Tuesday, September 1, 2015
FALSE PROPHET POPE FRANCIS WILL SEEK TO CORRUPT AMERICA THIS SEPTEMBER WITH JESUIT ANTI-REFORMATION AGENDA~POPE ALLOWS PRIESTS TO FORGIVE WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS "IF CONTRITE"
Vatican : The False Prophet Gives Priests The Power To Forgive The Sin of Abortion (Sept 01, 2015)
NO EXCOMMUNICATION FOR 1 YEAR?
Schedule: 2015 Apostolic Journey Of Pope Francis To The United States Of America
Our Lord's Victory Cry, "It is Finished!"
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Only when sinners realize their hopeless and helpless condition can they begin to understand the glorious promises revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Everything that man could never do was completely accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ. His mission to seek and to save the lost culminated on the cross. The work of salvation was finished. The eternal sin debt was paid in full. Since it was an eternal debt, it was impossible for man to pay. But God forgave us "all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col. 2:13-14).
Jesus "appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26). Yet Catholicism rejects the Word of God by teaching a Catholic must do "something more to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction for' or 'expiate' his sins. This satisfaction is called 'penance'" (CCC, par. 1459). What a terrible deception this is for faithful Roman Catholics who look to their church, rather than the Bible, for truth! By adding to the perfect and sufficient work of Christ they have nullified God's grace which is the only means by which God saves sinners (Rom. 11:6). The very purpose Christ became our kinsman redeemer and suffered an excruciating death was to expiate sin, once and for all, by His perfect sacrifice.
Roman Catholicism also rejects another finished work of Christ: the purification of sins. God's Word declares "when He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1:3). Those who trust Christ alone are purified from all sin, by His blood (1 John 1:7). Catholicism denies the efficacy of Christ's blood and instead offers a place called "purgatory." It states: "every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory" (CCC, par..1472). How can a religion which names the name of Christ reject His precious blood for a fictitious place that robs Him of His glory?
After finishing His all-sufficient work on the cross, Jesus now offers His righteousness as a gift to all who believe (Rom. 5:17). The only way to receive the gift is by faith in Christ alone. Those who are blinded by religious deception must do what the Apostle Paul did. He exchanged his religion for a relationship with Christ. He wrote: "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Phil 3:8-9).
The Finished Work of Christ for His People
He testified to the truth; listen to Him! (John 14:6; 18:37; Acts 3:22)
He came to give life to people who are spiritually dead. (John 14:6)
He gave us access to the Father. (John 14:6; Mat. 27:51)
He gave His life as a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:28)
He bore our sins in His body on a tree. (1 Peter 2:24)
He died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)
He gave Himself up for us as a sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:2)
He died so that we may live together with Him. (1 Thes. 5:9-10)
He gave Himself for us to purify His people. (Titus 2:14)
He died for sins, once for all, to bring us to God. (1 Peter 3:18)
He exchanged our sin for His righteousness. (2 Cor. 5:21)
He has forgiven all our sins. (Col. 1:14)
He purified us from all sins. (1 John 1:7; Hebrews 1:3)
He has reconciled us to God. (Ephesians 2:14-18)
He redeemed us from the power of sin. (Galatians 3:10-14)
He saved us from condemnation. (John 3:18, 5:24)
He delivered us from darkness into His kingdom. (Col. 1:13)
He satisfied divine justice for our sin. (1 John 2:2)
He made us into new creations. (2 Cor. 5:17)
He is the only Name by which man can be saved. (Acts 4:12)
What a glorious and all-sufficient Savior we have in Christ Jesus!"
"EX CATHEDRA" ORDER
FROM THE THRONE OF THE POPE
EASES PATH TO ABSOLUTION FOR ABORTION
BIG ANNOUNCEMENT: INFOWARS’ PLAN TO WAKE UP 400 MILLION REVEALED
27-hour money bomb to take Infowars to the next level
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/big-announcement-infowars-plan-to-wake-up-400-million-revealed/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Infowars is excited to announce our 2015 Money Bomb fundraiser which will allow us to take our independent media operation to the next level.
MOZILLA SLAMS MICROSOFT OVER WINDOWS 10 EDGE BROWSER DEFAULTS~PUBLIC'S INCREASING SECRECY, SPYWARE & PRIVACY LOSS CONCERNS ABOUT WINDOWS 10
Mozilla CEO Slams Microsoft Over Windows 10 Browser Defaults, In An Open Letter To Microsoft CEO
An Open Letter to Microsoft’s CEO: Don’t Roll Back the Clock on Choice and Control
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Satya,I am writing to you about a very disturbing aspect of Windows 10. Specifically, that the update experience appears to have been designed to throw away the choice your customers have made about the Internet experience they want, and replace it with the Internet experience Microsoft wants them to have.When we first saw the Windows 10 upgrade experience that strips users of their choice by effectively overriding existing user preferences for the Web browser and other apps, we reached out to your team to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, it didn’t result in any meaningful progress, hence this letter.We appreciate that it’s still technically possible to preserve people’s previous settings and defaults, but the design of the whole upgrade experience and the default settings APIs have been changed to make this less obvious and more difficult. It now takes more than twice the number of mouse clicks, scrolling through content and some technical sophistication for people to reassert the choices they had previously made in earlier versions of Windows. It’s confusing, hard to navigate and easy to get lost.Mozilla exists to bring choice, control and opportunity to everyone. We build Firefox and our other products for this reason. We build Mozilla as a non-profit organization for this reason. And we work to make the Internet experience beyond our products represent these values as much as we can.Sometimes we see great progress, where consumer products respect individuals and their choices. However, with the launch of Windows 10 we are deeply disappointed to see Microsoft take such a dramatic step backwards.These changes aren’t unsettling to us because we’re the organization that makes Firefox. They are unsettling because there are millions of users who love Windows and who are having their choices ignored, and because of the increased complexity put into everyone’s way if and when they choose to make a choice different than what Microsoft prefers.We strongly urge you to reconsider your business tactic here and again respect people’s right to choice and control of their online experience by making it easier, more obvious and intuitive for people to maintain the choices they have already made through the upgrade experience. It also should be easier for people to assert new choices and preferences, not just for other Microsoft products, through the default settings APIs and user interfaces.Please give your users the choice and control they deserve in Windows 10.Sincerely,Chris Beard CEO, Mozilla_______________________________________________________________
POLITICALLY INCORRECT: AMERICAN ICONS, MONUMENTS, STATUES, MEMORABILIA, IMAGES & SPEECH UNDER ATTACK~OBAMA CHANGES NAME OF MOUNT MCKINLEY TO "DENALI" WITHOUT PEOPLES' INPUT
EVEN A MOUNTAIN IS RENAMED
BY HIS "EXECUTIVE ORDER"
A NATIVE ALASKAN WORD
"YOU MUST 'DEFER' TO MINORITIES"!
"YOU MUST NOT USE DESCRIPTIVE, 'HATEFUL' WORDS"!
College ban on ‘offensive’ words gets banned
SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/13664/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Washington State University on Monday announced that it would not allow instructors to make “blanket” bans on the use of certain words or phrases in class, even if those words and phrases offend people. Further, the university said that instructors could not punish students for use of such words or phrases. The announcement followed a barrage of criticism of the syllabus for Women & Popular Culture, a women’s studies course, that banned specific words and phrases and set out punishments for their use. Here is the language on the syllabus: “Gross generalizations, stereotypes and derogatory/oppressive language are not acceptable. Use of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, classist or generally offensive language in class or submission of such material will not be tolerated. (This includes ‘The Man,’ ‘Colored People,’ ‘Illegals/Illegal Aliens,’ ‘Tranny’ and so on — or referring to women/men as females or males.) If I see it or hear it, I will correct it in class since it can be a learning moment for many students. Repeated use of oppressive and hateful language will be handled accordingly — including but not limited to removal from the class without attendance or participation points, failure of the assignment, and — in extreme cases — failure for the semester.” This summer has seen several instances in which websites of various college or university groups have featured language discouraging the use of words and phrases that many find offensive. There was much discussion in July about the “bias-free language guide” at the University of New Hampshire, but UNH never actually banned any words or phrases. One office published some recommendations for those seeking to avoid offending others, and most people at UNH didn’t know that the guide existed until it was debated nationally — and the university affirmed that there was no requirement to follow its suggestions. In the Washington State syllabus, however, there was a specific statement that the instructor could punish any students using the banned words and phrases. And that appears to have led the university (which, as a public institution, must provide First Amendment protections) to get involved. The university statement said that it was asking all faculty members to review their policies “to ensure that students’ right to freedom of expression is protected along with a safe and productive learning environment.” The statement said: “Over the weekend, we became aware that some faculty members, in the interest of fostering a constructive climate for discussion, included language in class syllabi that has been interpreted as abridging students’ free speech rights. We are working with these faculty members to clarify, and in some cases modify, course policies to ensure that students’ free speech rights are recognized and protected. No student will have points docked merely as a result of using terms that may be deemed offensive to some. Blanket restriction of the use of certain terms is not consistent with the values upon which this university is founded. Free speech and a constructive climate for learning are not incompatible. We aim to cultivate diversity of expression while protecting individual rights and safety.” Selena Lester Breikss, the instructor, referred questions on her syllabus to the university’s public relations office. Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University at East Bay and chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, said via email that there are multiple issues at play in the debate over the Washington State syllabus. “Faculty members have the right to take measures designed to ensure a classroom atmosphere conducive to free and open discussion and debate,” Reichman said. And he noted that the syllabus doesn’t just ban some words or phrases, but references the value of civilized debate. He pointed with favor to a part of the syllabus that says: “We all have differing opinions, beliefs and practices. The course materials may challenge your personal beliefs or opinions, and this is an open space to discuss these disagreements in a civilized, academic manner.” The problem, Reichman said, is that “blanket bans on specific words or expressions that some may find offensive would seem actually to contradict the true spirit of open and free discussion.” The AAUP opposes speech codes, Reichman said. And while AAUP policy specifically condemns institutional speech codes, he said that “the underlying principle itself should also apply to individual faculty members insofar as the views or words expressed by students in class are relevant to the course material.” He praised Washington State for saying that it was working with faculty members on these issues. “I am confident that the appropriate educational aims of the faculty members involved, and their academic freedom to control curriculum, can and will be consistent with protection of their students’ rights to free expression and open debate,” he said.