Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
How to ESCAPE From HOMOSEXUALITY
life. How can one escape from it?
1 - Recognize that it is a choice,
and that you can have the power to
control your choices. Determine that
you want to change, and are going to
change.
2 - Go to God and ask Him for help!
Cry and plead with Him alone in your
room. Read the Bible and claim its
promises. God promises you enabling
strength to resist temptation and overcome
sin, through the empowering
grace of His Son, Jesus Christ. The
change can be made; you can do it—as
you continue, moment by moment, to
rely on God for strength. You will not
give up; you will keep crying for help
and taking hold of His strength.
3 - Keep praying. Keep your
thoughts on the right things; and, if
they begin to stray, bring them back to
good subjects. Sing a hymn. Send up
a prayer. Read a Bible promise you
marked or recite one you have memorized.
Reach for a pocket Bible or New
Testament and begin reading it and
praying. As you continue doing this,
the old way of life will gradually fade
away. We all have temptations to resist;
gays are not unique! Everyone can
be helped equally by the God of heaven.
4 - In 1980, a friend told me that
her brother was a homosexual, and
that he really wanted to escape it. I
told her the strange things homosexuals
did revealed it was devil-possession,
and to tell her brother to
plead with God and tell the demon to
leave.
She went home and phoned her
brother. Alone, in a distant city, he
got down on his knees and pled with
God for help, meant it,—and then
commanded the devil to leave.
He said that he felt something
coming out through the top of his
head, and as it was departing, said
in a deep man’s voice, “My name is
Queer!”
The young man was perfectly
freed from that bondage.
Unfortunately, he did not maintain
that close walk with God, and
several years later chose to return to
it. He died in 1992 with AIDS. (Read
Matthew 12:43-45.)
My friend, whoever you are, whatever
your problem—there is deliverance
in Jesus Christ! Go to Him just
now, cling to Him day by day, study
and obey His Word.
——————————————
“Ye shall seek Me, and find
Me, when ye shall search for Me
with all your heart.”
—Jeremiah 29:13
“He shall call upon Me, and
I will answer him: I will be with
him in trouble; I will deliver
him, and honour him.”
—Psalm 91:15
“And it shall come to pass,
that before they call, I will answer;
and while they are yet
speaking, I will hear.”
—Isaiah 65:24
“If we confess our sins, He
is faithful and just to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness.”
—1 John 1:9 Excerpt from sdadefend.com
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
Harvest Herbs: Horehound
Horehound
Part used: Tops, flowers, leaves
Properties: Diaphoretic, expectorant, tonic
What it affects: Lungs, chest and stomach
Purposes: Internally: Horehound is especially useful as a remedy for coughing and bronchial problems. As an expectorant for bronchial catarrh, it can be taken as a tea or syrup. It is used for acute and chronic bronchitis, as well as coughs and hoarseness. It is useful in chronic sore throats and pulmonary problems. Use it in syrup form for children.
Horehound decreases thickness and increases fluidity of mucus in the bronchial tubes and lungs. Useful for hay fever, sinusitis and other respiratory disorders. Boosts immune system.
Horehound is also used for typhoid fever. It is said to restore the normal balance of secretions by various organs and glands. It is used for heart conditions, to calm heart action. It is also used for asthma, dyspepsia, hay fever, bloating, fevers and jaundice.. It boosts the immune system. Taken warm, it is diuretic; taken cold, it makes a good stomach tonic.
Externally: Horehound tea or crushed horehound leaves can be applied for temporary or persistant skin problems.
Preparation:
Infusion: Steep 20 min, take 6 oz at a time, frequently.
Powder: 5-10 capsules 3 times daily.
Tincture: Take 20-60 drops 3 times daily.
Fluid extract: 1/2 to 1 tsp 3 times daily.
Syrup:1/2 to 1 tsp 3 times daily.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
For The Love of Peanuts
ATTENTION HEALTH NUTS
There’s preliminary evidence that boiled peanuts may be the Popeye’s spinach of the legume family.
A study published last year by the University of Alabama at Huntsville examined the nutritional benefits produced by processing peanuts in different ways—specifically, boiling, dry-roasting and oil-roasting. It concluded that peanuts processed by boiling contain more antioxidants than roasted peanuts, peanut butter, or even peanuts in the raw.
The boiling process appears to draw out isoflavones, powerful antioxidants that may reduce the risk of cancer, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. The Alabama study showed that boiled peanuts contain up to four times more isoflavones than their dry- and oil-roasted brethren.
PEANUT-BOILING 101
Freak out your Yankee friends by showing up with a pot of these boiled peanuts at the next social function. They’re fool-proof to prepare, and whether they’re a hit or a bust, at least they’re a better conversation-starter than the usual chips-and-salsa or cheese log.
Ingredients:
--4 to 5 pounds of green (raw) peanuts in the shell
--4 to 6 quarts of water
--1 cup plain salt
Directions:
Wash unshelled peanuts thoroughly in cold water until water runs clear. Then soak in cool, clean water for approximately 30 minutes before cooking.
In a large pot, placed soaked peanuts and cover completely with water. Add one cup of salt per gallon of water. Cook, covered, on high heat for four to seven hours. (Note: The cooking time of boiled peanuts varies according to the maturity of the peanuts used and the variety of peanuts. The cooking time for a “freshly pulled” or green peanut is shorter than for a peanut that has been stored for a time.)
Boil the peanuts for about four hours, then taste. Taste again in 10 minutes, both for salt and texture. Keep cooking and tasting until the peanuts reach desired texture. (When fully cooked, the texture of the peanut should be similar to that of a cooked dry pea or bean.)
Remove from heat and drain peanuts after cooking or they will absorb salt and become oversalted. Peanuts may be eaten hot or at room temperature, or chilled in the refrigerator and eaten cold, shelling as you eat them.
—Recipe used with permission from its author, Linda Stradley, and her website whatscookingamerica.net.
Just exactly what Polyene Mburu told me!! Thanks Poly.
Email Ettiquette
A friend who's a computer expert received the following from a system administrator for a corporate system. It is an excellent message that absolutely applies to all of us who send emails. Please read the short letter below, even if you're sure you already follow proper procedures. Do you really know how to forward emails? Only 50% of us do.
Do you wonder why you get viruses or junk mail and hate it? Every time you forward an email there is information left over from the people who got it before you. Namely their email addresses and names. As the messages get forwarded along, the list of addresses build and build, until all it takes is for some poor sap to get a virus and his/ her computer can send that virus to every email address that has come across his computer. Or, someone can take all of those addresses and sell or send them junk mail in the hopes that you'll go to the site and he'll make five cents for each hit. That's right, all of that inconvenience over a nickel! How do you stop it? There are several easy steps. Try the following if you aren't doing it already, it only takes a second or two:
(1) When you forward an email, delete all of the addresses that appear in the body of the message (at the top). That's right, delete them. Highlight them and delete them, backspace them, cut them, whatever it is you know how to do. It only takes a second. You must click the 'Forward' button first and then you will have full editing capabilities against the body and headers of the message. If you don't click 'Forward' first, you won't be able to edit the message at all.
(2) Whenever you send an email to more than one person, do not use the To: or Cc: fields for adding addresses. Al ways use the BCC: (blind carbon copy) field for listing the addresses. This way the people you send to will only see their own email address. If you don't see your BCC: option click on where it says To: and your address list will appear. Highlight the address and choose BCC and that's it, it's that easy. When you send to BCC your message will automatically say 'Undisclosed Recipients' in the 'TO:' field of the people who receive it.
(3) Remove any 'FW ' in the subject line. You can rename the subject if you wish or even fix spelling.
(4) Always hit your Forward button from the actual email you are reading. Ever get those emails that you have to open 10 pages to read the one page with the information on it? By Forwarding from the actual page you wish someone to view, you stop them from having to open many emails just to see what you sent.
(5) Have you ever gotten an email that is a petition? It states a position and asks you to add your name and to forward it to 10 or 15 people or your entire address book. The email can be forwarded on and on and can collect thousands of names and addresses. A FACT: The petition is actually worth a couple of bucks to a professional spammer because of the wealth of names and addresses contained there. Do not put your email address on any petition. If you want to support the petition, send it as your own personal letter to the intended recipient. Your position may carry more weight as a personal letter than a laundry list of names and addresses on a petition. (And don't believe the ones that say that the email is being traced, it just ain't so!)
Some of the other emails to delete and not forward are:
1. The one that says something like, 'Send this email to 10 people and you'll see something great run across your screen.' Or sometimes they'll just tease you by saying 'some-thing really cute will happen.' IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! (We're still seeing some of the same emails from 10 years ago!)
2. Don't let the bad luck ones scare you, trash them .
3. Before you forward an 'Amber Alert', or a 'Virus Alert', or some of the other emails floating around now-a-days, check them out before you for-ward them. Most of them are junk mail that's been circling for YEARS! Just about everything you receive in an email that is in question can be checked out at Snopes. Just go to www. snopes.com <http://snopes.com/> . It's really easy to find out if it's real or not. If it's not, don't pass it on.
So please, in the future, let's stop the junk mail and the viruses.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
***The Sin of Bath-Sheba***
The Sin of Bath-Sheba: A Plea for Modesty in Gods People
This excellent article is a joint effort in sharing the thoughts of an insightful anonymous author.
If you and your family have a teachable spirit, you'll appreciate this article. The author has a perspective I hadn't thought of before. Now that I'm more aware I can't help but make a change. I hope you will gain a blessing by this article.
Introductory Comments by another Brother in Christ:
I did not author the following article, although I wish I had. However I felt the following perspective might be of help for those sincere Christians who will seriously take that information to heart.
There are two prime directives that exists in every living creature. 1. Survival. 2. Procreation. While the first deals primarily with the acquisition of food (appetite, the second deals exclusively with reproduction (sex).
God created each and every one of his creatures with these two prime directives perfectly in balance (and He saw that it was good). However, an enemy (the old devil) has spent his entire destructive energies toward perverting these two prime directives. Mankind was created in the image and likeness of God. It has always been Satan's design to bring man down from that high and noble position, to be nothing more than a brute beast. Has he accomplished that purpose by corrupting and perverting these two prime directives in mankind.
It is the case in nature, the animal kingdom, that instinct drives them to display themselves in such a manner as to attract a breeding mate. Is it possible that Satan has been so successful in bringing mankind down from (the image and likeness of God) that we are behaving towards each other in a manner which in reality, is nothing less than an animalized fulfilment of the second prime directive.
An organ in the brain, the hypothalamus, controls many functions of the body. It is interesting that this organ controls 1. Appetite and 2. Sex drive. Where you see one malfunction concerning this organ you will very likely see the other. What have we done with God's body, the temple of His Holy Spirit? May He have mercy on us.
Jesus can help us, but it will not be without pain.
Please read the following article very prayerfully!
Sincerely,
Your brother in the tender love of Jesus
The Sin of Bath-Sheba
2 Samuel 11:2
An Address to Christian Women
By a Brother in Christ
We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention the sin of Bath-sheba. And it is true enough that David's sin was very great and Bath-sheba's very small. David's sin was deliberate and presumptuous, Bath-Sheba's only a sin of ignorance. David committed adultery and murder; Bath-Sheba only carelessly and undesignedly exposed herself before David's eyes. We have no doubt that David's sin was great and Bath-Sheba's small. Yet it remains a fact that Bath-Sheba's little sin was the *cause * of David's great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless exposure of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame. "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" On the one side, only a little carelessness--only a little thoughtless, unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband, besides the death in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and death of Absalom; the defiling of David's wives in the sight of all Israel,; the sword never departing from David's house (II Samuel 12:11-18).
Again I say, "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" None of this great evil would ever have taken place if Bath-Sheba had only been careful not to display her body in the sight of a man.
Observe: she neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil, yet she was the occasion of it all. She did not display herself *purposely* or *wantonly*:she did it only *ignorantly* and *thoughtlessly*. Yet the results of her little sin of ignorance were just the same as if it had been purposeful wantonness.
Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many Christian women today who are guilty of the same carelessness as Bath-sheba was. Godly women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly displaying their bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display themselves habitually, by the manner in which they dress. I do not write to accuse them of intentional wantonness. I believe they are as innocent of that as Bath-Sheba was. But neither can I altogether excuse them from blame in the matter. The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of feminine dress are provocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man--and are Christian women alone altogether naive and ignorant? This can hardly be; and yet I do not write to blame you, but to instruct you--to provoke you to love and good works, to make you thoughtful where you have been thoughtless before, to make you careful for the spiritual welfare of the weakest of your brethren, where you were careless about it before, to make you wise where before you were simple.
The first thing that must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes of others is wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When Adam and Eve sinned, "God made coats of skins, and clothed them". The sole reason for his clothing them was to cover their nakedness, as the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with *coats*. They were already wearing aprons, which probably covered as much as, or more than, much of the clothing that is worn today. Yet, in spite of their aprons, they were still naked in their own eyes and God's.
And God did not clothe them with shorts, or swimming suits, or tank tops, or "halter" tops, or anything of the sort--not with jackets, either, but with coats, long coats, or *robes* as the word might be properly translated: .Observe further, he "clothed *them*" with coats. He did not clothe Eve with a coat, and Adam with a pair of shorts. He clothed them *both* with *coats*--whence we may assuredly gather that nakedness is just as wrong in a man as it is in a woman.
But if it is equally wrong for a man to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for the passions of women are not so easily or thoroughly aroused by the sight of a man's body--and many women affirm that the sight does not arouse them at all. A man may therefore (though he ought not to) go three-fourths naked, and not do so much damage by it. But when a woman exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because this is a fact, you are not at liberty to dress any way you please.
"What? Know ye not your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For you are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. " as well as your spirit. (I Cor. 6:19-20)
But if you dress in such a way as to expose your body, or parts of it, to the lustful gaze of every man who chooses to look at you, you certainly do not glorify God in your body. And if you fear God and love your neighbor, you *dare* not dress so. You dare not use the temple of the Holy Ghost as an instrument of unrighteousness to allure the eyes and tempt the hearts and tantalize the passions of men.
Many men are wicked and will lust after you in spite of anything you can do to prevent it. They have "eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin" (II Pet. 2:14). Should you therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God excuse you if you do? Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not wicked. He was a man after God's own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman, he was weak--and it would be a rare man who was not. Brethren in Christ are not wicked, but they may be weak. And the devil does all he can do to weaken them further. They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights which are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of heart.
And must Christian women help the devil do his work? Must they make themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the congregation of God? Oh, that you could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you arouse their desires by the careless display of your feminine beauty. Oh, that you could hear their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of these temptations. Oh that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.
The fact is, you have no such right. You have no right to destroy by your careless dress the brother for whom Christ died. You are bought with a price, and you are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your body - to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little of real love for the souls of your brethren would remove for ever from your heart the desire to dress as you please. For, "We then that are strong ought to bear with the Infirmities [that is, weaknesses] of the weak, and *not to please ourselves*. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself, but as it is written, " the reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me ". (Rom. 15:1-3) Christ was willing to deny himself all the glories of heaven, and bear all the reproaches of the ungodly for your sake, in order to save your soul, and will you plead for your right to please yourself in your dress? Can you not deny yourself a little of comfort to save another man's soul? Can you not bear a little reproach for being "old-fashioned" or "out of style", in order to help your brother in his battle against sin?
You may think I'm making too much of too little. You may suppose the case is not so serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a woman, and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man's. They are (generally speaking) not so strong as a man's. Neither are they so easily excited or inflamed as a man's. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man's. If you would understand the workings of a man's passions towards a woman, you must take a man's word for it. You cannot experience it yourself. And the plain fact is, a man's passions are easily excited by the *sight*of woman's body, as was plainly the case with David and Bath-Sheba, when he beheld her washing herself. Most men, 'tis true, will be better able to resist your allurement than David did Bath-Sheba's. They will not go so far as to seduce or rape you. But how do you know that they can resist the thought and desire of it? How do you know they do not sin with their eyes and heart and imagination? There is great pleasure to a man in merely looking and lusting, even though he goes no farther. You know very well the Bible says, "Whosoever *looketh* on a woman to *lust* after her, hath committed adultery already with her in his heart"(Matt 5:28), and will you say that this is not a serious matter? It is serious, for it is *sin* , and sin is serious.
Sin blights and deforms and ruins and destroys and damns. And if you would know just *how* serious a matter this is, you need only read the next verse, which says, "if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body be cast into hell". Here is probably the most solemn statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of sin, and it is spoken with reference to the very sin, which you may so lightly and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress.
This is not a light matter and you dare not treat it lightly. At this point, you may say, "Amen: all true, but I do not need to hear it, for *I* dress modestly". Are you quite sure of it? If you follow the practices and fashions of this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly, for modesty is ignored by many of them, and purposely thrown to the wind by many others. And it may be that you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a man's eyes, are unable to perceive that which may really be tempting and provocative in your own dress. God would have you to be "as wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Matt 10:16). But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly neither wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you may be, you are following a system of fashion which is designed by wicked men and devils to break down and destroy the morals of men. Not harmless, for however little you may intend it, you thus make yourself a fiery dart in the hands of the wicked one to tempt every man who sees you. You will pardon my plain speaking then, if I give you some specific instructions in order to make you *wise*. That being done, I have confidence that the godliness of your own heart will make you *harmless*.
As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothes for Adam and Eve was to cover their nakedness, and any clothing which fails to do so cannot be right. Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are *wrong* wrong in the sight of that God who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Shorts, halter tops, swimming suits, and anything and everything else which intentionally leave you partially nude, have no place in the dress of a woman professing godliness. Whatever the rest of the world may do, *you* are bound to do *right*. And whatever the rest of the *church* may do, you are bound to do right. And the things, which I just mentioned, are so obvious and so flagrant a violation of the purpose of God in clothing you, that there ought not to be a moment's question as to what is right. But (alas) the standards of the church are sunk so low in our day that there are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such things. They will actually defend what is called "mixed bathing"--that is, men and women freely mixing together in almost a state of nudity. Have they no shame? Have they no sense? I do not believe they will defend such things when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ. If they have no shame now, they will have some then. Meanwhile, we will say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the purpose of God. Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant, nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing.
*Short dresses*
You need no one to tell you that these are wrong. The whole world knows they are provocative to a man's eyes. But women who profess godliness, women who ought to know better, will simply follow the current fashions of the world, long or short, without any reference to what is *right*. Others will quibble about how short is too short. Rather than making very sure their dresses are plenty long, they will make them as short as they dare, while still persuading themselves they are long enough. You may stand at attention in front of your mirror, and persuade yourself that your too-short dress reveals nothing, but only let you sit down, only let you bend over, only let you get in or out of a car, and what a spectacle of nudity you present. And whether you design it or not, and whether you like it or not, those nude legs and thighs of yours are provocation to lust in the eyes of men.
For the same reason you ought to have nothing to do with those skirts which are slit half-way up the sides. Who cannot see the design of such a fashion is to expose your thighs to view? Or is it to enable you to walk? So much the worse if it is. If your skirt is so tight, that you cannot walk without cutting the sides, by all means throw it away, and get something with a little more material. We shall have more to say about *tight* clothing later on.
Do you ask how long your dresses out to be? See that your legs are well covered below the knee, front and back, while you are bending over and sitting down, and you will be safe enough. But be careful here: it is not enough that your legs should be covered only from the vantage point of your own eyeballs. When you bend over or sit down, the *front* of your dress will be naturally hang lower, so as to cover more of your legs, but the *back* will be drawn up so as to cover less.
Very often I have seen women sit down and carefully arrange the front of their skirt so as to cover the topside of their thighs from their own view, while leaving the sides and undersides of their thighs completely exposed to the view of anyone sitting across from them. And this will be unavoidable if your dresses are so short that they only cover you down to the knees while you are standing erect. If you would be safe, your dresses should cover you well below the knee *in all postures*.
*Low necklines*
Again, the whole world knows very well that these are a great temptation to the eyes of a man. And if you are a godly woman, no doubt you would never dream of purposely wearing a neckline too low. But you may be doing it nevertheless, through thoughtlessness or ignorance. It is not only low necklines which offend, but also *large* or *loose* ones. You stand erect in front of your mirror wearing a large or loose neckline, and think it perfectly modest. But only bend over a little, so that the material of your blouse falls away from your body, and immediately the most provocative and tempting part of your anatomy is exposed to the view of any man who happens to be standing in front of you.
The same is true, of course, when you dress with the top two or three of your buttons of your blouse unbuttoned. This *looks* provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it. This *looks* seductive. It looks to a man as though you must *design* to expose yourself and tantalize his passions. What else can he think? For what other purpose could you leave two or three buttons of your blouse unbuttoned? Do you say it is for comfort? Because you cannot bear a tight , choking collar? I believe you could *learn* to bear it. as the men of the world do in order to display their stylish neckties.
But waive that. It may be legitimate to leave your blouse open at the neck for comfort's sake, and it may even be modest(depending upon the garment), provided you unbutton *one button only*. There can be no possible reason or excuse for leaving two or three buttons open. It will not add to your comfort. It is simply following a wicked fashion of a wicked world. Your collar will no more choke you with one button open than it will with three. One button open will always be a great plenty for comfort's sake, and with some blouses it will be too much. If you can leave your top button open, yet not expose your breasts when you bend over and the material of your blouse falls away from your bosom, very well.
This may depend upon the nature of the blouse, as well as the size of your bust. But if there is any danger of exposing yourself, you had better button all your buttons. You might set the top button down an inch or so, and make another buttonhole for it, and thus provide for both comfort and modesty. You can scarcely be too careful here, for there is no part of a woman's body so alluring to a man as her breasts, and when a man sees a woman with the top two or three of her buttons open, he will probably conclude it is her intention to tempt and tantalize men. Is this the impression you wish to give? If not, button your buttons, snap your snaps, and zip your zippers. And if you happen to bend over a little in front of a man, and he sees your breasts actually exposed because of your large, loose, low, or open necklines, unless he is a very rare man, he *will* be tantalized by the sight, whatever you may think or intend.
Therefore you cannot do as the rest of the world does. Let your neckline be high enough and small enough to in fact be a neckline, and not a chest or shoulder line, and you will be safe. Note well: this means if the neck hole of your garment is large enough to slip over your head, it is probably too large. Your necklines should be of the sort that you can *close up* with buttons or snaps after you put the garment on.
*Sleeveless Blouses*
Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to understand it, your underarms, and the parts of your chest or back which immediately adjoin them , are very attractive to a man; and a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts. You must also bear in mind that others will see you at all angles and in all positions, and the armholes of a sleeveless blouse will often allow a man to see inside of the blouse, especially when your arms are uplifted or outstretched, thus displaying part of your chest, and probably some of your breast.
The same is true of a short sleeved blouse which has very large or loose sleeves. This may be perfectly modest as long as you keep your elbows at your sides, but as soon as you raise your arms, you create an opening through which a man may see inside your blouse, and this is a great snare to his heart. Remember you are a woman, and cannot see yourself as a man sees you. I am a man, and know what it is to be tempted by such sights. And if only the weakest of your brethren might be tempted by your sleeveless or loose-sleeve blouses, ought you not deny yourself a little of comfort or of fashion, and conceal your body a little better for his good?
*Sheer clothing*
It ought to be unnecessary to say anything about clothing, which is so light or sheer that a man may see through it. The obvious and undeniable purpose of such clothing is to thwart the purpose of clothing, and expose your body rather than covering it. This you cannot help but realize.Everyone else knows it also, and when a man sees you thus attired, what can he think but that is your *intention* to display your body in his sight? Andyet are so low the standards in the church today that it is not uncommon to see Christian women wearing see-through clothing. If you have been guilty of this, your first business is to repent to reject anything which is obviously and purposely sheer. You ought to be careful also not to wear any material which is so light or so thin that it may be seen through when you are in direct light, such as in front of a window. Finally, reject any material of a very coarse weave: wear *clothing*, not *netting*.
*Tight clothing*
Dress which explicitly reveals your *form* is as bad as that which reveals your nakedness. The whole world knows that such dress is provocative notoriously and proverbially so and when a man sees a woman dressed in tight clothing that reveals and displays every curve of her form his passions will certainly be excited by the sight--perhaps not so quickly or strongly as they would be by the sight of your naked form, but excited nonetheless. The world calls tight clothing "revealing", which is exactly what it is and as such it is an obvious violation of the purpose of God in clothing you. Every woman who professes godliness, therefore, ought religiously to refuse every form of dress which reveals and displays her figure.
Specifically, you should avoid sweater, sweat shirts, tee shirts, and anything made of knit, stretchy, or soft, clinging material, unless perhaps the fit is *very loose*.
*Woven material*, with some stiffness and body to it, will conceal your form much better. This is of the utmost importance, especially for a woman who is large in the bust. There is no sight on earth which will surely attract a man's eyes, and so quickly inflame his passions, as the sight of a woman's breasts--whether they are actually exposed, or their form displayed by tight or clinging clothing. This is a fact which the world knows very well. Twenty-five years ago the world was singing a popular song about the pleasure of seeing a woman in a sweater and a tight skirt. Now the natures of man and woman have not changed in twenty-five years. When a man looks at you he should see your clothing, and not the shape and form of everything which is inside it. Sweaters, tee shirts, and knit blouses in their very nature cling to your body and reveal and display the shape and form of it. And you must take a man's word for it that the *shape and form* of a woman's body, even though it is covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, inflame his passions, or arouse his imagination, just about as quickly and surely as the sight of her actual skin. I do not say it is impossible for a woman to wear a sweater or knit shirt which is not too revealing. What I do say is that the sweaters and knit tops which American women usually wear are almost always too tight. They might do better if they would wear their sweaters several sizes larger than they usually do. A woman who is very small in the bust may fairly easily wear sweaters which are loose enough to conceal her form, but the larger her breasts are, the more difficult this will become. A woman who is large in the bust had best avoid knit clothing altogether.
She will have a hard enough time of it to conceal her form without wearing sweaters. I cannot emphasize this too much, or insist upon it too strongly. A woman especially a woman who is large in the bust must understand, must take a man's word for it, that the sight of her bust may take away a man's heart in a moment. If she would please her God and help her brother in this fight against sin, she must dress in such a way as to hide and conceal the form of her breasts. She must therefore wear *loose-fitting* blouses of woven (not stretchy or knit) material. If she wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose cotton blouse *over* (not under it), and be warmer yet. True this would not be *stylish*, but no matter about that. I am writing for godly women, who would rather please God than the world. Understand also that you will accomplish little by exchanging tight sweaters for tight blouses. A blouse of woven material in its very nature will conceal your form better than a sweater, but it may still be provocative enough if it is too tight. You ladies who are overweight often offend in this, by wearing the same clothes you would if you were twenty or thirty pounds lighter. And it is nothing but foolish pride, which keeps you from wearing a larger size.
Your blouse should never be stretched tight across your bosom, but should have enough slack in the fit that when a man looks at you he sees the blouse, and not the form of what is inside of it. For this reason you should also learn to avoid provocative positions and postures. By this I mean any position which makes your bust prominent, or stretches your clothing tight over it--such as standing with your hands on your hips and your elbows thrown back, or yawning and stretching with your back arched. You should likewise refuse dresses with what is called and "empress waistline" which girds the garment around your body immediately below the bust, instead of at the waist. The unavoidable effect of this is to prominently display your bust.
Again I tell you, I am a man, and know very well what it is to be tempted by such sights and it may take only a moment's involuntary sight to turn a man's heart into the wrong channels.
*Slacks*
Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families, and friends. The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have worn pants, and the women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is embodied in the proverbial expression that a wife who runs the house "wears the pants in the family". The "women's liberation movement", which is more than a century old, has sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively speaking. It has sought to "liberate" the woman from her God-appointed place of subjection to the man, and to give her "equal rights" to do whatever the man may do . The spirit of this movement has also put upon the woman's body the man's clothing namely slacks. And the church has followed the world in so doing. Many of the older and stricter men of God, less influenced by the world themselves, take a strong stand against women wearing pants. Slacks, they say, are men's clothing, and (on the basis of Deut. 22:5) it is an abomination for a woman to wear them.
The younger set, most of whom have grown up wearing slacks themselves, and who probably know nothing of the historical background of the question, can see no point in the stand which their elders take, and so regard it as narrow-minded and petty. "The slacks which I wear", they say, "were made for women and are not men's clothing".
On the one side it may be urged that God made neither slacks for Adam, nor a dress for Eve, but coats for both of them. Yet Deut. 22:5 certainly assumes that the same clothing is not to be worn by both men and women, and it is also certain that historically in our country the slacks have been the men's clothing. Or it may be urged that the culture has changed, so that slacks are now acceptable clothing for women also. Yet when we consider the sinister forces which have wrought to change this culture, we may plead that the change is in no way recognized by God, but is an abomination to Him. I say no more than this, for it is outside the purpose of this article to settle this controversy. I do not ask here, is it wrong in the *eyes of God* to wear slacks? I ask, what effect are her slacks likely to have on the *eyes of men*?
And first, in their very nature, slacks are apt to reveal and display your form. Women contend for *modest* slacks, but who wears them? In the very nature of the case, it is difficult to make a pair of modest slacks (especially for a woman who has a full figure), and as a matter of fact, it is an extremely rare thing to see a woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may men wear slacks which fit loosely, while the slacks of women must cling to every inch of their thighs and hips and buttocks and crotch? Verily it is because the god of this world who inspires these styles, and he knows his business only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a man's heart to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman's thighs and buttocks and crotch.
Your crotch your "private part" you ought to by all means keep carefully concealed at all times, and there is nothing that will do it so well as a *dress*. A *loose-fitting* skirt or dress, *provided it is not too short*, is also the best possible clothing with which to conceal all of the tempting parts of the anatomy which reside between your waist and your knees. But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skintight, they are therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and your skin.Still they basically display the form of your legs and thighs and buttocks. This is the nature of the garment and can hardly be avoided. And further, as soon as you bend over, or sit and squat, those "modest" slacks of yours will be stretched just as tight over parts of your form as the skintight slacks which other women wear.
So unless you are so thin that you have no form with which to attract a man, or so fat that your form will only disgust him (and *you* are no competent judge of this), you had best leave slacks alone. Though you may not be able to understand it (for the sight of a man will probably not affect you in the same way), it is the *sight* of the *form* which will arouse a man's passions. What a man's touch is to a woman, the *sight* of a woman is to a man. This is plain enough in the Bible account of David and Bath-Sheba, and every honest man will tell you the same thing. You must believe it on the word of a man, though you may not be able to understand it. The *sight* of the *form* of your thighs and buttocks and crotch will tempt the heart of a man, and it is the nature of slacks to display the form of those parts. Some, who believe it is wrong for a woman to wear slacks, but who wish to accommodate their ladies for more masculine type activities, recommend the wearing of culottes, which are a sort of a cross between a skirt and slacks. Our only question concerning them is, are they modest or immodest? They may be either, depending upon several things. If they are fashioned so as to look like a loose-fitting skirt, or are long enough, they may be as modest as a skirt. Unfortunately, many of them more nearly resemble slacks, or even shorts, than a skirt. If yours are long enough and loose enough to keep you covered and concealed in all postures, they may be as acceptable as a modest skirt.
Enough for specific instructions. We must next answer some objections.
First: "What right has this fellow to prescribe all of these legalistic rules for women?" I answer, if we lived without sin in the garden of Eden, you could dress just as you please, or not dress at all, and hurt no one by it. But in this world you cannot, and if you do, you will only be contributing to swell the tide of sin. I write for godly women, who want to do what is right, but who are not likely to know *how* without some instruction from a man. I seek only to give you some instruction, which only a man can give, concerning the effects your dress will have on the men who see you. And I suppose that truly godly women will be happy to receive such instruction. It is usually the worldly, who are not willing to do right at any cost, who raise the cry of legalism.
But "This is a small matter, and not worthy of so much ado". We ought to occupied with the weightier matters of the heart, and not make such a fuss over little outward things". This may be an outward thing, but it is not a little one. Can you read Matthew 5:28-29, and yet contend that this is a small matter?
But suppose it is a little matter: can you therefore lightly pass over it, or ignore it? Not so, for "he that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much, and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much". (Luke 16:10) The Lord does not rebuke the Jews for attending to the small matters, but only because they did so to the neglect of the weightier matters. "These (the weightier matters) ye ought to have done, and *not to leave the other* (the small matters) undone." (Luke 11:42)
But, "Any man who views women so must be perverted". Yes: be it known to you that men are perverted. All men. We are sinners. Our pristine purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin, and especially the sin of lust. Sin *easily* besets us. (Heb.12:1) But understand, though all men are perverted from their original purity, and though the *passions* of all men (except those who are perverted in a worse way) are alike in this matter, I would not want to leave you with the impression that the practices of all men are alike, or with feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men. If you but *dress right* and *act right*, and associate with the right kind of men, in the right kind of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy or uncomfortable. But there will be plenty of occasion for you to be *careful*,even in the presence of the best men. Why? Because though the godly "have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts"(Gal.5:24), have renounced the unlawful indulgence of those desires yet the desires themselves remain. It is in the godly that "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit" (vs. 17).
Men may strive hard to mortify those passions, but it is a matter of plain historical fact, attested also by virtually universal experience, that the most sincere and diligent endeavors to mortify those passions are usually not very successful. The most of men, even the best of men, are likely to be overcome by those passions. It was a man of God who was overcome by the allurement of Bathsheba. And since those passions are usually not to be subdued by mortification, God himself prescribes a more effectual method, which is *satisfaction*. "It is better to marry than to burn"(1 Cor. 7:9) "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (vs.2) He advises further, that being married, we could in moderation, indulge in the satisfaction of those passions, "that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency" (vs. 5).
"Incontinency" is lack of self-control. It is, in plain English, the lack of ability to control those passions. And Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, simply *assumes* that even the godly are likely to be *incontinent*" when it comes to the matter of sexual desire. And history and experience unite to prove that many of the godliest of men--including men who are godly and *married* have a very hard struggle against the unlawful indulgence of those passions, in look or in thought.
Why is this? I believe it is most often to be accounted for in the fact that their passions have never been laid to rest by the satisfaction which marriage is designed to give them. Their own marriage, for whatever reason, is not what a marriage is designed to be. Mere physical gratification can never satisfy the heart of a man (any more than it can the heart of a woman).For a man to be fully satisfied, and his passions fixed upon an object, and so be laid to rest, he must be "ravished always with LOVE" (Prov. 5:19).And yet if you go through life with your eyes open, you must be well aware that this ravishing love is the very thing, which is missing in manymarriages among both the godly and ungodly. Some have been led to marry without ever possessing that kind of love in the first place. Others had it when they married, but from various causes have lost it. Now whether you wish to pity such persons, or blame them, or both, the fact will still remain that there are many marriages, which fall short of providing that ravishing romantic fulfillment which will satisfy a man's passions and lay them to rest.
And it is another fact that a man who finds himself in such a position, however he may have gotten there, will have a very bitter struggle to try to subdue those passions, which are still longing for fulfillment, but cannot obtain it.
Proverbs 5:19 says ,"let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou always ravished with her love." There are two kinds of satisfaction spoken of here, the one "by her breasts" and the other "by her love". The former is obviously *physical*, the latter is, for lack of a better term, *emotional*. The first engages the body; the second engages the soul. Every *normal* man's sexual desires embrace both of these things. (And so , by the way, do every normal woman's. The physical desires may often predominate in men, while the emotional may predominate in women; but neither man nor woman can be satisfied without the fulfillment of both).
No man's passions are ever satisfied and laid to rest until he possesses *both* of these things together, in the same woman. You know very well that the most ravishing love on earth will never satisfy a man until he actually possesses the object of his affections in physical lovemaking. But it is equally true that physical gratification alone, without a deep and delightful romantic love, will ever satisfy a man either. He must have both together. If he lacks one or the other (or both) he will find his passions still persistently longing for fulfillment, in spite of all his endeavors to subdue them. And those desires are easily excited by the sight of the feminine form.
The battle is a hard one, and a man who is very strong spiritually, but who lacks the fulfillment of those desires, may in fact fare worse in the struggle than a much weaker man who has found the fulfillment which every man craves. David, we know, was a man of God, and through out the Old Testament histories, he is held up as a standard of godliness by which all of his successors are judged. But the fact that he took many wives is a pretty sure indicator that he never found that *complete satisfaction in ONE*, which every man craves, and which is the strength of every man who possesses it. Therefore his desires still burned, and David was weak.
To return to the original question: whether men are "perverted" or not is really beside the point. How far his desires are normal and right, or how far they are the result of his sinfulness, may be difficult to determine. But what difference does it make? You must deal with the facts as they are, not as you wish they were. The real facts are: many men do not possess the ravishing romantic fulfillment, which they cannot help but crave, and they are therefore weak, and easily tempted by the sight of the feminine form. Suppose that *some* men are so strong, or so fully satisfied in their own marriage, that you could not tempt them if you would, what then? The fact remains that *many* men are weak and unsatisfied and burning. With the strong you need not concern yourself, but you are bound by duty(as you *ought* to be moved by *love*) to "bear the weaknesses of the weak" yes, even of the weakest and not to put stumbling blocks in their way.(Rom.15:1)
But "If a man looks on me to lust, that is his sin, not mine".Nay--"Now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat [or thy *dress*]for whom Christ died...It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, *nor any thing which thy brother stumbleth or is offended and made weak* ". (Rom. 14:15,21) David was made weak, David was made to stumble, by Bath-Sheba's careless exposure of herself, and your display of your feminine beauty will have the same effect upon your brethren.
After reading this article you can hardly plead that you do not know this, and "to him that *knoweth* to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17). If you were completely ignorant of the effects your dress might have upon a man, you might dress as you please without sin, but not otherwise. Every man is fully responsible for his own sin, but you will certainly be held in some sense responsible for another man's sin, if you provoke him to it. To Ezekiel, God said, "When I say unto the wicked , O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; *but his blood will I require at thine hand*" (Ezekiel 33:8). The wicked is fully responsible for his own sin, and shall surely die for it. But the watchman is held accountable also, merely because he failed to do what he could have done to turn the other man from sin. How much more will you be held accountable if you put stumbling blocks in another man's way, and actually provoke him to sin?
But "If I were to follow all of these instructions, I would have to buy a whole new wardrobe, and that I cannot afford". My sister, you can not afford to sin. If you are a real Christian, you came to Christ resolving to forsake every sin, and do the whole will of God, at any cost. If you have a will to do right--you will find a way--or cry to God to provide one. You can afford to change the way you dress. You cannot afford to sin, or to provoke others to sin.
But" I am not attractive or shapely. No man is likely to be tempted by the sight of me. Therefore I may dress as I please". In the first place, you are no proper judge of what is attractive to a man. It is of course true that a shapely and beautiful woman is more likely to be a temptation to a man than a plain woman, but it is also true that a woman who is not attractive to one man will probably be to another, and even the homeliest will attract somebody. But just suppose that you are actually so ugly that no man would ever look twice at you. What about your example to other women? What about your example to babes in Christ, who have dressed improperly through all their ungodly life, and who may now be looking to you to teach them and lead them in the right way? Do you want them to look at you, and excuse their own improper dress on the basis of your example?
Finally, some women are so naive, so ignorant of the nature of men, that they suppose that because no men are actually making advances or propositions to them, they must be no temptation to any man. Let them understand that a man derives great pleasure--sinful pleasure--from *looking* at women, from looking at any and every attractive woman. Why do you suppose that men spend millions of dollars a year for pornographic *pictures*? Let the *pictures* be left out of the pornographic magazines, and see how many copies they would sell! What pleasure is there which prompt men to continually purchase at so great an expense? What pleasure can pictures afford them, except the pleasure of looking? It is looking at a woman's body, which inflames a man's passions and regales his imagination, and there is great pleasure in that looking.
Most men will freely indulge in that pleasure, with little or no restraint. They will feast their eyes upon the feminine form wherever they may find it, and this of course will include your form if you dress so as to expose and display it. Godly men will recognize that pleasure as sinful, except when it is confined to their own wife, and they will fight hard to resist the temptation and conquer the sin. But because of the extreme strength and intensity of the male passions, they find this to be a very hard battle. The spirit is willing, but in the face of strong and continual temptations, the flesh is weak. To will is present with them, but sometimes how to perform they find not. In spite of all their determination and praying and striving, they may find their eyes seemingly involuntarily drawn to the sight of a beautiful and shapely woman, and a moment's involuntary sight may be enough to take the heart away. A man who has gained some mastery over this kind of temptation may easily resist the initial onslaught, but constant exposure to such allurements may weaken and break down even the strongest. Therefore we are told to "*flee* youthful lusts"(II Tim. 2:22) to flee from the very presence of such temptations. but whither shall we flee in this wicked world? Must we flee from the very congregation of God in order to keep our hearts pure? Shame! Shame! If we cannot find a safe asylum there!
To conclude: there is nothing at all evil or wrong about your physical beauty. It is the creation of God, and is, like all that He has created, "very good". It was designed by God for a specific purpose: the woman was made "for the man"(1 Cor. 11:9) The perfectly obvious design of your beauty is to ravish and satisfy the heart of a man but *a* man, not of every man. If God has joined you to that one man, then by all means give that beauty to him with all your heart, and say to him, "make hast my beloved, and be thou like to a roe or to a young hart upon the mountains of spices" (Song of Solomon 8:14). Let him be, as God commands him, satisfied with you at all times, and always ravished with your love (Prov 5:19) . Thus satisfied, he will be the less susceptible to the beauty of charms of other women. Thus used, the beauty of your body will glorify the God who gave it to you, and serve the man for who it was given. But if you put it on display and prostitute it to the gaze of the whole world, you only glorify yourself and serve the devil.
Postscript. If you are as most woman are, much of the material in this article may be new and strange to you. You may not be able to understand it, and may be reluctant to believe it. Some of the woman who have read the manuscript can scarcely be persuaded to believe that the male passions are as I have represented them, but the *men* to whom I have submitted it, have fully endorsed it. One of them (a godly man, and a preacher) said, "I wish I had about 2 million copies". I beg you therefore to *believe* these things, though you may not be able to understand them. Secondly, I beg you not to be content with a single reading of this paper, but rather to study it thoroughly several times through, so that you may fully grasp and remember all that it says. Then, by all means, act upon what it teaches you. And finally, do everything in your power to teach all these things to your sisters in Christ. In doing so you will very much oblige,
Your Brothers in Christ.
Notice: this may be freely photocopied and distributed.
Every soul in every conference, in every part of the Lord's vineyard, has the privilege of knowing the truth. But truth is not truth to those who do not practice it. Truth is only truth to you when you live it in daily life, showing the world what those people must be who are at last saved. GCB, April 3, 1901 par. 10
*(not the original writer) *Also, as a personal note, I would like to mention the wearing of high heels. High heels were created by men who wished to accentuate a woman's posterior; and it works. High heels are not 'required' to finish out a 'look' of fashion. They are meant to give a look to the men who lust after women's bodies, making the leg look longer, the buttocks look higher and firmer, and bring eyes to the feet, where strangely enough, many men feed their foot fettishes. I know this sounds strange, but it is true. High heels are not healthy for the feet, knees, ankles and back. Over the course of time they actually change the character of the foot structure. There is no benefit to wearing high heels except to the ones who may admire the way the you look in them. Hardly something that demonstrates holiness and humility. This is another hurdle to cross in breaking the barrier of accepted tradition and popular fashion.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Orion Image Caught By Backyard Astronomer
It may have taken NASA millions of dollars and over a decade to design a space telescope that could capture truly spectacular images of deep space.
But an amateur astronomer has now caught the same dazzling constellations - from his back garden.
He used a specialised digital camera, which is refrigerated to boost its performance, and a 28cm reflecting telescope, from a portable observatory at his home in the New Forest.
But each image took hours of careful attention to capture.
Professor Parker has to move the fibreglass dome in his back garden observatory every half hour by hand to photograph the changing sky. And the results are truly amazing.Leading astronomer Patrick Moore comments in the book: 'The pictures are of real scientific value, and they are also works of art.'
Strange Clouds Over Greenland
Photographs capture the terrifying beauty of clouds gathering over GreenlandBy Caroline Graham and Claire Bates
Last updated at 3:24 PM on 01st December 2008
These incredible photographs look more like a scene from the end of the world than a winter sunrise. The dramatic pictures were taken in north west Greenland by British Arctic photographers Bryan and Cherry Alexander.
The award-winning photographic pair were staying in the Inuit community of Qaanaaq, about 800 miles from the North Pole, when the apocalyptic cloud colouring began over Inglefield Bay.
'It was just before dawn, around 10am, when an Inuit friend of mine whose house I was staying in came to my room and suggested that I take a look at the sky,' Mr Cherry said.
'I went outside and was stunned by the beautiful and dramatic cloud formation. I just couldn't believe my eyes. I have worked in the Arctic regularly for the past 37 years and I had never seen the sky like it.'
The pictures show a thin layer of medium-level cloud that has been pummeled by winds churned up between the glaciers below.
'You often see clouds repeating the shape of the ground below,' a spokeswoman from the Met Office said.
'The wind comes in from one side, is lifted up over the mountains and hits the clouds before coming down again. It's a dramatic example of what is known as an orographic effect.'
The angle of the rising sun helped to highlight the different colours and intricate patterns.'It looked apocalyptic and like a scene from one of the Lord of the Rings movies,' Mr Cherry said.
'Because of the northern winter, the sun rises later and later the nearer you are to the North Pole. That's why even though the pictures were taken at dawn, it was actually ten in the morning.'
For Mr Cherry, it was a once-in-a-lifetime photographic event.He said: 'I grabbed my cameras and photographed for about an hour as the cloud formation changed and the colour of the clouds turned from grey to pink as the rising sun's rays caught them.
'An hour or so later the drama was gone and it became just another cloudy autumn day in North Greenland.'
But it was not just the Alexanders who were blown away by the natural wonder unfolding in front of them.
Mr Cherry said: 'Just about everybody in the village was amazed, including an elderly Inuit hunter who told me that he had never seen anything like that before in his life.'
The Alexanders have travelled to the region almost every year since the early 1970s, exploring it extensively to document the life of the North's native peoples.
However, in all that time they said they had never seen anything close to the incredible skies they witnessed this autumn.For the internet story and more photos go to
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk and then to Science/Tech
Monday, December 1, 2008
Pagan Gods Though History
Thou Shalt Have No Other gods Before ME
This is a list of pagan gods and the places of their origin. Today we can still see evidence of them in our modern society. Satan disguises them so well and makes light of them in a manner so that most people disregard them as obsolete. He has hidden them in the names of shoes, video games and other commodities that are highly sought after. He manifests their images in holidays and puts them behind a nature of good.
The gist of pagan doctrine is that Nimrod was lord of Heaven and Semiramis was his wife and they two bore Tammuz- the messiah, the son of god in a miraculous conception. This is the real story behind Christmas, as Tammuz was said to have been born on December 25. This is all diluted down in modern times to be Mary worship; mother worship, an ancient form of idolatry; but is carried on in some religions as a celebration of the messiah birth, and on a pagan day of celebration; the rebirth of the sun.
The date of December 25 and the story of the miraculous messiah birth was in circulation and practice hundreds of years before the birth of the true Messiah. A truly well crafted, ingenious plan on the part of Satan to mingle paganism with Christianity. No where in God's Word are we told the date of Christs birth, and I believe intentionally so. We know for certain that He could not have been born anywhere close to the month of December. It is my belief that this exposes the plan of Satan and forces me to reject the theory. Praise God!
Nimrod-Lord of Heaven
Baal-Lebanon
El-Phoenicia
Belus-Babylon
Ninus-Assyria
Zeus-Greece
Jupiter-Rome
Ra-Egypt
Vishnu-India
Pan-Ku-China
Teotl-Mexico
Odin-Scandinavia
Semiramis-Queen of Heaven
Ashtoreth-Lebanon
Astarte-Phoenicia
Rhea, Ishtar-Babylon
Beltis-Assyria
Aphrodite-Greece
Cybele, Diana-Rome
Isis,Hathor-Egypt
Isi, Devaki-India
Heng-o, Ma Tsoopo-China
Coattlicue-Mexico
Fregg, Freyda-Scandinavia
Tammuz-The Pagan Messiah
Tammuz-Lebanon
Bacchus-Phoenicia
Tammuz-Babylon
Hercules-Assyria
Dionysus-Greece
Attis-Rome
Osiris, Horus-Egypt
Krishna-India
Yi-China
Quetzalcoatl-Mexico
Balder-Scandinavia