Sign From God In Sky

“Huge Sign From God Appears In Sky, and What It Says Is Downright Ominous!”

Blue rule

Cloud Formation Looks Like Message in Hebrew

NOVEMBER 21, 2016
BY BETTE STEVENS 37 COMMENTS

From: Z3 News

“I have a very dear sister in the Lord who sent me a picture of some writing that appeared in the sky over her home some months ago. It looked like some type of Hebrew letters. When trying to match it up with Hebrew, all we could come up with was judgment and war, but we left it alone to wait upon the Lord for further instruction.

“Recently, she sent the picture to me again and immediately I picked up on it in my spirit. Here is what the Lord transcribed as the meaning in the sky.” —Bette Stevens

God is warning people all over the world that we have reached a point of no return and that it is time to repent and prepare. The question many people have is, “When?” No one knows. However, the Bible does tell us that we will know the season. Many people are hearing “VERY SOON!” in their spirit and we do know that we are in that season.

In the article, Bette went on to say:

I went into a vision and as I did, I saw a hand appear and just as clearly write the words, which I am going to bring forth now. In part, it is a warning to a very influential world leader whose name I am not allowed to release yet. Here are the words interpreted into English:

“We will meet at the battle of Armageddon.
We will meet at the battle of Armageddon.
We will meet at the battle of Armageddon.”

This was written three times distinctively.

Stevens goes on to warn that God specifically said:

“Tell My people the wrath of the Lamb has come. Then I heard the voice of the Lord say, the nation of America, the church of America has polluted My name, My gospel, with debauchery, compromise, mammon, power, greed, and corruption. Have I not brought you where you are? I am the one and only true God. No one comes before Me nor after Me. My Father has given Me all power and authority over all people, tribes, tongues, and nations.”

He then said, “Come and see.”

Stevens says she was awakened immediately and then taken in a vision to see the armies of both God and Satan preparing for battle.

She explained, “This was given to me briefly to see. Then I heard, “Bow Satan! I saw Satan hesitate with a lot of reluctance, a lot of reluctance. Then again I heard the words, “Bow Satan.” Then I saw Satan bow down and that was the end of the vision.

She says she was reminded once again about our spiritual birthright and our inheritance. “Do not throw it away. Do not carelessly hand it over to Satan. The Lord reminds us, we enter the kingdom as a little child, wearing garments without spots or wrinkles.”

Stevens added, “Then He said to me three times, This is non-negotiable. This is non-negotiable. This is non-negotiable.”

I agree with Bette Stevens when she states that, “the hour is late and the time is now. Bible prophecy is rapidly moving forward. God is warning like never before, loud and clear. The call is going forward, don’t be found wanting. Don’t be found without your garments. Don’t let loose of your inherited birthright or your crown.”

Blue rule

Interesting to note that God speaks to Americans in Hebrew.
Why not Aramaic? Or Swahili?
And why this tendency to repeat phrases 3 times?
Is God superstitious?

Blue rule

Prison chaplain charged with sexual assault

Dec18

Why is it that news stories like this one no longer shock or surprise us?

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

PUBLISHED: 17 December 2015 | UPDATED: 18 December 2015

Fifty counts of third-degree sexual assault have been filed against 67-year-old Kenneth Dewitt.
He was charged after authorities said he coerced three inmates into having weekly sexual encounters with him.
Affidavits allege he initiated and scheduled sexual encounters in his office with three inmates between January 2013 and September 2014.
One inmate told investigators that Dewitt told her not to tell anyone and that no one would believe her over him.

A former chaplain at an Arkansas women’s prison has been charged with sexual assault after authorities said he coerced three inmates into having weekly sexual encounters with him.

Fifty counts of third-degree sexual assault have been filed against 67-year-old Kenneth Dewitt, Prosecutor Henry Boyce announced on Thursday. The affidavits obtained from the Jackson County Circuit Clerk’s Office allege that Dewitt initiated and scheduled sexual encounters in his office with three inmates at the McPherson Unit — a women’s prison in Newport — between January 2013 and September 2014.

This man was in a position of authority and trust with supervision and guidance of these inmates, Boyce said. The Arkansas code statutorily prohibits any employee at the Correction Department with having sexual contact with inmates. Clergy and people with a position of trust and authority are specifically prohibited.

Dewitt founded the non-denominational faith-based program called Principles and Applications for Life at McPherson in 1998. He previously ministered at several Baptist churches.

According to the affidavits for reasonable cause, three different inmates said while they were part of Dewitt’s program, he approached them individually and asked about their feelings for him.

All three told investigators that Dewitt initiated sexual activity on multiple occasions.

The three women said Dewitt had a weekly schedule. One inmate was called to his office early Sunday mornings, another early on Monday and the third was called in early on Wednesday.

The women said they would have to sit in a chair with their backs to the office door so Dewitt could see if any guards were coming down the hallway.

One inmate said Dewitt told her not to tell anyone and that no one would believe her over him. A second inmate told investigators she tried to stop the sexual relationship, but Dewitt told her she did not have a choice. She said she cried after the encounters and considered suicide.

Auschwitz exists.

Aug13

Auschwitz

…at least not an all-loving one.

Hermeneutics

Aug8

Challenge: Didn’t Jesus Say He Wants Christians to Kill All Non-Believers?

Excerpt:

In “Top 50 Questions Christians Can’t Answer,” the author asks many questions about the problem of evil, sin, and hell, but since we’ve covered those things a few times before, I thought #25 would be an interesting one for you. It touches on a subject I don’t think we’ve practiced explaining in a challenge yet: hermeneutics:

25 – In the book of Luke chapter 19 verse 27, Jesus says, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” This seems pretty clear that Jesus would have Christians kill all non-believers. How do you explain this? Convert them or kill them, right?

MuscleJesus If an atheist challenged you with this, could you explain how biblical interpretation works, along with your answer to his question? Tell us what you would say below, then we’ll hear Alan’s response on Thursday.

[Update: View Alan’s video response. Explore past challenges here and here.]

jesus-raid-bug-spray

Amoral Religiosity

Jun3

Totalitarianism

Oct22

Discussion About Atheist Trends

Exchange taken from the mailing list of an atheist meetup group.

C: It is indeed becoming a belief system with rules for true belonging and ostracism for divergent beliefs.

Matthew: Can you give examples of this as well? I ask in the spirit of being an organizer/co-organizer for several meetup groups, and would like to be aware of what to watch out for.

A: Watch out for meetup group members being banned without warning and without reason. Funny you should ask, Matthew. It just happened in the Eastside Atheist/Agnostic meetup which you co-organize.

Squiggle5a

From Matthew Medina:

I wrote you personally, but I also wanted to address this point since you put this [?] in front of this group. The bannings that have happened at Eastside Atheists were not taken lightly [irrelevant], or conducted without reason [without good reason]. The individuals banned took actions [?] which the [intolerant and petty narcissistic] organizer, Gloria, believed [rationalized] to be detrimental to her group [intentional vagueness] not because of divergent beliefs [wordplay]. You are free to question [I humbly thank you, oh mighty one, for allowing me to speak my mind!] whether those actions [?] warranted a response such as banning [that’s what I was doing], but as an organizer of a meetup myself [irrelevant], I can say that I support her right [= might makes right—and “I want that power, too.”] to make those kinds of [intolerant and hateful] decisions [that hurt people]. She pays the fee to keep the meetup going [not true; she takes collections], and does all [much of] the work of running it [irrelevant], so yes she is entitled [= might makes right] to make [unjust and inhumane] decisions about [penalizing and ostracizing peers] how the meetup is run. Having said that, I don’t think it’s out of the question [as a superior, I can tolerate] for you, or anyone, to address any grievances you have with her group to her personally [I grant you my permission to talk with Gloria] – I would recommend [as an authority on such matters and your superior] any further discussion [now that I’ve had my say] on this be directed to her, rather than in the mailing list of this group [Do as I say, not as I do.].

I hope that clarifies the situation. [No, the only thing that is clarified is your grandiosity, narrow authoritarian outlook, and callous disregard for the feelings and rights of fellow human beings. Summarily: “Gloria banned people from the group without considering the harm it causes them because Gloria has the right to ban people and she decided to do it because she felt like doing it, so she did. And that is why she is right.”]

Matthew
[Comments by A]

Matthew,

I made reference to events in another meetup group when giving an answer to your question about intolerance. It was not my intention to change the topic as I do agree that this is not the place for discussing the specific situations that you have described. Neither is it appropriate for personal matters, such as remarks of a personal nature to another member. That is disrespectful. I especially resent the condescending advice and permissions apparently directed at me personally, and without reason. Let’s be civil!

As you have initiated a discussion about meetup member bans, I would like to respond to some of your remarks.

Your posting clarifies your views, not the reality of the situation. I would like to contribute to a more nuanced view. What I meant by members being banned without reason was of course without valid reason, unfairly, or without being given a hearing or a comprehensible explanation. Recently, members were kicked out of an atheist meetup group for most ambiguous reasons. I found sufficient evidence to indicate that divergent beliefs and intolerance played a decisive role, although this was never admitted to. I have yet to meet someone who recognizes their own intolerance. For obvious reasons, bigotry is never given as an official explanation when an individual is forcefully excluded from a group.

Another matter of principle that I wish to comment on is your might makes right position regarding the meetup organizer’s decisions. When anyone makes a decision that will affect another human being, I would much prefer—or even demand—that it be made with concern for the consequences to the affected individual and with the highest regard for humanist values, rather than simply justified by the decision maker’s position. I shall never feel obliged to respect or support bad, unfair, unethical decisions that impact the lives of others. I was surprised and most disappointed to see authoritarianism validated on this list.