oppose such forces.

When the new mosque comes to town, what is its purpose? Its purpose is to spread the word of the greatness of Islam, the fake religion of peace. Its purpose is to be the centre of a community of believers whose goal is, according to their deity and prophet, the destruction and/or conversion of the unbelievers in whose midst they have chosen to live.

Immigrants are very important in Islam. The Islamic calendar does not begin with the first revelation from Allah received by Mohammed as one might suppose for a “religion”, rather it begins when Mohammed arrived in Medina from Mecca and began his career as a warlord and killer. This is the real beginning of the power of Islam; not the revelations, but the change of Mohammed’s career from prophet/debater/missionary in Mecca to prophet/warlord/hyperviolent killer in Mecca.

The immigrant is the leading edge of the sword of Islam.

If those who love democracy know nothing of Islam, its doctrine and history – the construction of a new mosque is but a footnote. If those who love democracy know the doctrine and history of Mohammed and of Islam the new mosque is a dangerous threat to their culture, and country.

Islam is a political ideology. The mosque is its party headquarters. Muslim demonstrators on the streets of Europe and America are not shy about their purposes – the destruction of all kaffir states and religions and the conquest of Islam. Jihadists are not shy about their motives – they quote Koran as they kill. Yet we say that they are misinterpreting their doctrine. This is a lie we say to one another based on wishful thinking and ignorance. It is not based on knowledge of the doctrine itself.

The Koran, they say, is the literal word of Allah, the word of their god to the adherents of Islam. Mohammed is the prophet, the greatest example of humanity for all to emulate. Jihad, war, murder, violence, misogyny, torture, cruelty, intolerance are the commands. These commands are in the doctrine of Islam. The doctrine is taught at mosques. You connect the dots.

Monday, 13 July 2009

Can we afford these people?

Did you read the article in the Daily Mail on Saturday 11th July 2009 about the miserable fate of little Donna Marie Gillbanks, aged just seven years?
It takes some reading.
This poor young child was visited by her uncle in 1977, who decided that the best thing for her was for him to force his foul self into her and deposit his worthless seed into her body.
Now, this is supposed to be a Chrystian [sic] country, where we give evidence in our Courts beneath Her Majesty's Coat of Arms, swearing on our Chrystian Bible to tell the Truth.
Well, I'd like to draw your attention to what' gentle Jesus, meek and mild', says about the likes of Peter Chester Speakman in that Bible: Matt 18:6 - so He clearly believes that there is a case for capital punishment for those who deliberately choose to destroy a child's (male or female) life prospects.
What our (in)justice system saw fit to do in this case was to lock the evil bastard (he must have been a bastard, because, had he had a father, he would have been brought up to know that this behaviour is never acceptable) up for 20 + 12 years and counting at the taxpayers' expense. And if he did have a father who condoned this behaviour, then may the gods help our nation.
I am left wondering how long this lily-livered government of ours is going to tolerate atrocities of this kind before the law gets changed to bring in both a fitting punishment and deterrent.
There are some offenders who should not be allowed to go on breathing good fresh air, and Peter Chester Speakman is one of them.

Yet another example of two-tier government

Afghan Law will let Afghan husbands starve wives who withhold sex. And the western countries are supporting such a government by sending out soldiers? It´s grotesque.

Having recently experienced at first hand how the average servant of Allah treats his wife(wives), I am determined to support people like Maryam Namazie who has bravely spoken out against the opprobrious practices of the regimes in both Iran and Afghanistan with regard to the female sex.
It seems that there is precious little respect for wombmen [sic] under their religious system.
Well, today is Iran Solidarity Day here in UK (and hopefully elsewhere in the world) and I for one am so proud of the efforts of Maryam and her friends for the stand they have taken against this tyranny in Iran and elsewhere.
I recently saw a sticker on a motor car in the UK which proudly said; 'A woman can do anything a man can except have a baby'
If you think this is not your problem, well you'd better have a rethink. In our family we have been visited by one of these so-called servants of Allah. He turned up uninvited at a UK port, having hidden himself away in the bowels of a lorry, and, as soon as he was discovered, he claimed 'political asylum', stating that his life was in danger if he were to be returned whence he came (in his case Northern Iraq), since his wife was dead, having been shot in the head whilst going about her business in a Mosul street.
To support this claim, the man produced a document written in Arabic which purported to be a Death Certificate for the poor wombman [sic]. The only problem with that document was that it was dated two months after the date on which he arrived in UK...
Also, the document had clearly been tampered with, since the name of the 'deceased' was written with more vowel points than are needed to write her name accurately in Arabic, a point which has probably escaped the man, who is not a native Arabic speaker himself.
I am left wondering how many more altered copies of this document are on file with the Borders & Immigration Agency, and how much did the man pay for it???
So, we let him stay here and eventually allow him 'conditional' - discretionary leave to remain for a time.
What is his next step? He gets himself up North to some inconspicuous town, where he seduces a sweet young English wombman and makes sure that very soon she is carrying his obnoxious seed.
The poor lass is terrified all the way through her unwanted pregnancy, just about dies after a very horrendous labour and is finally separated from her child (alas, it turned out to be a female - clearly not the will of Allah) and so, not to be thwarted, the unloving father ensures that his name appears twice on the resulting Birth Certificate, he names the poor mite 'Axxxx xxxxx Ibrahim Mohammed'. It puts me in mind, if it weren't so grossly tragic, of the song - 'A boy named Sue'.
Not satisfied with this deception, our man then goes along to see the local Registrar and arranges a ceremony to 'marry' the sweet English rose, declaring himself to be a widower, and, even though someone attends the Registry Office before the date and informs the Registrar that our man does in fact, already have a wife and children in Iraq, the sweet English rose is now too terrified of him to do other than go through with the farce of a bigamous ceremony.
My word, hasn't he done well, child and wife in the UK - must be home and hosed now.
As he now feels secure, up go the photographs of his Iraqi wife and child on the wall in the local authority property where he is squatting, and no-one in 'authority' in this country seems able to do a thing about him. The local authority staff do not even query how the sweet English rose was able to rent one of their properties in er maiden name and suddenly change it to Mrs Mohammed. Are we daft in this country or what?
Some of her neighbours are now a bit fed-up and puzzled how a man like this can get into a local authority house when their daughters have been kept on the waiting lists for years.
Still, I don't suppose it will be long before we shall be financing the arrival of the rest of our man's family.
I wouldn't mind, but our man has not spent so much as £10 on his UK-born offspring in over three years. Oh, no, the poor mite has been cared for since Day 1 by the grandparents, but the sweet English rose has to send some of her monthly earnings to a nominated account in Iraq, to support wife number One and his offspring there. As for him, he has had at least fifteen different motor vehicles in three years and the latest purchase - a 42" plasma TV, but no money for his daughter's food and clothes.
And now there is at least one (may be more) other illegal immigrants living with him and his bigamous spouse and no-one in authority bothers to challenge the situation.
Meanwhile, the good, honest tax-paying citizens of UK must not only finance our man, but also sponsor sending the flower of our nation to roll about in the heat and dust of Afghanistan in a futile effort to 'fight the terrorists' and keep them from taking over our country and hoisting their black flag over the Palace of Westminster.
Doesn't anybody care??

Saturday, 11 July 2009

What is this one called?

Today (Sat 11th) I saw this unusual insect [jpg attached]on one of our Verbenum shrubs.
Having checked in my handbook the nearest in type is a capsid which
rejoices in the name 'campyloneura virgula', but that is only 5 mm long
and has brown legs, whereas our visitor is about 20 mm long and has
six yellow legs.
Has anyone any ideas what it is?

Friday, 10 July 2009

True Friendship

The gods designed us to need other people—to form, maintain and enjoy good relationships with others. What do the sacred scriptures tell us about friendships?
Some people prefer to be alone. But most want to be around other people. Relationships and associations are important to them. They desire to have and maintain friendships.
Friendship is part of the godhead's way of life. The Word has much to say about friendship. In fact, Elohim himself strongly emphasizes his desire for relationships and friendships. Yeshua ha Mescheyach, who is one in mind and Spirit with the Father, will marry the church. This implies an extremely close relationship as well as a friendship. A major underpinning in the godhead's plan is healthy, strong, close relationships.
The Scriptures refer to Abraham and Moses as friends of the godhead (Exodus 33:11; James 2:23). Yeshua himself had close friends. Though the disciples were his closest friends, he had friendly relationships with others, including tax collectors. For this, he would be soundly condemned by his critics (Matthew 11:19). One of the tax collectors, Matthew, even became a disciple (Matthew 9:9-13).
These examples illustrate that it is not wrong to have friends who are not believers. John, another disciple and a close friend of Yeshua, described the danger we must keep in mind: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of the godhead' abides forever" (1 John 2:15-17).
We must maintain a proper balance. We are to help people in the world—in society—without becoming part of the way of life of the world.
Among the disciples, the Messiah apparently felt especially close to John. He even commissioned this disciple to care for His mother, Mary, after His death. Although Yeshua was a friend to many, He appears to have felt a special affinity for John.
John's epistles dwell on love as a major theme. Since the godhead' is love and the Son of the godhead is like his Father (Hebrews 1:3), this may be why Yeshua felt a special affinity for John. Following Messiah’s example, we can see that it's not wrong for us to have close friends as long as they do not prevent us from helping others and having a positive relationship with them.
People can be so much more effective, so much more balanced and so much wiser as a result of developing and maintaining healthy friendships. The sacred scripture supports this approach. The book of Proverbs is rife with wise sayings on aspects of friendship. Proverbs focuses on the importance of developing friendships based on the right reasons.
For example, Proverbs 19:4-6 tells us: "Wealth makes many friends, but the poor is separated from his friend . . . Many entreat the favour of the nobility, and every man is a friend to one who gives gifts."
Solomon noted that many people make friends for ulterior motives, such as what a friend can do for us. But a true friend is one who will sacrifice for his brother, not one who will sacrifice his brother for gain. A true friend will not be friendly only when things are going well but will love at all times, including periods of adversity (Proverbs 17:17).
A true friend is deeply committed to a relationship. Notice Yeshua ha Mesceyach describing this commitment: "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13). Yeshua not only said this, he lived it. It's quite a challenge for us to follow this wonderful example.
Some believe that to be a friend to someone, one should never stand up to or disagree with him. But there are times when a true friend needs to tell his brother where he is wrong. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend. But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Proverbs 27:6).
Friends should assist and strengthen each other by helping each other grow and improve (Proverbs 27:17). People simply do much better by working together. Two really are better than one (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12).
The godhead's way is not one of total independence from others. It is a way of interdependence—of close relationships and of working together as a well-trained team to accomplish the goals he sets before us. All of us need to actively seek, develop and maintain friendships from a godly perspective and motive. We will be better people as a result.

Monday, 6 July 2009

Where there's a Will...

The scriptures [2 Tim 3:15] are a testament - the inheritors may not change the wording of the Will [Titus 1:9]
Western theology has grown out of Greek philosophical thought.
'Hearing and doing' are typical of the Jew.
The Greek moves in conceptual or 'abstract' ideological problems - cf: I Cor 1:22.
The Jew demands a 'sign' - Matt 12:38-40., whereas Greeks seek wisdom.
In the Hebrew language there is no verb 'to be', because 'I AM' is their godhead!
The Jew has no need to theorize, to prove what he knows experientially to be Truth - cf John 7:17.
Just DO the doctrine and you will PROVE whether it works.
The word 'disciple' appears 264 times in the Chrystian [sic] new testament. In this Way, doctrine and life are seen as one - Lu 6:46.
The lordship of El Elyon in the 'old' testament, as well as that of Yeshua Hamescheyach in the 'new' is an important study for all disciples.
This is not a one-sided affair. It is not all commands and fear. For his part, Adonai protects, guards and guides his servants. He stands by us, he delivers us from evil. He provides our resources, supplies our Manna and Water and bountifully rewards our faithfulness to his Will - cf: Psa 19:14, Psa 31:3, II Tim 4:17, Mt 25:14-30, Lu 19:11-27, Gen 15:1, Num 18:20 and I Cor 3:13-15.
Our part is to obey the voice of the Master - Jn 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commandments" also I Cor 15:5.
Recommended reading - 'The Messiah in the Old Testament' by Risto Santala.
Also 'Christianity is Jewish' by Edith Schaeffer.
Leymoor Lad - Mon 06.07.09


I think it was Rousseau who said that 'when man[or wombman]is completely happy, they have absolutely no need of language'. That would indicate that all speech is an expression of need, just as all fear has at its root the fear of death.
Here are a few thoughts of my own on the importance of good communication:
"Speech is the sceptre of mankind - gossip is the devil's rickshaw"
"The genius of communication is to able to be totally honest and yet totally kind to the recipient"
"Every time I speak, my spirit is on parade"
Chrystians [sic] have this thing about their 'bible', and Islam has now remembered to be just as
pedantic about their Qran, so much are these people bigoted that they have for centuries persecuted (even to the death) any who dare to hold a differing viewpoint. That's what the Vatican calls a 'heretic' - it's from a Greek word for 'different'.
Now the writings which the Chrystians hold dear are drawn from those of many good-hearted souls who, over a period of almost 1600 years, wrote down for posterity the things they had both received and witnessed. The problem that Chrystians have is that the Vatican has gotten hold of the best of these documents, and, because they contain an inconvenient truth, have made very sure that an unexpurgated translation never gets out onto the street - that could cost them billions, not to say also a serious loss of street-cred.
So today we have a situation where, if I dare to hold a differing view from the local Imam, I am in danger of being befriended by some dingily-clad extremist who will sit next to me on the 'bus and send me and my neighbours off to 'paradise/hell', but, after all, that is not a lot different from the treatment meted out to the Ladino Jews in Spain in the 16th Century.
No wonder poor old Richard Dawkins felt the need to write his book about his disillusionment. He's quite wrong, but I understand why he did it.
About the writings themselves;
The so-called scriptures are divided into two sections. Chrystians call them the 'Old' and the 'New' testaments, and will run out phrases such as, 'The new is in the old contained; the old is in the new explained'. Subsequent persistent marketing has led to the view that the resurrection of their leader proved that the 'old' was now obsolete. This is a dangerous misconception. Romans 13:4 reminds us that, whilst the new gives us the opportunity to live on a higher plane, there has never been any justification for abolishing capital punishment Even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, has very definite views on what ought to happen to evil child molesters - cf Matt 18:6. He also confirmed that he never came to abolish the 'old' but to fulfil it Nor did he ever at any stage, tell his followers to stop attending synagogue, although he DID say there would come a time when they would not be too welcome there...
So that is where the Vatican saw it's marketing opportunity, and since then, they have altered just about all the true facts in favour of their revised version.
Let's just briefly take their 'Easter' as an example, using the year 2009 as an example:
Their word Easter is a Roman/Anglican corruption - of the original Hebrew ‘Chaq Hamatzot’ - Feast of Unleavened Bread, but to try to sort it we will relate this ‘holyday’ to their Gregorian Calendar.

Thurs 9th April 2009 = Passover –

On the original night when the Hebrew Slaves revolted against their Egyptian taskmasters, they were all packed up and ready to do a moonlight flit, when suddenly the Angel of Death paid a visit to the neighbourhood and took out all the eldest male children of the Egyptians, but ‘passed over’ the Hebrew families. This amazing event is commemorated by all self-respecting Hebrew families as ‘Pesach’ – a one-day feast.

For Chrystians [sic] this is the night their Messiah sat down with his Inner Cabinet for a last supper before being betrayed by his chancellor, arraigned by his fellow-Jews and butchered by the Roman equivalent of the ‘Waffen SS’.

Friday 10th April 2009 = ‘Chaq Hamatzot’ -The Feast of Unleavened Bread

Passover is immediately followed by this seven-day feast – Unleavened Bread (no cholesterol problems here, then) so, if we want to stick to the original Rule Book, we should all get an eight-day vacation at this time of year, not a three-day one. However, as we have abandoned the original script for the Roman/Anglican copy there is little chance of the British government going out on a limb on this one.

By daylight on this day the kangaroo court had concluded with the Roman governor deciding that one Jew more or less was of little concern compared to the risk of a mob uprising, so, send him off to Golgotha - Skull Hill. Incidentally, the poor chap only carried the horizontal beam (patibulum) not the complete Cross. Patibula were pre-made in bulk, each with a mortise socket to fit onto the upright stakes, which were left up on the hill. So, the

Messiah was dead by sundown and buried by nightfall.

Saturday 11th April 2009 - first day in his tomb

Sunday 12th April 2009 – second day in his tomb

Monday 13th April 2009 – third day in his tomb

Very early on the fourth day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread Peter’s 12-year old son, John Mark, seems to have climbed out of his bedroom window and made his way under cover of the half-light to the burial garden where he was confronted by an empty tomb and an angelic being who informed him that his Flash-Gordon hero had moved aside the three-ton cornerstone and was out and about again.

So convincing was John Mark’s account that about ten years later a converted Saul of Tarsus insisted on taking the young man on a European Tour to convince the Diaspora (scattered Jews) that the Messiah is still alive.

My apologies if this account of events is at variance with the received ‘church’ version, but if Messiah said he was going to be dead for three days and three nights before vacating the Tomb, why do we insist on having the poor soul crucified on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday…Surely someone who heals lepers, turns water into wine and walks on water wouldn’t have made a careless slip-up like that?

I want to apologise if my direct modern style is proving too abrasive for you, but as life is short, I do not wish to be offensive, nor, on the other hand do I wish to waste it by being inoffensive.

I will gladly die for the truth that there is a resurrected Jew on the throne of the universe, but his name certainly wasn’t Jesus Christ then and isn’t Jesus Christ now…

The Vatican are attempting to squeeze the eternal plan of redemption and salvation into a Roman Catholic straitjacket. I will refer to just a couple of your points:

1. cf. Mark 16:5 – a young man met and spoke with the two female witnesses. Not an angel in this portion of the story but a youth just prior to puberty. In v.7 he asks them to tell Messiah’s disciples and Peter about this stupendous event.

Now compare this with Acts 15: 36-40 and THINK about it. A female witness would in those days have carried little weight in the synagogues or before a synhedrin, but by the mouth of two male witnesses – Saul (Paul) and John Mark, Barnabas saw a way to convince the dispersed Jews.

2. I have spent 58 years studying the writings as far back as either my puny European mind or my distinguished family roots will take me, and I still believe that a day consists of 24 hours, whether or not I count from sunset as man was originally instructed, or from sunup as the Western world would have me reckon.

Ancient sources? Will someone please advise the waiting truth-detectives when the Vatican will release for public consumption a full and free translation of those troublesome ‘Dead Sea’ scrolls which they keep hidden away.

Roman Catholics will say– “it is obvious that the crucifixion took place on a Friday”. Obvious to whom? Was the Sunday to Saturday calendar already in common usage during the Roman occupation of Palestina? THINK about it. You believe it was Friday because you have always been taught it that way. I was taught that way too, but it is not the correct thought pattern.

The Vatican leaders know that “in the Roman Empire of the first century, there was no general consensus about the names of the days of the week” and that is why it is so deplorable to change the reported facts in favour of developing a world religious system to control the minds and the money of mankind. If we do that, we are no different from the servants of Islam, who, by dint of their bigotry and asinine teachings will shortly raise a plain black flag over the British Palace of Westminster unless we all stop sleepwalking.

Easter as a term is a corruption because it has been chosen to change the original reported facts, the calendar dates, etc.

Ask yourself when you last had a Jew knock on your house door and invite you to their meetings? They have nothing to prove.

Finally, look again at Stephen [Acts 7:38] on trial for his very life in a Jewish court, he points out to them that, even this side of Calvary and the Resurrection, Messiah still wants him to talk about “this is he that was in the assembly – ‘synagogue’ in the wilderness…”

I want to respect their point of view, but not the practices of a ‘church’ that relies more on tradition than historical truth.

This is why our UK society is in such a mess. We seem to have removed all forms of deterrent from our ‘laws’ and replaced them with wishy-washy psychological treatments.

If we are to accept with our adult minds that the god/man Y’shua came to the world through an unsullied maiden and really did rise again after death, then we are offered, through identification with him, the opportunity to live a life above the carnal level. Where the western world has erred is to suppose that this opportunity is at the expense of the Old Law. Which is why the writer of the Roman epistle says ;

‘…he beareth not the sword in vain..’ – Rom 13:4

The offer of redemption – NOT conversion – is universal. It does NOT exclude the Jew, nor should it have been taken as an excuse to torture and dismember anyone who dared to disagree with the assumed Vatican authority and doctrine – (cf. our Ladino believers in Spain in the 16th century).

The offence to the godhead is for mankind to treat the sacrifice of the Son of Man as of no value, and this has NOTHING to do with fonts, icons or any other papal paraphernalia. I am sorry if this is hard to read, but I have risked my life for this truth and I cannot live in a fellowship which insists on discarding true fact for traditional fiction.

Let's all have a good think about this and decide what we need to do next.

Leymoor Lad

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

Crime Scene?

This tell-tale print was found in blood on the paving flags near our home. It suggests that some small mammal got mugged…

The actual size of the print was approx 15 mm across.

We are still searching for the 'body'

Can anyone suggest who the suspect was?

Sincerely yours
Leymoor Lad - Cowlersley
07866 410682