On “The sin of the world” and “The lie”, what does that mean?
I am a man. I tend to forget anniversaries. They sneak up on me like a thief in the night, and suddenly and without warning I have to think and act fast to come up with something to celebrate the occasion. For women it is usually no problem. They do remember.
People react differently when disaster strikes. On a Monday, October 2, 2006 a man in Nickel Mines, Pa opened fire, killed 5 and wounded 5 Amish school girls in their little one room schoolhouse, then killed himself. The world reacted with horror, but the Amish attended the killer’s funeral and the murderer’s widow attended the funeral of one of the girls. The next Monday the school and privies and fence was no more, the yard and adjacent field was plowed. There was no trace there ever was a school. They chose not to remember the crime against their fellow men, but desired to follow the Lord Jesus’ admonition: “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”
Not so the Muslims.
On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declared an Islamic holy war on behalf of the Ottoman government. He urged his Muslim followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War I.
The Fatwa reads in part: “Of those who go to the Jihad for the sake of happiness and salvation of the believers in God’s victory, the lot of those who remain alive is felicity, while the rank of those who depart to the next world is martyrdom. In accordance with God’s beautiful promise, those who sacrifice their lives to give life to the truth will have honor in this world, and their latter end is paradise.”
The following years nearly two million Christians, mostly Armenians were executed in a genocide. The men were hanged or beheaded, the women and girls were stripped naked, raped and then crucified by the thousands.
On November 14, 2014, exactly 100 years later the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. hosted a Muslim Friday prayer, off limits to Christians.
Coincidence? I think not.
The intent was good, reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. “If we show our good will, they will reciprocate, and the world will be a better place with peace and good will toward men.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
When John the Baptist saw Jesus coming he proclaimed: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”.
Why is “the sin” singular? There are many sins, in fact everything that is not in perfect accordance with God’s will can be called a sin.
In a way the Muslim prayer in the Washington Cathedral is a good example of “the sin of the world”.
The Muslims issued the call to prayer, the men (separate from the women” prostrated themselves with their face to Mecca and their derrieres towards the crucifix, proclaiming “Allah Akbar”. In so doing they declared the Washington Cathedral “Dar-al-Islam”, territory claimed for the Islamic Caliphate in perpetuity. But that is not “The sin”.
The sin is denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, Crucified, buried and resurrected. Somehow, in the minds of the Episcopal Church leaders, this is less important than ecumenism. The Muslims, while acknowledging the virgin birth of Jesus Christ deny his death, burial and resurrection. If they did accept this, that would make Muhammad a liar, thus blaspheming the Prophet.
There was a woman, Christine Weick, who drove all the way from her Tennessee home to deliver a message of truth to the Muslim worshipers: “Jesus Christ died on that cross over there. He is the reason why we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.”
She continued, “We have built, and allowed you here in mosques across this country. Why can’t you worship in your mosque, and leave our churches alone?”
She was quickly escorted out of the Cathedral and prayer continued with their faces to Mecca and their derrieres towards the cross.
The Sin is unbelief in the Lord Jesus Christ and the redemption, God reconciling us back to himself through the power of the cross. The sin of willfully separating ourselves from God and rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is what John the Baptist referred to when he said: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”.
Now for “The lie”.
Lies seem to be increasing, especially in politics. (Politics as you know comes from two Greek words: Poly which means many, and ticks which means blood sucking pests) Politics is also the art of the possible, where you bring different factions together and come to a solution that is mutually beneficial for all parties. This only works if the negotiations are based on truthfulness rather than lies.
So, what is “The lie”?
Satan is referred to as “the father of lies”, but that is lies in plural, and we are perfectly capable of lying ourselves, so let us not involve him here except for one thing: It started in the Garden of Eden. Satan, in the form of the serpent said: “Did God really say…?” This started the ball rolling and man was separated from God.
There are two scriptural references to “The lie”
Romans 1:24-25 (NKJV) Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
“The lie” can be best explained as refusal to accept and worship God as the Creator and sustainer of all things, and a strangely fitting anniversary can best explain the lie.
On April 22 1870, VladimirLenin (Владимир Ильич Ленин) was born. He is the father of modern revolutionary communism, atheistic and centered around the idea that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
April 22 1970, exactly 100 years later it was time for the first Earth day.
Coincidence? I think not.
It started innocently enough with Ira Einhorn (The unicorn killer) as master of ceremonies in Philadelphia, PA “We only have one earth, so we need to take care of her.” That’s what Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin believed. So he organized the movement. The mantra was: “By the year 2000 the earth will be 10 degrees colder than today unless we act to clean up our air”. This lead to the creation of the EPA, a Clean Air Act, and the threat of the new ice age was averted.
This was a great success, and the environmentalists grew bolder and wanted more action on pollution and habitat protection, but the movement was taken over by the communists, socialists and humanists that saw population control as the main goal to save the planet. They formed a coalition under the banner of “saving the world from the coming environmental catastrophe”.
It was now getting warmer again after the temporary cooling during the 60’s and 70’s, so the earth day movement needed a new attack point to continue their fight for a better and sustainable earth. They found an unlikely ally in Margaret Thatcher, who had her run in with the coal unions that was ruining Britain’s economy, mining coal seams as narrow as a few inches. She wanted to do away with unprofitable coal and concentrate on nuclear power, and the greenhouse effect of CO2 started to get promoted. It took on a life of its own. Research money was suddenly available to study the atmosphere and climate.
Let me pause here and indulge in a personal anecdote. Many years ago, around 1977 Dr. James Lovelock bought a number of HP Gas Chromatographs to set up in the remotest corners of the earth to study pollution and its effect on the climate. What he found was an unexpectedly large amount of dimethylsulphide (DMS) (ref 3) in the atmosphere, and that acted as a condensation point for cloud formation. He was then a paid consultant for Hewlett Packard, so he came over from his native England a couple of times a year, always willing to hold a seminar for us engineers, and at one of them he sprung “Daisy-world” on us, before it was published, mostly to see if we could poke holes in his hypothesis. It involved a world that consisted of only two flowers, black daisies and white daisies. The computer simulation starts out with a cold world and a weak sun. The sun warms up until suddenly black daisies appear and cover the earth. This warms the earth some more and white daisies appear. As the sun varies in intensity the mix of white and black daisies changes and this keeps the earth at a stable temperature, as they have different reflective properties. He then went on to say that the whole earth is like a living organism.
Some time later he presented the paper and the next year we asked him how it was received. “You won’t believe it”, he answered. ”Now there are people who actually believe the earth is a living organism. They demand follow-up articles that justifies their belief.” He had partly himself to blame, the name he chose was the GAIA hypothesis, Gaia being the Mother earth Goddess. Talking about religion the Mother Earth people now had their goddess, and expressions like. “The earth has a temperature” became commonplace. For me, being a Christian I read with wonderment what God has to say about the Ecosystem.
We find this in Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV) And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
The creation story is interesting reading. God takes a whole day out His busy schedule of creation just to create the clouds. In days three to five of creation He adds the statement “And God saw that it was good”, on day six it was “very good”. Could it be that God knows the ecosystem is fragile and we are going to mess it up beyond repair? Exactly why was it then very good? Could it be it was very good after the whole creation was complete, all the components that make up a stable ecosystem was put in place? First then could He finally say: Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Let us hurry back to our quest for something other than pollution that acts as a negative feedback to make the temperature system stable. With some anxiety (we are part of the ecosystem, so we better try to understand it) but also assurance we return to the GAIA factor.
As is mentioned before, Dr. Lovelock had found unusually high amounts of dimethylsulphide (DMS) in places far from any pollution source. Something must have put it there. It turns out DMS is a waste product from phytoplankton, an abundant life form in the oceans, low on the food chain. As ocean temperature rises, phytoplankton levels increase, suggesting a possible feedback mechanism. The DMS molecules act as a condensation kernel for the formation of Clouds. This is something that it is hard to get a grip on. Clouds have a positive feedback as they hold in heat once captured by the earth, but that is more than offset by the large negative feedback that is caused by the albedo factor. The white clouds act as a reflector, and more of the solar energy gets reflected back out into space. This negative feedback factor can be as high as – 1.9 W m-2/°C. This means there is a strong negative feedback in the ecosystem keeping the earth from boiling over since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
None of this mattered to the Mother Earth people believing in GAIA. They formed a coalition with the communists and socialists and Global Governance advocates and convinced U.N. that CO2 was bad and needed to be controlled, and so IPCC was formed to give the scientific justification why it was necessary to control CO2 emissions. I do not know how many Global Climate models there are out there, but I have seen (1) a chart with 73 Climate models, all pointing to a rapidly warming earth, plotted versus reality, which shows a more or less stable temperature versus time. But the models are all paid for by Government money, so the more, the merrier. They all do a lousy job modeling clouds, so no wonder they fail. (2) But they produce the result the funding agencies demanded for continuing funding, so the charade goes on. The models are all based on a positive feedback with increasing temperatures. When it gets warmer, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, and since water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, it gets warmer still. In reality, the opposite is true. With increased water vapor there will form clouds earlier and lasting longer, leading to a negative feedback that tends to keep temperatures more stable. More CO2 will aid in that stability. Granted, there is still increasing temperatures with increasing CO2, but instead of a gain of 2 to 3, which the models predict, there is an attenuation of about 2 to 3, so the real temperature rise is one ninth to a quarter of what the models predict.
But the models are useful for one thing: To create an urgency in people, so they will go along with Global Governance, or an unelected government taking control of the energy resources.
But even that is a side issue. The real issue is people control as expressed in Agenda 21. The world has about 7.1 billion people, and some have calculated that an ideal, sustainable world has room for only 700 million people, if enough areas are set aside for wildlife and nature preserves. After all, the animals were here first!
This attitude is expressed in a number of recent government advisers.
The “architect” of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber’s abortion advocacy is of a particularly pungent eugenics variety. He’s on record repeatedly making the case from social science that abortion is a “social good” because it reduces the number of “marginal children,” by which he means urban poor—those he says can be counted on to commit crimes if they were ever born.
The Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren has a plethora of population control suggestions:
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
On Involuntary fertility control :…
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
Toward a Planetary Regime:
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.
We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force:
If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.
This is more than enough to give a hint on what the Obama Administration meant by “Fundamental transformation”
This is what happens when people start to serve “The Creature rather than the Creator” and that is “The Lie”.
The connection between “The sin” and “The lie”, represented by Muslims annihilating Christians, and progressives annihilating people is their hatred for the Cross. The Muslims deny Jesus Christ as redeemer by his substitutionary death on the cross, and the progressives deny the cross as redemption of mankind, substituting God with man as redeemer.
This explains the hatred of the cross. It is an offense and a stumbling block for the unbeliever.
Lennart Bilén, 2014
(1) Real temperature over time versus predicted by models.
(2) Model cloud cover versus rality