Christian Forums

The link below addresses developments at present by the EU to outlaw and remove "hate speech" from the internet. This will of course open a wide door to censorship of the same, according to the dictates of whoever ends up defining hate speech. The effects of which will no doubt be felt by all Christians and or religions which uphold certain moral standards, which others might consider offensive and or therefore hateful to them. This is not to mention the duty of the faithful to identify and expose that which they deem to be truly evil in others. It will also no doubt give greater control back to the mass media icons of the past and present which have been suffering derision and much greater scrutiny by the public directly due to greater access to information through the internet. This via exposing the agenda driven news of today passed off as real unbiased news.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1937_en.htm

The following links are addressing Obama giving away US control of the internet to the UN. Is this just coincidence, or are the two in fact related and a planned shift of control over the internet? The intent being the removal of said control out of the hands of a nation whose Constitution guarantees religious freedom and freedom of speech, into the hands of those more willing to sacrifice such for a more global and restrictive agenda? What do you think?

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/icann-control-un/

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/obama-internet-huge-move-controlled/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/13/obama-gives-away-internet-and-it-our-liberty/

http://regated.com/2016/08/oct-1-obama-gives-un-power-internet/

This censorship could further effect SDA abilities to spread the three angels messages around the world, which ability is already under incessant attack from within and without. These prophetic messages do specifically identify certain institutions and movements which have and do themselves react defensively by accusations of bigotry and hate towards those giving the message. Our leadership has already caved to this pressure as can be seen from most pulpits. The above could be an effective way to silence individuals and independent ministries as well. Make no mistake about it, the enemy will use this to silence truth.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-s-eric-schmidt-meets-pope-francis-vatican-n497616

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/why-is-pope-francis-having-a-closed-door-meeting-with-google-ceo-at-the-vatican/

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html

Any connection between the meeting of Google and the Pope, and the following news?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/google-youtube-finsbury-park-attack-london-terrorism-extremist-content-restrictions-a7797626.html

https://www.rt.com/news/393093-google-online-terrorism-fight/

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/09/google-censors-block-access-to-counterpunch-and-other-progressive-sites/

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/26021-how-google-censors-the-new-american-and-other-conservatives

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html

https://steemit.com/censorship/@neil-rothbard/google-now-censoring-news-sites-infowars-blocked

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/opinion/making-google-the-censor.html

https://www.infowars.com/watch-live-breaking-google-admits-plan-to-censor-patriot-conservative-views-on-youtube/

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/04/03/internet-privacy-about-common-good-not-just-competition-and-consumers

(All emphasis in the following quote is mine)

QuoteAlthough its connections, sites and services are maintained by profit-oriented companies, the internet is a medium for every form of communication, whether commercial, civic or personal. Internet regulation needs to serve the common good, not only the maintenance of profit margins. Expectations of privacy on the internet are a significant component of that common good because they allow people to more easily communicate with and understand each other without first having to evaluate how every click will affect a consumer profile. The recently repealed privacy regulations were far from perfect, but that is an argument for improving them rather than abandoning them. Not all aspects of the common good can be secured by competition.

What is the common good, and who defines it? As I have pointed out several times over in many previous posts, the Church of Rome considers this to be her privilege.

http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf3/06_antoniov1.pdf

(All emphasis in the following quotes is mine)

QuoteSuch criticism has been scant, however, compared to the almost uni- versal condemnation received by the Yahoo! case in the U.S. This case arose when two French public interest groups, La Ligue Contre le Racisme et L'antisémitisme (LICRA) and L'union des Etudiants Juifs de France (UEFJ), sued Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation located in California. The alleged criminal offence was the offering for sale of Nazi memorabilia by the Yahoo! auction website accessible in France, which was deemed illegal under French law. Indeed, French legislation, along with many other nations' laws, may be considered to be in accor- dance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).64 The plaintiffs sought an order prohibiting Yahoo! from displaying the memorabilia in France. The French court, which found it had personal jurisdiction because the harm was caused in France, sought an expert opinion on the possibility for Yahoo! to block access to French users, instead of completely eliminating the website content worldwide. After being advised that this could be achieved with a 90 per cent success rate (besides, French users were greeted by the website with advertisements in French, which meant some kind of geographical identification was already available), it or- dered Yahoo! "to take all measures at their availability, to dissuade and render impossible all visitation on Yahoo.com to participate in the auc- tion service of Nazi objects."65 After that, Yahoo! sought a declaratory judgment that the French decision could not be recognized in the U.S. Besides finding it had jurisdiction,66 the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment on the merits in favor of Yahoo!.67 Nevertheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals has recently reversed that decision,68 and held that the California Court had no personal jurisdiction over the French parties and that France had every right to hold Yahoo! account- able in France.69

Despite the overwhelming criticism that the French ruling received in the U.S.,70 the Yahoo! case has shown that traditional conflict of laws instruments may apply to cyberspace, and that France was thus entitled to apply its national law because the harmful effects had occurred in its territory.71 The case has also confirmed that in trans-boundary disputes in which issues of freedom of speech arise,72 it is not the place of the country of the information provider but the place of the country of the recipient that governs the situation.73 The Gutnick case, decided by the Australian Supreme Court,74 has recently come to corroborate this approach, and reflects therefore the emerging majority opinion.75 The German, French and Australian democracies have chosen rules for free expression that are consistent with international human rights but that do not mirror the protection afforded by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.76

It may be said that this kind of solution ultimately goes against the basic freedom of speech and freedom of information in cyberspace, but, as leading scholars like Lessig have demonstrated, the fact that the Internet has been developed as a free place does not say anything about how it should be.77 The technological designs developed by code writ- ers, the web architecture, carries a sort of ideological or philosophical choice, very much reflecting the values expressed in the First Amend- ment.78 Code is law, but this kind of lex informatica79 need not entail normative implications for solutions of regulatory conflicts. The Inter- net is what we make of it; there is nothing essentially given and un- changeable. Technological innovation is now empowering sovereign states to assert their rules on Internet activity.80 Filtering and zoning technologies allows for location, and claims of the ubiquity of information on the web no longer hold.81 The Yahoo! case has just shifted the rule-making power from technologists back to political representa- tives.82 When considering regulatory conflicts in the international arena, then, "there is no reason that the interests of the society in which the harmful effects of free-flowing data are suffered should subordinate themselves to the ideological claim that the use of a borderless medium in some way modifies accountability for activities conducted through it. Analysis of such a claim has shown that it reverses the proper relation- ship between law and technology. Technology being purely manmade, and thus subject to ideological choice, should not dictate the way in which law manages conflicting interests arising through its medium".83

Extraterritoriality and jurisdiction in cyberspace have then been the focus of an intense debate, and the dichotomy between freedom of speech and the protection against harmful content has simply been the issue articulating this conflict, despite the existence of other kinds of ex- traterritoriality cases within the Internet, i.e. when the U.S. has required compliance with its copyright laws abroad.84 As Goldsmith maintains, extraterritorial regulation within the Internet field is justified on the ba- sis that cyberspace is not functionally different from transnational ac- tivities carried out through other means and because every state has the right to regulate those extraterritorial acts that may produce harm or other local effects within the national jurisdiction. This kind of ap- proach is commonplace in national legal systems and is legitimate untila nation has acquiesced to an international law rule that specifies otherwise.85

It can be said then that extraterritorial regulation in the Internet field is feasible, although it need not be perfect in order to be effective.86 Also, choice of law rules do work within the Internet realm as much as within other real world fields.87 The CompuServe, Yahoo! and Gutnick cases just show us that International Law and doctrines like prescriptive jurisdiction, effects-based jurisdiction, and the technical solution of filtering and zoning are helping to solve transnational disputes in a fair way until there is a solution based on international harmonization or otherwise.88 If international harmonization is difficult to achieve,89 it may be the time for the U.S. to take some steps in order to avoid being the so-called hate speech haven.[/u][/b]90

The major flaw of the above conclusions is of course, the fact that many nations are governed by the deceived. They are empowered by the above argument and enforcement of internet law on a global level, to prevent their citizens from hearing possibly the truth which their government would prefer they did not know. As soon as information obtained on the internet caused problems between abusive government and the governed, the government could cut off the governed from further information and support via the internet by declaring hate speech or ill effects upon their state.

If said nations are also attached to certain religious institutions, or perhaps atheistic tendency, they could also use this law to shut down all communication of opposing views. Declaring such is causing undesirable effects upon their citizens. History has proved over and over again, that religions and atheists use the power of government to support their own views while suppressing opposing ones. The Roman Catholic church, Islam, and Atheistic Communism are infamous for this. Perhaps the role of computer hacker will take on a much more righteous connotation in the future, if internet censorship becomes the norm under the control of corrupt politicians and religious leaders. 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html

Quote3. As with other media, the person and the community of persons are central to ethical evaluation of the Internet. In regard to the message communicated, the process of communicating, and structural and systemic issues in communication, "the fundamental ethical principle is this: The human person and the human community are the end and measure of the use of the media of social communication; communication should be by persons to persons for the integral development of persons".4

The common good—"the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily"5—provides a second basic principle for ethical evaluation of social communications. It should be understood inclusively, as the whole of those worthy purposes to which a community's members commit themselves together and which the community exists to realize and sustain. The good of individuals depends upon the common good of their communities.

The virtue disposing people to protect and promote the common good is solidarity. It is not a feeling of "vague compassion or shallow distress" at other people's troubles, but "a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all".6 Especially today solidarity has a clear, strong international dimension; it is correct to speak of, and obligatory to work for, the international common good.

5. One major consequence of the deregulation of recent years has been a shift of power from national states to transnational corporations. It is important that these corporations be encouraged and helped to use their power for the good of humanity; and this points to a need for more communication and dialogue between them and concerned bodies like the Church.

Use of the new information technology and the Internet needs to be informed and guided by a resolute commitment to the practice of solidarity in the service of the common good, within and among nations. This technology can be a means for solving human problems, promoting the integral development of persons, creating a world governed by justice and peace and love. Now, even more than when the Pastoral Instruction on the Means of Social Communications Communio et Progressio made the point more than thirty years ago, media have the ability to make every person everywhere "a partner in the business of the human race".

6. The spread of the internet also raises a number of other ethical questions about matters like privacy, the security and confidentiality of data, copyright and intellectual property law, pornography, hate sites, the dissemination of rumor and character assassination under the guise of news, and much else. We shall speak briefly about some of these things below, while recognizing that they call for continued analysis and discussion by all concerned parties. Fundamentally, though, we do not view the Internet only as a source of problems; we see it as a source of benefits to the human race. But the benefits can be fully realized if the problems are solved.

Yes, the Church of Rome intends to control the internet for the common good in the new world order she ever strives to create under her guiding hand. Which control will include the censorship, obstruction of justice, revisionist history, and misinformation she is infamous for.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html

Quote7. The Internet has a number of striking features. It is instantaneous, immediate, worldwide, decentralized, interactive, endlessly expandable in contents and outreach, flexible and adaptable to a remarkable degree. It is egalitarian, in the sense that anyone with the necessary equipment and modest technical skill can be an active presence in cyberspace, declare his or her message to the world, and demand a hearing. It allows individuals to indulge in anonymity, role-playing, and fantasizing and also to enter into community with others and engage in sharing. According to users' tastes, it lends itself equally well to active participation and to passive absorption into "a narcissistic, self-referential world of stimuli with near-narcotic effects".15 It can be used to break down the isolation of individuals and groups or to deepen it.

A little lie in the mix, to bolster their own desire for control of the internet always goes a long way. People may declare whatever they wish, but they cannot demand anyone listen to it. All choose what to view or read for themselves. No one is in our homes forcing us to visit and examine this or that internet site. Nor is anyone being forced into the absorption of narcissism with "near-narcotic effects. This is political fear mongering to support the idea of internet censorship, so the Church of Rome herself can eventually delete all negative internet content in relation to herself. Or at least that which truly identifies her real agenda as "BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH". 

She herself has been guilty in the past of fostering, supporting, and even implementing the very conditions making such controls necessary, in order to bring about her own designs. There is no reason to believe she will not, or is not involved in the same at present, to help bring about the control she desires.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_ethics-internet_en.html

Quote8. The technological configuration underlying the Internet has a considerable bearing on its ethical aspects: People have tended to use it according to the way it was designed, and to design it to suit that kind of use. This 'new' system in fact dates back to the cold war years of the 1960s, when it was intended to foil nuclear attack by creating a decentralized network of computers holding vital data. Decentralization was the key to the scheme, since in this way, so it was reasoned, the loss of one or even many computers would not mean the loss of the data. An idealistic vision of the free exchange of information and ideas has played a praiseworthy part in the development of the Internet. Yet its decentralized configuration and the similarly decentralized design of the World Wide Web of the late 1980s also proved to be congenial to a mindset opposed to anything smacking of legitimate regulation for public responsibility. An exaggerated individualism regarding the Internet thus emerged. Here, it was said, was a new realm, the marvelous land of cyberspace, where every sort of expression was allowed and the only law was total individual liberty to do as one pleased. Of course this meant that the only community whose rights and interests would be truly recognized in cyberspace was the community of radical libertarians. This way of thinking remains influential in some circles, supported by familiar libertarian arguments also used to defend pornography and violence in the media generally.

Control, control, control. The Church of Rome is all about control. Her pretended deep interest in control for the common good of the people is really her deep concern for gaining control over the masses that do not acknowledge her authority or control over them. Worse yet those who would point out her incessant attempts to take and maintain control over the same. Decentralization is of course not good for control.

The evil decentralized internet must therefore of course be more centralized and controlled. According to more of Rome's fear mongering politics regarding the evil individualists, seeking total individual liberty, and seeking to simply do as they please. In contrast of course to doing only as Rome pleases on a Romanized centralized controlled internet. All of us poor free individuals out here are of course in grave danger of making the wrong choices about what internet sites and messages we will choose to examine and surrender ourselves to. Thus Rome and her global elitist government must protect us from ourselves. Since of course we are all defending pornography and violence if we do not agree in developing centralized, controlled, and censored internet by said globalist elitists. 
What a crock.

Again, no one is forcing anyone else to read or listen to anyone on the internet. Government control and or censorship over everyone is not the answer to the problem of a minority that abuse the freedom of the internet. Governments are just as faulty and likely to become abusive or overly restrictive as the people themselves who run them. History has revealed their abusive nature over and over again. Freedoms and liberties sacrificed to them for whatever reason, are rarely if ever given back without the very violence and bloodshed they profess to be preventing by taking these same liberties away. Do not be duped by the church of Rome who is infamous for trampling upon the personal rights and liberties of those who have disagreed with her throughout history. To the contrary, let her continue to stoop to the evil she must perpetrate in order to establish her unholy and adulteress relations with the kings of this earth. When her cup is full along with theirs, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will return and end all rule save His own as King of kings, and Lord of lords.

QuoteAlthough radical individualists and entrepreneurs obviously are two very different groups, there is a convergence of interests between those who want the Internet to be a place for very nearly every kind of expression, no matter how vile and destructive, and those who want it to be a vehicle of untrammeled commercial activity on a neo-liberal model that "considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples".17

Yes, of course, we can't just seek control over individuals, we must also seek to control the businesses of all those who think they have a right to control over their own business. How silly are they. Of course they must be controlled by governing bodies of men and women who themselves are superior beings never touched by the faults of humanity which others have, who might use their power and privilege wrongly. Yes I know, the leaders of the Catholic church can of course fulfill this high calling. Let us all submit to their superior being and control. More, more, more laws, rules and regulations is of course what we all need. Of course also more taxes for the moneys to pay for the enforcement of the same. Big, huge, global government is what we need, is it not? If there is one thing we have learned from history, it is that we can completely trust giving over greater and greater power to fewer and fewer people. That always works out so well, doesn't it. What were our founding fathers thinking, government for the people, and by the people. What a mess they have made.

Quote9. The explosion of information technology has increased the communication capabilities of some favored individuals and groups many times over. The Internet can serve people in their responsible use of freedom and democracy, expand the range of choices available in diverse spheres of life, broaden educational and cultural horizons, break down divisions, promote human development in a multitude of ways. "The free flow of images and speech on a global scale is transforming not only political and economic relations between peoples, but even our understanding of the world. It opens up a range of hitherto unthinkable possibilities".18 When based upon shared values rooted in the nature of the person, the intercultural dialogue made possible by the Internet and other media of social communication can be "a privileged means for building the civilization of love".

What about when values are not shared? Are all different values to be subjected to control and or censure by Rome and her minions according to their own global government agenda? Are individual convictions to be silenced according to the same? Is all proselytizing to be censured according to the same? Who will make these decisions? How will they enforce such, and what kind of penalties would be imposed upon the "guilty"? How is this any different than telling people what they could write about and say during the dark ages under the Roman Church's cruel and abusive leadership? Will she not with this power seek once again to silence all that would speak against her political aspirations and unending quest for dominance? Yes she will, this is the purpose behind all she does.

QuoteBut that is not the whole story. "Paradoxically, the very forces which can lead to better communication can also lead to increasing self-centeredness and alienation".20 The Internet can unite people, but it also can divide them, both as individuals and as mutually suspicious groups separated by ideology, politics, possessions, race and ethnicity, intergenerational differences, and even religion. Already it has been used in aggressive ways, almost as a weapon of war, and people speak of the danger of 'cyber-terrorism.' It would be painfully ironic if this instrument of communication with so much potential for bringing people together reverted to its origins in the cold war and became an arena of international conflict.

There it is. The internet can be used to cause and maintain division. Rome's global agenda does not include individuality which allows for separation and division which counteracts her global vision of the unity of humanity under her guiding hand. Division with Rome and her vision then, must of course be censured and restricted. This of course then leads by extension, to control over all individual values and beliefs between peoples, nations, cultures, religions, and so on. All who insist upon divisive beliefs and or the promulgation of the same, will have to be singled out and disciplined. Which of course will include every bible believing "fundamental Christian", whom the Pope already declares to be violent regardless of violent actions or not. They are violent to his purposes in exposing that it is BABYLON THE GREAT who seeks such unity by adulterous relations with the kings of this earth. Preparing the minions of anti-christ to persecute all bible believing and preaching men, women, and even children. Thus will the image of the first beast, the Holy Roman Empire, be resurrected anew on a global scale. 

III
                                   SOME AREAS OF CONCERN

10. A number of concerns about the Internet are implicit in what has been said so far.
One of the most important of these involves what today is called the digital divide—a form of discrimination dividing the rich from the poor, both within and among nations, on the basis of access, or lack of access, to the new information technology. In this sense it is an updated version of an older gap between the 'information rich' and 'information poor'.

Strange to see the church of Rome, fighting for the right of all to information. She fought so long and hard historically to prevent people from obtaining the same regarding the scriptures and all those who disagreed with her regarding them and what they teach. She destroyed the writings of all the same whenever possible, and has continued her war upon negative history in relation to her by removing as much as possible from public view. This is not to mention her unending efforts to revise all sources of history excluding or revising the same according to her own vision. I suppose having already accomplished the same to a large extent, and expecting control over the internet information she is speaking of, she can afford to pretend to be the benefactor of access to such information. Especially if she succeeds in establishing censorship by nations and political entities which are offended by certain information. As a nation state herself, she will then have the right to censor and outlaw as it were, all negative information regarding herself.

The expression 'digital divide' underlines the fact that individuals, groups, and nations must have access to the new technology in order to share in the promised benefits of globalization and development and not fall further behind. It is imperative "that the gap between the beneficiaries of the new means of information and expression and those who do not have access to them...not become another intractable source of inequity and discrimination".21 Ways need to be found to make the Internet accessible to less advantaged groups, either directly or at least by linking it with lower-cost traditional media. Cyberspace ought to be a resource of comprehensive information and services available without charge to all, and in a wide range of languages. Public institutions have a particular responsibility to establish and maintain sites of this kind.
As the new global economy takes shape, the Church is concerned "that the winner in this process will be humanity as a whole" and not just "a wealthy elite that controls science, technology and the planet's resources"; this is to say that the Church desires "a globalization which will be at the service of the whole person and of all people".

Of course it is only natural that Rome seeks to supply her sanitized version of information to all the world, that they might be the more easily influenced and controlled by the same. This that she and the political elites of the world which she is constantly in bed with, might censor and sanitize all information according to the fulfillment of their own designs. Notice her reference to the new global economy which she envisions and ever seeks to establish, is not spoken of as though it might take place, but is simply stated as taking place now. This is of course according to her own design and wishes, which design and wish now includes the subject at hand, internet control and censorship subordinate to the same.

All of this is in relation to her global designs. Not what might take place, but that which she herself is implementing right now, and intends to be on top of.

11. We are particularly concerned about the cultural dimensions of what is now taking place. Precisely as powerful tools of the globalization process, the new information technology and the Internet transmit and help instill a set of cultural values—ways of thinking about social relationships, family, religion, the human condition—whose novelty and glamour can challenge and overwhelm traditional cultures.
Intercultural dialogue and enrichment are of course highly desirable. Indeed, "dialogue between cultures is especially needed today because of the impact of new communications technology on the lives of individuals and peoples".23 But this has to be a two-way street. Cultures have much to learn from one another, and merely imposing the world view, values, and even language of one culture upon another is not dialogue but cultural imperialism.

So now according to Rome, the free expression of cultural views and values apart from her superior supervision and control, amounts to cultural imperialism. How is it not just another form of the same, to submit all to censorship and control of her and her minions regarding the same? Will they not be lording themselves over the rest of us, and determining that which each of us should choose for ourselves regarding personal conviction in relation to the same? Is this not just Rome imposing her own vision and convictions upon all as she did during the dark ages once again? Yes it is and will be. Through her adulterous relations with the kings and political leaders of this earth she seeks and establishes control over all the individuals of the same in relation to the internet and all else. Freedom of conviction and expression must be sacrificed to her global vision of the unification of all humanity under her guiding influence and eventual control. This is the same old church of Rome which created and sustained the dark ages as long as she could. Same plan, same vision, under a new guise.

All of this again is addressed as if people everywhere who have internet, are somehow forced to read, believe, and agree with what they examine on the same. All are free to read, examine, and make their own decisions regarding all of the same, or not. The advice and attempt therefore to control the content of the internet, is nothing else but an attempt to control peoples access to knowledge, and the decisions they would make for themselves regarding the same. Just exactly who then, is likely to agree with and want to enforce such control? Obviously, those with the most to lose by allowing freedom in the pursuit of knowledge in order to make well informed decisions. As always, Rome does not believe humanity can handle this for themselves. They must be protected from themselves by those of superior understanding and ability. Which of course is Rome and the elitist politicians she is and always haas been in bed with. Together, they have always trampled upon the rights of the "ignorant masses".

The following links are just more news about the papacies continued efforts to implement their control of the internet and everyone on it. Such is no doubt connected to or at the center of the internet and Youtube censorship that has been going on and will no doubt increase under the all encompassing manipulative control of the globalist society the papacy envisions and ever seeks to establish.

http://time.com/4238471/pope-francis-instagram/

Pope Francis Met With Instagram CEO to Discuss Power of Images


https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-s-eric-schmidt-meets-pope-francis-vatican-n497616

Google's Eric Schmidt Meets with Pope Francis at the Vatican


http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/why-is-pope-francis-having-a-closed-door-meeting-with-google-ceo-at-the-vatican/

WHY IS POPE FRANCIS HAVING A CLOSED DOOR MEETING WITH GOOGLE CHIEF EXEC AT THE VATICAN?


https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/01/22/apples-tim-cook-meets-pope-francis/79180016/

Apple's Tim Cook meets with Pope Francis


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAPcMJuCv24


https://www.cnet.com/news/pope-francis-meets-with-youtube-creators-to-promote-empathy/

Pope Francis meets with YouTube creators to 'promote empathy'
Pope Francis has met with 11 young YouTube personalities to have a discussion about spreading peace and understanding through videos.

https://www.archbalt.org/pope-meets-with-facebook-founder-mark-zuckerberg/

Pope meets with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg


https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/time-magazine-event-to-feature-pope-francis

https://www.bitchute.com/video/QRAfcwCOE03S/

A fine example of exactly what this thread addresses and what the papacy and EU want world wide. Silence all truth that might divide and or enlighten individuals to reject Globalism.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-looks-to-censor-lay-catholics

View entire article at link above.

QuoteVATICAN LOOKS TO CENSOR LAY CATHOLICS

Vatican leaders are now calling for Catholics on the internet who do not meet their approval to be censored. The censorship would come in the denial of official certification from the Holy See.

Precisely how such a process would work was not specifically addressed within the final Youth Synod document, or any other place at the moment. What is clear is that leaders in the Vatican are feeling the heat and are concerned about continuing to lose control of their carefully constructed narrative.

Paragraph 146 of the final approved Synod document speaks to the need for creating "certification systems for Catholic websites, to counter the spread of fake news regarding the Church."

...

Censorship of apposing views, historical facts, and present facts of both religious and political natures has been, is, and will continue to be a norm employed by Rome. Much of the censorship going on today is in relation to the many relations Rome has with internet providers, media, and communication outlets.

https://opennet.net/blog/2005/01/chinas-bureau-culture-calls-greater-internet-control

China's Bureau of Culture Calls for Greater Internet Control




https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-chavez/venezuelas-chavez-calls-for-internet-controls-idUSTRE62D05I20100314

Venezuela's Chavez calls for internet controls




https://www.rferl.org/a/russian_interior_minister_alarms_bloggers_calls_for_greater_internet_control/24287681.html

Russian Interior Minister Alarms Bloggers, Calls For Greater Internet Controls




http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=30915

Tibet's party boss calls for tighter control over internet and mobile phones




https://www.alec.org/model-policy/resolution-providing-recommendation-on-un-internet-oversight/

RESOLUTION PROVIDING RECOMMENDATION ON UN INTERNET OVERSIGHT




https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/instagram-ceo-kevin-systrom-meets-with-pope-francis

Pope meets with Instagram CEO




https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/apple-google-and-the-pope-heres-what-we-know.html

Pope meets with Apple and google execs.




https://www.msn.com/en-xl/asia/videos/pope-francis-meets-facebook-ceo/vi-AAidBTc

Pope meets with Facebook CEO




https://jonathanturley.org/2017/06/05/may-calls-for-free-speech-controls-on-the-internet-in-response-to-london-attacks/

May Calls For Free Speech Controls on the Internet In Response To London Attacks




https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/defence-chief-calls-for-greater-government-control-of-the-internet/

Defence Chief Calls for Greater Government Control of the Internet


Vatican internet agenda slowly marching forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBWeGefo9nQ

Surprise surprise, Roman Catholic French President Macron wants government control of internet in order to censor for life all it identifies as guilty of hate speech which will eventually no doubt include all dissenters of the globalist agenda, and therefore Rome's agenda as well. Vatican agenda continues to march forward.

Yellow vesters will of course all be guilty of hate speech and mongering. The last time Catholicism controlled France its influence and political policies created such a disparity between the elites and the common folk that it sparked one of the most violent and bloody revolutions in recorded history. The disarmed French people of today however, are not likely to be able to effect such. Their disarmament was of course in line with the Vatican belief that no citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. They are at a great disadvantage in trying to combat their globalist leaders who are slowly but surely removing all of their personal freedoms and rights.

https://www.therebel.media/trudeau_considers_resurrecting_hate_speech_laws_to_bully_political_enemies

QuoteTrudeau Considers Resurrecting "Hate Speech" Laws to Bully Political Enemies

On last night's show, I reported that the Trudeau Liberals are considering the restoration of online "hate speech" laws.

Trudeau has already used his parliamentary majority to pass M-103, an anti-blasphemy motion condemning speech critical of Islam.

Do you think he'd resist an opportunity to pass more legislation limiting what his opponents are allowed to say?

In 2012, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper was able to remove legislation the silenced Canadians, and the Liberals have been fighting to bring it back ever since.

They don't actually care about combatting hatred. The Liberals are just interested in passing laws that enable them to prosecute their political opponents in kangaroo courts.

Another Catholic leader pushing Rome's agenda of internet control forward. No surprise here.

Hi Amo, I will say this, you are giving your all and a little mite more trying to convince us that your prophet knew what she was talking about.

Quote from: beam on Fri Mar 01, 2019 - 09:43:55
Hi Amo, I will say this, you are giving your all and a little mite more trying to convince us that your prophet knew what she was talking about.

Yes, no one will ever say I didn't try to tell them so. There is nothing I can do for those who deny or ignore the facts placed right in front of their faces. You do not just deny EGW in denying the Church of Rome as BABYLON THE GREAT, but the vast majority of the Protestant Reformers and many a Christian throughout history. Nevertheless, you are of course free to think as you wish and pretend EGW made all of this up.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Mar 01, 2019 - 10:38:59
Yes, no one will ever say I didn't try to tell them so. There is nothing I can do for those who deny or ignore the facts placed right in front of their faces. You do not just deny EGW in denying the Church of Rome as BABYLON THE GREAT, but the vast majority of the Protestant Reformers and many a Christian throughout history. Nevertheless, you are of course free to think as you wish and pretend EGW made all of this up.

If you insist on being an alarmist... which you are.

What advice did Ellen say to combat these things/

You should not sound an alarm without offering up a what to do....

You never do that.

That means she had no clue, and neither do you.

But you keep right on drinking your Kool Aid . I am sure your church will have you protected.

Quote from: Ginger Rella on Fri Mar 01, 2019 - 11:16:11
If you insist on being an alarmist... which you are.

What advice did Ellen say to combat these things/

You should not sound an alarm without offering up a what to do....

You never do that.

That means she had no clue, and neither do you.

But you keep right on drinking your Kool Aid . I am sure your church will have you protected.

Somewhat strange response from you Ginger Rella. On the politics forum you are a non stop lefty progressive alarm sounder. Then when I point out the lefty progressive nature of the Vatican and its cronies cooperating if not manipulating the same, I'm an alarmist. Go figure. EGW didn't address the internet at all of course, it didn't exist over a hundred years ago. She and countless Christians and Protestant Reformers throughout history have sounded the alarm against the church of Rome though, based upon their correct identification of her as BABYLON THE GREAT. They therefore chose to give the warnings which come to us straight from scripture.

Rev 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

QuoteI am sure your church will have you protected.

I have not attended church regularly if at all for over a decade now. While I was still attending they very rarely if ever addressed Babylon or biblical prophecy at all. One of the reasons I no longer attend. They don't likely even know what I'm saying or doing, let alone being involved in protecting me.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Mar 01, 2019 - 15:45:55
Somewhat strange response from you Ginger Rella. On the politics forum you are a non stop lefty progressive alarm sounder. Then when I point out the lefty progressive nature of the Vatican and its cronies cooperating if not manipulating the same, I'm an alarmist. Go figure. EGW didn't address the internet at all of course, it didn't exist over a hundred years ago. She and countless Christians and Protestant Reformers throughout history have sounded the alarm against the church of Rome though, based upon their correct identification of her as BABYLON THE GREAT. They therefore chose to give the warnings which come to us straight from scripture.

I am not a defender of the Vatican at all. In fact I am one of those who sounds the alarm anytime "Frankie" looks sideways.

I do know that Soros and Frankie are hand and glove and they are all about world domination and it has nothing to do with the US.

Pushing socialism is in their agenda...  It will be far easier to control the people.

But to counter that heere on US soil, dragging the RCC through the mud... even with her own scandals that the parishioners suck up is no way to stop that here.

You mention about AOC being Catholic... and Pelosi sure is... even to the point of her telli Frankie he is wrong about abortion.

We have to get on solid footing here in this country and that required showing where the left is wrong.

Do you for one minute thing that the 2 MOST vocal lefties in the Political forum give a rats ass about what has been a subtle brainwashing by yes, that church, as well as those on the Soros payrole... They don't.

They have such a Vile hatred of Trump, short of his vanishing from the face of this earth they will not settle down until the man is dead....

The same for the demoncrats....

But one has to appeal or try to appeal to common sense to try and make others see where they are wrong... not necessarily  on here but in the voting booth.

Riping a religious belief is not going to do that with a lot of people who have commented to me in the threads and by PM that they do not appreciate my stand.

Now... as far as EGW goes.... I do not hold with any mortal... or oe time mortal... pagan or prophet to learn from.

I have God and I have Jesus and He wrote a book called the Holy Bible.... ok correction God inspired the authors of the book and from there I learn and if I do not understand then I look at a multitude of commentaries for consensus... NOT from one faith but varied.

Everytime I hear any one reference EGW I think of those I know that reference Joseph Smith . Why is EGW correct and Joseph Smith is not?

As to attending church.

I got you beat cause it has been over 3 decades I have not regularly attended my church.

But my difference is... I never cut my ties and mine would have my back if needed. They just do not teach me.

Quote from: Ginger Rella on Fri Mar 01, 2019 - 16:20:31
I am not a defender of the Vatican at all. In fact I am one of those who sounds the alarm anytime "Frankie" looks sideways.

I do know that Soros and Frankie are hand and glove and they are all about world domination and it has nothing to do with the US.

Pushing socialism is in their agenda...  It will be far easier to control the people.

But to counter that heere on US soil, dragging the RCC through the mud... even with her own scandals that the parishioners suck up is no way to stop that here.

You mention about AOC being Catholic... and Pelosi sure is... even to the point of her telli Frankie he is wrong about abortion.

We have to get on solid footing here in this country and that required showing where the left is wrong.

Do you for one minute thing that the 2 MOST vocal lefties in the Political forum give a rats ass about what has been a subtle brainwashing by yes, that church, as well as those on the Soros payrole... They don't.

They have such a Vile hatred of Trump, short of his vanishing from the face of this earth they will not settle down until the man is dead....

The same for the demoncrats....

But one has to appeal or try to appeal to common sense to try and make others see where they are wrong... not necessarily  on here but in the voting booth.

Riping a religious belief is not going to do that with a lot of people who have commented to me in the threads and by PM that they do not appreciate my stand.

Now... as far as EGW goes.... I do not hold with any mortal... or oe time mortal... pagan or prophet to learn from.

I have God and I have Jesus and He wrote a book called the Holy Bible.... ok correction God inspired the authors of the book and from there I learn and if I do not understand then I look at a multitude of commentaries for consensus... NOT from one faith but varied.

Everytime I hear any one reference EGW I think of those I know that reference Joseph Smith . Why is EGW correct and Joseph Smith is not?

As to attending church.

I got you beat cause it has been over 3 decades I have not regularly attended my church.

But my difference is... I never cut my ties and mine would have my back if needed. They just do not teach me.

As is almost always the case, I did not bring up EGW, you did. I rarely if ever do,  but almost always refer to her only to address those who bring her up, as you did. Why would I quote her to people that do not believe her testimony?

You do battle against the lefty progressives, and rightly so. Babylon though, is in bed with all leaders. She can, will, and does use the right just as she uses the left. Her politicians line both sides of the isle in order to effect the same Romeward. She manipulates both unto her own ends, for she commits fornication with the kings or leaders of this earth. She does not care if they lean left or right, as long as she is riding the beast of either. In this world all roads lead to Rome, Babylon wins the political wars of this world through the confusion she creates, right before our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ returns and ends all rule save His own.

She is that great spiritual city which reigns over the kings of this earth.

Rev 18:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH....................................................................
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Wherever the church of Rome sets up camp, she intends to conquer.

QuoteIn America, particularly, is this investigation important. In all the countries over which it has triumphed, Popery, like the anaconda, has wound around its folds of art, of cunning, of superstition and of power, until, enclosing everything in its too friendly embraces, it has, with one tremendous effort, crushed the nation to death. It sends forth its missionaries; it gathers its schools and colleges; it erects its cathedrals and builds its churches; it is patriotic, benevolent, charitable. Its alms and offerings attract the vulgar, its austerities and penances convince the sceptical. It is at first tolerated; then approved; next obeyed! But now come the dread realities of the system, taxation, passive submission, excommunications, interdicts, crusades, the inquisition, destruction. Yes, Popery has well nigh destroyed every country in which it has been predominant. The liberties and national prosperity of a people cannot coexist with such a system.

Let then, Americans — Americans, who have never witnessed a Court of Inquisition, or an Auto-da-fe, on their virgin soil; Americans, whose national liberties are still fragrant with the blood of revolutionary forefathers; Americans, whose proud eminence in the civilized world, gives them more to lose than other nations; let Americans especially examine this subject well. And if, in such an examination, the following pages shall contribute but a mite to the discovery of the truth, the author will feel himself more than compensated for the labor they have cost him. (CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST, by Samuel J. Cassels, PART 2 ANTICHRIST OR THE PAPACY PROVED TO BE THE ANTICHRIST PREDICTED IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, Pgs. 125&126)

Thus does the anomalous character of the Papacy prove it to be the antitype of "the little horn." This power is unlike all others; is uncongenial with all others. It is a usurper, a supplanter. We can readily conceive, how a spiritual power, either associated with the state, or entirely independent of the state, may exist without discord or collision. If the church be entirely distinct from the political institutions of a people, there can of course be no disturbance, as there is no contact. And if a church be established by law, as the operations of the religious and the political systems are kept in distinct spheres, there may be but occasional evils growing out of such union. But for a government that claims its existence jure divino, that sets up a universal empire, that arrogates to itself supremacy in all civil, as well as ecclesiastical matters — for a government that considers itself infallible, and which requires absolute submission in all its subjects — for such a government to exist in the midst of other governments; in its very principles trampling upon their rights and privileges; wielding both a temporal and a spiritual sword; punishing offenders both in this world and the next — for such a government to exist in harmony with other governments, is impossible, absolutely impossible. The papal system can harmonize with no other, whether religious or political. To the religious world, it exhibits one supreme pontiff of Christendom, and requires for him universal obedience. To the political world, it presents one great monarch, whose throne is above every throne, and whose will is law throughout the globe. No the Papacy is a unit, and presents the front of positive hostility to every thing that is not consolidated in itself. It may not be able to carry out its principles and wishes, but this is its nature. It is "diverse from all other governments; it is the adversary of all other governments.(Chapter 3, Pgs. 155&156)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbyZUT1opNU

Haven't posted anything on this thread in a good while. The above is a good video addressing the Vaticans hand in internet censorship, and of course other areas as well. If you want to rule the world, your have to get involved in almost everything.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/in-the-atlantic-us-academics-praise-chinese-censorship

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteIn the Atlantic, US academics praise Chinese censorship

The intelligentsia's love affair with the Chinese Communist Party shows no sign of cooling, not even for a viral pandemic enabled by China's ruling officials.

The Atlantic published an op-ed this weekend arguing that the United States has a lot to learn from China when it comes to regulating online speech. Sadly, it is nothing new for ostensibly free academics – and members of the free press, for that matter – to praise the single-party state where dissent is brutally and violently suppressed.

"Internet Speech Will Never Go Back to Normal," reads the op-ed's headline. Its subhead adds, "In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong."

What do the article's authors, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona College of Law professor Andrew Keane Woods, mean when they say the U.S. got it "wrong"? They explain:

In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society's norms and values.

The article continues, noting that the U.S. social media platforms that are aggressively censoring coronavirus-related misinformation are merely catching up to what the Chinese and Russians have been doing for years.

Goldsmith and Woods write:

What is different about [online] speech regulation related to COVID-19 is the context: The problem is huge and the stakes are very high. But when the crisis is gone, there is no unregulated "normal" to return to. We live – and for several years, we have been living – in a world of serious and growing harms resulting from digital speech. Governments will not stop worrying about these harms. And private platforms will continue to expand their definition of offensive content, and will use algorithms to regulate it ever more closely. The general trend toward more speech control will not abate.

The Atlantic op-ed is not merely a clinical study in how world governments treat free speech rights in times of crises. The article is written from the perspective that China is ahead of the curve and that the U.S., with its outdated First Amendment, must change.

If you can believe it, the authors of the Atlantic piece are not alone in throwing plaudits in China's direction amid the viral pandemic the authoritarian state created. Not even close. Many in the ostensibly free press have also used the viral crises as an opportunity to cheer China's alleged leadership qualities.

"How uncomfortable is it," MSNBC's Chuck Todd asked in early March, "that perhaps China's authoritarian ways did prevent this? Meaning, had China been a free and open society, this might have spread faster?"

Jacobin publisher Bhaskar Sunkara said elsewhere, "This isn't blanket praise for an authoritarian party-state, but thank God this pandemic started in a country with a strong state that took serious public health measures. Imagine if China was run by the GOP instead of the CCP."

That is exactly "blanket praise."

The Atlantic op-ed this weekend cheering Chinese authoritarianism is not even a first for the Atlantic.

"China has reacted to the outbreak of coronavirus in Italy by sending aid," Atlantic staff writer Anne Applebaum noted on March 12. "The U.S. has reacted by suspending flights. Who is the superpower?"

If all of this sounds familiar, that is because it is. American academics, politicos, and the like have been praising the Chinese Communist Party for years. Recall that the New York Times's taxi cab correspondent Thomas Friedman wrote in 2009, "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages."

"That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century," he added. "It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power."

And this is to say nothing of the many overeager U.S. reporters and pundits who have more recently parroted outright Chinese propaganda cheering the regime's supposedly competent response to the virus and other agitprop absolving it of culpability.

So, it is not unprecedented for a mainstream publication in the U.S. to publish praise for the Chinese Communist Party. Members of America's commentariat have been cheering this murderous, authoritarian regime for decades.

No need to wonder where US academics and social media giants have gotten their mindset and marching orders from, as this thread has already addressed, the Pope of Rome and the Vatican have laid this agenda out in their document, "PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS ETHICS IN INTERNET". The Commie leaning papacy has been praising China as the best example of government implementation of Roman Catholic social doctrine, and the leaders of our social media company giants have all met with the Pope personally as already addressed in this thread. 2+2 does still equal 4, regardless of how may people continue to increasingly deny the obvious. Another papal mandate bypassing the will of countless people is being put firmly in place, by the tyrannical governments and peoples she intends to ride into oblivion.

As is obvious, information such as this is and has already been being censored for quite some time now. The connections between what is happening in our world, and that which the papacy has even put down in writing calling for the establishment of the same, is almost completely ignored. This while such fuel is increasingly added to the left verses right, conservative verses liberal, and Republican verses Democrat fire. All steering the resolutions toward their desired mark or goal through the manipulative constructs of the Hegelian Dialectic. On and on we march unto the final beast of biblical prophecy of global governance ridden by the papacy prophetically described as BABYLON THE GREAT, MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. Destruction and ruin lie directly ahead for those who would rebuild the tower of Babel in the exaltation of unified fallen humanity in rebellion against God. The end result will be persecution against all who will not comply, especially Christ's church. The last plagues will be released upon humanity as judgment for the same, all decisions will be made, and the end will come. Come Lord Jesus. 

QuoteThis censorship could further effect SDA abilities to spread the three angels messages around the world, which ability is already under incessant attack from within and without. These prophetic messages do specifically identify certain institutions and movements which have and do themselves react defensively by accusations of bigotry and hate towards those giving the message. Our leadership has already caved to this pressure as can be seen from most pulpits. The above could be an effective way to silence individuals and independent ministries as well. Make no mistake about it, the enemy will use this to silence truth.

And therein lies your problem.  What you are supposed to be spreading is the message and gospel of Christ.  Period.  But that is not what you do.  You spread another gospel of legalism given to you by a false prophet.  You enjoy the word sinister, a lot.  There is nothing more sinister than propagating a false doctrine disguised as something it is not. 

As Ginger rightly points out, you are always posting long articles, mostly to the sound of your own voice, of all the problems outside your church.  But you never offer any solutions.  Just constant wailing about this and that and everything but the SDA is evil and everyone outside of that organization is going to Hell.  And yet, your organization does not lead people to Jesus. It leads them to a false prophet and an endless litany of works.   In other words, you hand them what Paul calls a curse.  Your organization is lumped right in there with the RCC, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.  And it's lumped in there for a reason.  Because what you teach is false.  So demonstrably false that I still scratch my head as to why someone can follow a doctrine and theology that is so obviously false, and not get it.  Until you realize that E.G.W.'s prophecies were bunk, and that Jesus should be the sole source of your salvation, without useless works, you are never going to grasp the big picture.  I still pray that someday, you'll finally get it.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Sun Sep 20, 2020 - 03:21:04
And therein lies your problem.  What you are supposed to be spreading is the message and gospel of Christ.  Period.  But that is not what you do.  You spread another gospel of legalism given to you by a false prophet.  You enjoy the word sinister, a lot.  There is nothing more sinister than propagating a false doctrine disguised as something it is not. 

As Ginger rightly points out, you are always posting long articles, mostly to the sound of your own voice, of all the problems outside your church.  But you never offer any solutions.  Just constant wailing about this and that and everything but the SDA is evil and everyone outside of that organization is going to Hell.  And yet, your organization does not lead people to Jesus. It leads them to a false prophet and an endless litany of works.   In other words, you hand them what Paul calls a curse.  Your organization is lumped right in there with the RCC, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.  And it's lumped in there for a reason.  Because what you teach is false.  So demonstrably false that I still scratch my head as to why someone can follow a doctrine and theology that is so obviously false, and not get it.  Until you realize that E.G.W.'s prophecies were bunk, and that Jesus should be the sole source of your salvation, without useless works, you are never going to grasp the big picture.  I still pray that someday, you'll finally get it.

Same old Cobalt crap. There is plenty wrong with the SDA church, which is why I have not attended one in many years. Just not the nonsense you continually regurgitate  over and over again. At least you're somewhat consistent, you show up every once in a great while and spew the same nonsense you did before. Over and over again. You never address any of the issues on the threads you decide to post your nonsense on.

I have repeated the solution to all of this worlds problems over and over again on these boards.

I'm not interested in an accusations against accusations argument. If you would like to make an actual point, and address any one of the issues your accusations suggest, please do. If not, just Babyl-on I guess.

2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Maybe you might like to actually share some scriptures some day. Or perhaps discuss them, or try to prove your points with them, instead of simply your own words. Is the above scriptural testimony not a part of your gospel?

Act 10:38  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Is the highlighted part of the scriptures above which the Apostles were commanded to preach not part of your gospel?

Act 14:14  Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, 15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Is the above highlighted part of your gospel? Does not God's seventh day Sabbath command all His people to worship Him who made heaven, earth, the sea, and all things therein?

2Ti 4:1  I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Does your gospel not include the above commission to preach that highlighted?

Rev 14:6  And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. 8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. 9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.

Does your gospel include the warning of the above everlasting gospel message to fear God and give glory to Him because the hour of judgment has come, and to worship Him who made heaven, and earth, and the seas, and the fountains of water as the fourth commandment commands? Do you intend to give the dreadful warnings which the scriptures testify are to be given right before our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ returns to reap the harvests of the earth? Do you intend to have the patience of God's saints described in the scriptures above as keeping the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus? If not why not? Just what is your gospel?

You are surely right in saying we should be preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes all of the above and so very much more. Are you sure I am the one who is not preaching the gospel? Perhaps you are preaching some kind of limited gospel, is that it? Are your constant accusations the gospel? Please do tell us what your gospel is, and why it is, and by whom it is.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Sun Sep 20, 2020 - 03:21:04


As Ginger rightly points out, you are always posting long articles, mostly to the sound of your own voice, of all the problems outside your church. 

Ginger who?

Link to that statement, please.

Just a reminder, there is no need to wonder what the source of all the ever increasing censorship is all about or exactly where it is coming from.  The progenitors of the same have not hidden their agenda, but have actually put it in writing for all to see. Confusion concerning the matter is therefore more like a choice, than a natural occurrence. 

https://devclass.com/2020/03/02/vatican-signs-up-ibm-and-microsoft-as-ai-ethics-apostles/

QuoteVatican signs up IBM and Microsoft as AI ethics apostles

Microsoft and IBM have signed up to an AI ethics code promulgated by none other than his holiness, the Pope.

The Rome Call for AI Ethics was unveiled on Friday, courtesy of the Vatican Academy for Life at the conclusion of a three day conference on "The Good Algorithm".

Rather than attempting to hold back progress – the Vatican arguably learned its lesson with Galileo here – the document notes that "AI offers enormous potential when it comes to improving social coexistence and personal well-being, augmenting human capabilities and enabling or facilitating many tasks that can be carried out more efficiently and effectively." However, these results are by no means guaranteed.

It argues that the new technology "must be researched and produced in accordance with criteria that ensure it truly serves the entire 'human family' (Preamble, Univ. Dec. Human Rights), respecting the inherent dignity of each of its members and all natural environments, and taking into account the needs of those who are most vulnerable." The aim is not only to ensure that no one is excluded, but also to expand those areas of freedom that could be threatened by algorithmic conditioning.

Showing that the denizens of St Peters are as fluent in tech speak as they are in Latin, it goes on to to say, "Given the innovative and complex nature of the questions posed by digital transformation, it is essential for all the stakeholders involved to work together and for all the needs affected by AI to be represented".

"It is time to begin preparing for a more technological future in which machines will have a more important role in the lives of human beings, but also a future in which it is clear that technological progress affirms the brilliance of the human race and remains dependent on its ethical integrity.

And, they add, "In order for AI to act as a tool for the good of humanity and the planet, we must put the topic of protecting human rights in the digital era at the heart of public debate."

The document goes on to define six principles for ethical AI: transparency; inclusion; responsibility; impartiality; reliability; security and privacy.

More importantly, the Holy See is canvassing for the drivers of the new technology to support these principles, and so far has gotten Microsoft and IBM to sign up.

Microsoft president Brad Smith, who signed on the company's behalf, said, "Microsoft is proud to be a signatory of the Rome Call for AI Ethics, which is an important step in promoting a thoughtful, respectful, and inclusive conversation on the intersection of digital technology and humanity."

IBM VP John Kelly, said, "Society will have more trust in AI when people see it being built on a foundation of ethics, and that the companies behind AI are directly addressing questions of trust and responsibility."

Just how much of a broader affect the Vatican's action will have remains to be seen. Google and Facebook were obvious omissions from last week's confab. China is seen as one of the biggest drivers of AI innovation, and was, sort of represented, at last week's shindig by Dongyu Qu, director general of the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, and a former vice minister of China's ministry of agricultural and rural affairs.

However, the chances of China's companies and academics unequivocally signing up to an ethical programme dictated by the Vatican must surely be about the same as snowball's chance in, well, you know where.

A little dated but interesting info. in line with this thread.

https://leozagami.com/2019/08/03/silicon-valleys-censorship-attack-as-the-vaticans-war-against-trump-intensifies/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteSilicon Valley's Censorship Attack as the Vatican's War Against Trump Intensifies

I few days ago, I reported about Catholic Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, who issued an official statement last week rebutting the famous tweet from President Donald Trump regarding the rat-infested city stating: "It saddens me to see Baltimore severely denigrated by President Trump. Baltimore is near and dear to my heart."

Now the attack by the Catholic hierarchy against Trump is intensifying as the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. has been defending Archbishop Lori, accusing Trump of being divisive.

Pro-"LGBT" Archbishop Wilton Gregory, who became head of the Washington Archdiocese earlier this year, succeeding Cardinal Donald Wuerl after Wuerl was accused of sexual abuse cover-up, declared on the 1st of August 2019 in the Catholic Standard, the official archdiocesan newspaper:"That recent public comments by our President and others and the responses they have generated, have deepened divisions and diminished our national life. In particular, I join my brother Archbishop William Lori in sadness and deep regret for the ways our Maryland neighbors in Baltimore have been denigrated in recent public attacks."

He went on to say, "Comments which dismiss, demean or demonize any of God's children are destructive of the common good and a denial of our national pledge of 'liberty and justice for all.'"

According to The Washington Post, this was Archibishop Gregory's first public statement since his installment as Archbishop of D.C. on May 21, 2019.  Catholic Cardinals are gradually making their dislike towards the U.S. president public instead of taking care of their pedophile Church still ruled by the same homosexual mafia. At the moment, a New Jersey Catholic bishop who is one of Theodore McCarrick's infamous creations, is continuing to protect and promote the homosexual predator clergy, and sources have told my friends at Church Militant that he is lovers with one of the priests he is protecting. This is all part of what Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò called the corrupt homosexual mafia running the Church and nothing has changed.

Meanwhile, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò,who was recently bestowed by the Milwaukee chapter of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) for exposing cover-ups by the highest levels of the Catholic Church, asked John-Henry Westen, who is the co-founder and editor of LifeSiteNews, to accept the award on his behalf in Milwaukee at a dinner to be organized by the CUF in October, 2019. Soon afterward, the pro-life Catholic news site LifeSiteNews was banned from the Apple News platform  for allegedly promoting "intolerance."

However, an ongoing LifePetitions petition asking Apple News to reinstate LifeSite's Apple News channel now has over 40,000 signatures in just two days! Apple's banning of LifeSiteNews from Apple News, as it happened one year ago to Infowars, is blatant censorship of freedom of speech and, of course, another dirty move by the Jesuits to punish those who expose them. Having said that, the explosion of this petition is a great example of the present frustration that a lot of people are feeling about #BigTech censorship and the stripping away of our rights. It is clear to everyone that the Vatican has intervened directly on Apple to get LifeSite's Apple News channel banned after their endorsement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò became unacceptable for Pope Francis, just as the Jesuit stooges Hillary Clinton and George Soros intervened to censor Alex Jones.

Remember, Apple CEO Tim Cook has a close relationship with Pope Francis, especially after he donated over a million dollars to Pope Francis in 2016, only a week after the Jesuit Pope sat down with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Cook and the Pope had a lot of topics to cover as Apple was asking for help in avoiding further taxes in Europe using the Institute for the Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank. The Vatican helps Silicon Valley Mafia avoid paying tax in exchange for their censorship and control of social media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-BIpUaopjE

Biden and Censorship. The Pope and Vaticans choice for President, and censorship of bible believers. Vatican support for abortionists and LGBTQ and what have you, trumps support for bible believers. This is no doubt because the former are more in line with other lefty radical political aims of the Vatican such as strictly implemented and enforced climate change laws, immigration policy, and Communistic leaning policies. Before it is all over, the Vatican and their globalist minions will allow for everything and anything, but true biblical Christianity. Then the end. Come Lord Jesus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBsBPeF4Mqc

Another video from the same source regarding censorship.

https://harbingersdaily.com/canadas-house-passes-bill-c10/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteCanada Moves Full Force Toward Massive Internet Censorship As Bills Threaten Free Speech

Canada's House of Commons has passed a controversial internet regulation bill which would force websites, including YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, to remove content deemed "harmful" within 24 hours, and also compel sites such as Netflix to have more Canadian content.

Bill C-10, known as "An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act," has drawn fire for its targeting of user-generated content on social media platforms, and made it through the house with 196 votes in favor, and 112 votes against. The bill passed while most Canadians were asleep just after 1:30 a.m. Tuesday morning.

The bill had the full support of Liberal, NDP, and Bloc Québécois MPs. Only Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) MPs voted against the bill. Two independent MPs also voted against the bill, Derek Sloan, and former Liberal Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

The bill is now before Canada's Senate where it has already gone through first reading. Extra calendar days were added to the senate's schedule to allow debate on it next week.

Bill C-10 was introduced by Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault last year and aims to regulate certain online media services through the creation of a new class of broadcaster called "online undertakings." This would be done through amendments to Canada's Broadcasting Act.

If eventually passed by the Senate and given Royal Assent, Bill C-10 would let the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulate the internet and social media in line with their regulations for broadcasting services, with the goal of promoting more Canadian content. The CRTC has kept a hands-off approach to regulating the internet thus far.

According to a National Post report, Bill C-10 is not expected to be rubber-stamped by the Senate, however.

"There doesn't seem to be any momentum to pass this and rubber-stamp

this without thorough review," said Conservative Senator Leo Housakos.

CPC leader Erin O'Toole earlier called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to withdraw Bill C-10, and promised if to withdraw the bill should he be elected prime minister.

Recently, CPC MP Rachael Harder said during a Heritage committee meeting that "to put the CRTC in control of such a thing is not only daunting for them, by their own admission, but crazy. Like, it's just ludicrous. This bill is under the guise of 'modernizing the Broadcasting Act,' but the Broadcasting Act actually shouldn't be applied to the Internet."

"The Internet is this incredible place that is limitless. So, you don't actually need the CRTC to step in and pick winners and losers, show favouritism to some and harm others ... what's going on here without that (safeguarding user content) is actually the extreme censorship of material posted online, and therefore an attack on the concept of net neutrality."

Bill C-10 has also come under fire from the former head of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, who said, "Putting the CRTC in charge of the entire internet, I mean, that's like putting a logging company in charge of the Great Bear Rainforest ... it's not going to end well."

The original draft of Bill C-10 had a Section 4.1 exemption clause for "user content" posted on social media by individuals, meaning such posts would originally have not fallen under CRTC regulations.

However, a recent amendment to Bill C-10 removed the provision, which means the federal government could regulate what people post online.

The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc party members also rejected a CPC amendment to Bill C-10, which would have brought back safeguards for user-generated social media content during a clause-by-clause review of Bill C-10 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

On June 15, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the proposed amendments to Bill C-10 were "null and void," according to Dr. Michael Geist, law professor at University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.

However, during late night debate of Bill C-10 Monday, Geist commented on the passing of it that the "Liberal government strategy of multiple gag orders and a 'super motion' to limit debate bore fruit last night."

"The Parliamentary process took hours as the government passed multiple motions to cut short debate, re-inserted amendments that had been previously ruled null and void, and rejected a last-ditch attempt to restore the Section 4.1 safeguards for user generated content," wrote Geist.

Recently, the Heritage Committee tasked with looking at Bill C-10 put a hold on it until the Department of Justice had time to determine whether or not the recent amendments violate one's free speech, which are granted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

After a review, the government said in an explanatory note on the bill that it does not impede Canadians' freedom of speech when it comes to posts made online.

The passing of Bill C-10 came only a few days before Canada's Justice Minister David Lametti snuck in a "hate speech" bill which, if passed, would allow a tribunal to judge those who are found to be in violation of the new law, simply by someone complaining they are a target of "online" hate.

Bill C-36 was introduced by Canada's Justice Minister David Lametti and is titled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech)." It was officially tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday.

Just recently, Guilbeault said he would soon be introducing new internet "content moderation" legislation to "address categories of online harms" in Canada.

Lametti's new bill will not proceed far in the House due to the summer break, but most likely will be used by Trudeau as a showpiece form of legislation to campaign on come a possible late summer or fall election.

As for Guilbeault, last year he had to walk back comments after saying the Trudeau government was considering making all news websites and social media platforms have a government license if they wanted to operate in Canada.

Guilbeault clarified that there was "no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations."

Continued Roman Catholic leadership the world over implementing Vatican instructions which began with the "PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS ETHICS IN INTERNET". It has continued, and will continue until the Church of Rome (BABYLON THE GREAT), her political minions and willing subjects accomplish her ultimate goal. Which goal is the re-establishment of the dark ages all over again, when she had the power to silence and punish dissenters. Make no mistake about it, all the hate speech and hate crime bills and laws are in the end, pointed at protecting herself from increasing accusations as she continues to destroy freedom and liberty under her guise of social justice. Giving her the power to silence and punish those who will not submit to the implementation of her global vision of unified humanity under her thumb. Who do you suppose came up with the hate speech and crime laws that are and will continue to be used to censor and punish dissent?

Dan 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

The word craft in the above scriptures refers to deception. The man of sin, the Pope of Rome, will use craft or deception to prosper, and by supposed peace destroy many. That is to say, through clever deceptive maneuvers presented as representing peace, love, and genuine concern, he will deceive and destroy many. Such is the implementation of Roman Catholic social doctrine and teaching, which claims concern for the poor, marginalized, abused, and the establishment of equity, but all at the cost or destruction of freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty for bible believing Christians especially, who cannot unify with this world in rebellion against God. Those whom the Pope of Rome has already declared violent terrorists, whether they believe in or practice violence or not. Their refusal to submit to Rome's global vision and usurped authority makes them special enemies and subjects of Papal wrath, just as it has always been.

https://www.newswars.com/pope-francis-declares-that-christian-fundamentalists-are-a-scourge/

Rev 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Its coming on fast and not just issues of vaccination. Take a look at this episode of Walter Veight's 'Whats up Prof' that was censored... "What's up prof-73-Walter Veith and Martin Smith-The road to anarchy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fQ44UyP3xo

Here it is restored, not sure how... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q0Q3PXJ6MQ