Ultra-Feminist Founder Of Femen Brazil Declares Herself Pro-Life, Apologizes To Christians

Featured Image

via Life Site News:

Sara Fernanda Giromin first made herself known to Brazil and to the world under the alias “Sara Winter” in 2012, when she became the founding member of Femen Brazil, and led a trio of girls in a number of topless protests that garnered much media attention. However, only three years later, the young activist has done an about-face and has declared war on feminism and abortion, and is apologizing to Christians for her offensive behavior. She has also published a short book detailing the abuse and disappointment she suffered at the hands of fellow feminists.

Giromin’s changing attitudes were first revealed in October of this year, when she expressed her repentance for an abortion that took the life of her first child, and acknowledged that the recent birth of her second child had changed her attitudes regarding the right to life.

“I have repented of having had an abortion and today I ask for forgiveness,” wrote Giromin. “Yesterday marked one month after the birth of my baby and my life has taken on a new meaning. I’m writing this while he sleeps serenely on my lap. It is the greatest sensation in the world.”

“Please, women who are desperate to abort, think carefully about it. I was very sorry I did it. I don’t want the same for you,” she added.

In the months that have followed, Giromin has revealed to her readership her disillusionment with feminism and gender ideology, and has repudiated her “bisexual” orientation. She has also expressed remorse for having offended Christians in January of 2014, when she engaged in a well publicized same-sex kiss with another seminude girl with a cross in the background, in front of the Church of Our Lady of Candelária in Rio de Janeiro. The photo of the two had become iconic in Brazil of homosexual contempt for Christianity.

“Asking for forgiveness is certainly not an easy thing to do,” said Giromin in a YouTube video entitled “I ask Christians for forgiveness for feminist protest.” “We went way too far and ended up offending many religious and non-religious people,” she added, recognizing the stunt as a form of “blasphemy.” She adds that she is making progress in her own spiritual life, although the exact nature of her current beliefs remains unclear.

[. . .]

Read more at Life Site News. . . .


Brandan Robertson – A New Kind of Evangelical


A new kind of evangelical: Liberal.

Perhaps their Millennial hearts are in the right place. They dislike the negative tones of their conservative brethren; they want to love everyone.

The problem is, they are willing to water down the Faith and destroy Christian nations in their limitless and utopian compassion. They unwittingly play into the hands of our enemies, both worldly and spiritual.

“Brandan Robertson: Progressive Christian commentator, thought-leader, and humanitarian at the intersections of spirituality, sexuality, and social renewal. Executive Director of Nomad Partnerships.”

[. . .] I remember a time in college where I was sitting around chatting with a few friends at my Bible College. One of them was a young Canadian and another was a middle aged, former soldier in the Army. As we conversed with each other, we ended up on the topic of politics and how many businesses in the United States give millions to political and social causes and somehow we ended up talking about who the fast-food chain, McDonalds, supports.

My Army friend made the statement that “McDonalds is terrible because it gives millions to causes and organizations that you (speaking of me) directly oppose: LGBTQ Rights Campaigns, Planned Parenthood etc.”

I was taken aback by this statement because my friend simply assumed that because everyone in this conversation identified as an Evangelical, we all held a certain set of political and social beliefs. I was taken aback because for him (and for thousands of others), “Evangelical” meant something far more than a theological persuasion. In the midst of this awkward moment, I decided to reveal my identity as a politically progressive Evangelical which resulted in an unbelievable amount of tension to arise in our conversation.

How could I, a self-proclaimed Evangelical, possibly support the LGBTQ community’s right to marry? How could I think that Planned Parenthood could ever do any good or that President Obama’s plan to rapidly decrease the numbers of abortions in the United States was progress in any way? [. . .]

[. . .] But we also want to be politically engaged. We are seeking to allow our faith to inform every area of our political engagement- not in an attempt to “bring America back to it’s Christian roots” or to legislate the Bible, but rather because we have come to believe that true discipleship requires us to seek to love our neighbors and work for the common good of all people. In the past, mixing faith and politics meant aligning yourself with one party, one set of values, and one political bent.

But the new generation of Evangelicals is seeking holistic biblical politics that require us to be pro-life in regards to abortion, yes, and also in regards to war, the death penalty, gun violence, and civil rights. That requires us to be faithful stewards of our personal and corporate finances but also to seek the good of those who find themselves below the poverty line and provide health care to the least of these. [. . .]

Read more at the Huffington Post

Fr. Jean-Paul Régimbal – Rock ‘n Roll: Satanic Music, From Subliminal to Direct Messages

Hell's Bells

I grew up listening to the bands cited, and I still listen to some of them. It’s hard to tell what is showmanship and what is serious, but none of it, I’ll admit, is good for a Christian to listen to, and I must gradually weed this music out of my life.

After the first wave of rock that transmitted subliminal messages, its artists began to openly express their satanic inspirations. The three examples below – chosen from many – permit us to see the underlying thinking. [. . .]

[. . .] Here is his explicit testimony of how he got his stage name from his autobiography Me, Alice:

”Some years ago I went to a séance where Norman Buckley asked the spirit to make himself heard. The spirit manifested itself at last and spoke to me. He promised me and my music group glory and world domination with rock music and wealth in abundance.

”All he asked in return was for me to give my body to that spirit, which took possession of me. A change of possession of my body would make me famous throughout the whole world. To do this, I took the name by which ‘he’ had identified himself in the session. And so, today I am recognized worldwide. You already know the name – Alice Cooper.”

Read more at Tradition in Action

Phil Lawler – Is Post-Synod Confusion Better Than The Alternatives?

Featured Image

Pope Francis continues with his globalist United Religions Initiative program.

In short, we may yet conclude that the Synod, rambunctious as it was, did its proper duty: the bishops advised the Pope against a course of action that might have compromised the integrity of the faith.

It’s true that, if I am right, we are left with what Douthat accurately describes as a “muddle.” Proponents of the Kasper proposal are already claiming victory; in many dioceses divorced and remarried Catholics will soon be receiving Communion (if they aren’t already), regardless of the Church’s official stand. The only way to avoid that outcome would be for Pope Francis to issue a very explicit reaffirmation of Church teaching on the topic.

But that sort of emphasis on doctrinal clarity would be completely out of character for Pope Francis, who has spent so many homilies denouncing the “doctors of the law.” Moreover, an emphatic rejection of the Kasper proposal would no doubt cause outrage among liberal Catholics, escalating the doctrinal warfare that is, as Douthat observes, only simmering today. Occasional doctrinal skirmishes can be a very serious matter for those who are directly involved (as Douthat himself knows all too well), but all-out warfare causes more casualties.

Read more at Life Site News

Yes, Ethnonationalism Is Biblical: A Response to Kevin Craig, Part 2


[. . .] I believe that Craig’s commitment to libertarianism is a major stumbling block in his understanding of biblical morality. Craig’s commitment to libertarian ideas causes him to read this position into the Bible. Of course all of us need to be on guard against reading our own presuppositions into the Bible, so this problem is by no means unique to Craig. However, Craig’s commitment is very evident in his writings, and this causes him in many cases to ignore straightforward biblical teachings because they do not cohere with his own libertarian worldview. [. . .]

[. . .] There is no biblical warrant for this categorical rejection of national boundaries, because, the Bible does not establish a “right” to immigrate anywhere and establish permanent residence. Still less does the Bible insist that everyone has a “right” to naturalized citizenship in any particular country. I agree entirely with R.L. Dabney when he writes, “The diversity of tongues, characters, races and interests among mankind forbids their union in one universal commonwealth. The aggregation of men into separate nations is therefore necessary; and the authority of the governments instituted over them, to maintain internal order and external defence against aggression, is of divine appointment. Hence, to sustain our government with heart and hand is not only made by God our privilege, but our duty.4

During my discussion on empires and propositional nationhood I stated, “Empires are a cheap imitation of Christ’s spiritual kingdom which will grow to encompass all physical nations and people.” Craig objects and triumphantly declares, “This sentence refutes the entire article. Christ’s Kingdom is in fact an empire which ‘extends over several different tribes, nations, and peoples.’ It is a propositional nation, or a doctrinal nation, or a nation based on faith, not genetics.” This demonstrates the heart of Craig’s misunderstanding of category differences. Empires are international states which attempt to unnaturally unite people from multiple nations, peoples, and tribes into one body politic. This is opposed to the character of Christ’s kingdom which is not of this world (John 18:36). In Craig’s worldview, Christ’s kingdom is simply the empire that ultimately trumps all empires.

This contrasts with the traditional Christian worldview in which the Gospel succeeds in converting the nations and reconciling them to God and to each other. The result of this conversion and reconciliation is that unity is achieved without dispensing with national particularity. Christ’s kingdom is not a mere propositional nation as Craig suggests, but a nation united by a common new birth in Christ (John 3:5), which is analogous to physical nations being united by common physical birth. Craig’s denial of nationhood united by physical birth actually denudes the spiritual nation of 1 Peter 2:9 of its meaning by robbing it of its proper correspondence to physical nationhood. Kinism understands that spiritual unity based upon faith in Christ and national particularity based in ethnicity, tribe, and clan are not in conflict. Thus we have no either/or dilemma posed by Craig since we understand that the two concepts work in harmony. This is the orthodox Trinitarian solution to the age-old problem of the one and the many. [. . .]

[. . .] Kinism does not teach that we ought to support certain politicians simply because they are of our race. Rather, we seek a homogeneous society in which people will be governed by their own so that race will not be a factor in what policies are enacted, since they can be weighed on their own merits. It is today’s multiracial and multicultural America in which ethnic and racial minorities simply vote the party line of their race, leaving the white majority to split over policy disagreements. In an ethno-state, which is what America was traditionally, this would not be an issue. [. . .]

Read more at Faith and Heritage

Adi – South Africa’s Dutch Reformed Church Embraces Sodomy


On Friday, 9 October, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa followed in the footsteps of many other mainline Protestant denominations in the West, officially embracing sodomy and re-defining the concept of “marriage” in deviation from biblical norms. In 2012, Nathanael Strickland had also predicted that it would be a matter of time before it is accepted in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and earlier this year he turned out to be right. I must admit that I was a little surprised that the church in South Africa modified their position in the very same year as the PCUSA, since traditionally ecclesiastical degeneracy in South Africa has been five to ten years “behind” the U.S. [. . .]

[. . .] Sadly for my people, still about 30% of Afrikaners are members of this denomination (an estimated 70% of which could be considered active). For a people born out of the Reformation, who have historically claimed to exercise a divine calling to hold dominion and spread the gospel in Africa, this is a historically significant defeat. Any and all claims to a legitimate covenantal response by our people are void. The institutional church is, for the most part, dead. When this is the case also in Afrikanerdom, which has always been the covenantal carrier of the faith in South Africa, and when one considers also that only 4% of children born in South Africa today are white (including both Afrikaners and Anglo-South Africans) and that the South African government seems hellbent on using sodomy to persecute Christians, the immediate future of Christianity in this part of the world looks very bleak indeed. It would seem that the only possible way forward from here is, with complete trust in the divine promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the conquering Church of Christ (Matt. 16:18), to have many children and raise them in true covenantal obedience, to build congregations who explicitly embrace and teach biblical truths and the laws of God, no matter how politically incorrect, and to create and strengthen communities of like-minded kinsmen.

Read more at Faith and Heritage

Yes, Ethnonationalism Is Biblical: A Response to Kevin Craig, Part 1

A Christian ethno-nationalist argues with a Christian anti-nationalist.

Just as one God exists in three distinct Persons, orthodox Trinitarian Christians understand that Christian unity is not in conflict with racial and ethnic plurality. I would like to examine the specific statements that Craig makes in regards to the illegitimacy of physical nations:

  • The nation as ‘state’ is an arbitrary political fiction created by humanists. It is the law of man, not the Law of God.
  • There is today only one legitimate ‘nation’: that is the nation described in 1 Peter 2:9. . . . If you are not part of this ‘race of the redeemed,’ then you are still a rebel in the fallen race of the First Adam. The Second Adam is the ruler of a new nation. If you want to start a baseball team and call it a ‘nation,’ that’s OK, but irrelevant. The Bible has no ethical or moral mandates concerning your ‘nation’ or any other human-created ‘nation.’ The only nation that matters is the ‘holy nation’ of 1 Peter 2:9, and whether you are a citizen of that holy nation, or a rebel against it.
  • [I]t wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the Bible also uses the word ‘ethnos’ to describe an arbitrary humanistic contrivance known as the political ‘nation-state,’ or ‘empire.’
  • Nations “aren’t ‘meaningless,’ they are just irrelevant.
  • There is no Biblical mandate to prefer heredity and lineage over the Church (the Body of Christ, the ‘Household of Faith,’ the ‘holy nation.’). Any family or business or school is free to prefer a genealogically un-related Christian over a brother, sister, father, or mother who is in rebellion against Christ and His Family/Nation.
  • Against my contention that “[e]mpires are a cheap imitation of Christ’s spiritual kingdom which will grow to encompass all physical nations and people,” Craig argues, “This sentence refutes the entire article. Christ’s Kingdom is in fact an empire which ‘extends over several different tribes, nations, and peoples.’ It is a propositional nation, or a doctrinal nation, or a nation based on faith, not genetics.
  • All ‘nationalism’ – ‘ethno-’ or otherwise — is a failure and a rebellion against Christ’s ‘holy nation.’

Read more at Faith & Heritage

  • July 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
%d bloggers like this: