I sit chatting to Lady Three, who I find to be a really warm person, and it isn’t long before she’s telling me of her weekly jaunts into the local town centre on Friday evenings. She’s doesn’t go to town to sample the fine beers and wines that the assortment of bars and clubs have on offer, but she does stand outside those bars and clubs… equipped with her Bible. She tells me that other members of a Christian group join her and, as Friday night becomes Saturday morning, they wait for the young revellers to exit the clubs. As the wobbling, pie-eyed youths spill from the bars Lady Three and her entourage stop some of them and ask if they know of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. They ask some of them if they would like to be prayed for, and to others they offer Bible verses.

They’re a very brave bunch. I’ll give them that.

She tells me that one member of the group is a particularly gifted chap who is “very good at choosing people to speak to who turn out to have ailments”. This gentlemen then prays with these people in the hope that Jesus will cure them on the spot.

Lady Three is noticeably excited as she tells me of their most recent foray into the town centre. She begins, “Last weekend we got to see something amazing! He [the gifted chap] actually picked someone out who had a fractured collarbone. He went up to the young lad and asked “Do you have any faith in God?” and the boy replied “No”. So my friend asked him, “Do you have any reason for not having faith in God?” and the boy replied, “BECAUSE YOU CAN’T PROVE IT!” So my friend asked the lad about his arm, because he had it in a sling, and he told us that he’d fractured it by falling off of a motorbike. My friend asked, “Can we pray for you? Because we believe that Christ heals” so we prayed for the boy and moments later he could lift his arm up!”

I must say, there were a couple of points that sprung immediately to mind. The first was that I wasn’t aware that a fractured arm stops you from lifting it upwards. Why would that seem so astonishing? And the second point that sprang to mind was to do with the “gift” that this Christian chap supposedly had. Lady Three had said earlier that he was gifted in that he was, “ very good at choosing people to speak to who turn out to have ailments”. And the first example she gives in support of that is to tell me that he stopped a young lad who had his arm in a sling. Some gift! Stevie Wonder could have spotted that ailment, I’m sure.

Lady Three continues, “The boy took off his sling for a moment but then put it back on. We asked him why he was putting it back on and he replied, “Because my mum wont believe me””

I reach for my glass of cold water that sits on the table beside me and as I do so I catch the eye of the pastor who nods at me and says, “I’ve got a word for you”. By this he means that God has given him a ‘word of knowledge’ about me. I’m quite excited at the thought. I wonder what God could have told the pastor? Has he told him something really specific about me, something that only I could know? I can’t wait.

As the rest of the group chat I have a moment to think about this supposed ‘word of knowledge’. I must admit that I’m curious as to why God didn’t just tell me himself, but I don’t want to get in front of myself, maybe I’m in for a surprise? The pastor says that he’ll tell me all about it after tonight’s DVD presentation has finished. I’m looking forward to that!

The DVD begins to play. Tonight’s session is called, “How Does God Guide us?”…

Gumbel starts by asking, “Who will God guide?” and then offers an immediate answer to this question by stating, “He’ll guide those who are willing to do what he wants”.

Nice start.

Gumbel then tells us that we should all have a similar attitude to that of Mary, the mother of Jesus, who was willing and grateful to be “the Lord’s servant”. I must admit that Mary’s attitude was indeed remarkable considering that an invisible ghost, by means of magic, had just impregnated her.

Gumbel informs us that we don’t have to be special in order for God to use us for something. He then lists the names of a number of misfits from the Bible who God used in various ways.

He then asks, “So how does God guide us? How does this relationship work?”

“We’ve got 5 main ways we’re going to look at tonight”. says Gumbel.

The 1st of these is:
#1: COMMANDING SCRIPTURE:

Gumbel begins, “In the Bible the general will of God for all of us is revealed”. He continues, “He’s spoken about marriage, family life, work, money, children and all kinds of things. We know for example that marriage is for life”. Gumbel goes on to tell us that we shouldn’t commit adultery, because the Bible commands that we shouldn’t. We should also pay our taxes each year, because the Bible commands that we should. For these important matters the Bible is our guide.

God can use the Bible to guide us as we read it. “Sometimes he [God] will bring to light a particular verse as we’re reading”. says Gumbel.

The presentation continues and he offers us an example from his own experience of how God pointed him toward a certain passage in the Bible. Gumbel picks up the tale, “I’d been practising as a lawyer for some years [but] I sensed that God was calling us to ordination in the Church of England. Pippa [his wife] and I went off for a weekend together to pray. During this weekend I wrote down all the ways in which God had been guiding us. And the first thing that I wrote down was the ways in which he had guided us through the Bible, and there were fifteen different occasions where we had sensed God speaking to us through this book. One of them was through a verse in Romans 10 which says this, ‘How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?’ I wondered whether that was God calling me”.

What does he mean by that last sentence? Why isn’t he sure that God has communicated with him? Why the uncertainty? If God communicates with people why are they always left saying things like, “I THINK that God is telling me such and such”? Why do they only “think” that he is telling them something? Does he have trouble making himself clear? Why are his methods of communication so vague? I have to say that this kind of thing smacks of wishful thinking.

The 2nd way in which we know that God is guiding us is:
#2: COMPELLING SPIRIT:

Gumbel tells us that we learn in the New Testament that the apostle Paul was led by the Holy Spirit.

Gumbel then talks about how we get to know people’s voices and how we can recognise certain people by their voices. He adds that his wife, Pippa, recognises his voice because she knows him so well. In the same way that we come to recognise human voices we can also come to recognise the voice of the Holy Spirit, claims Gumbel. This is all part and parcel of our developing relationship with the Holy Spirit.

We are then told that the Holy Spirit leads us in a number of different ways. Gumbel offers us an example, “First of all God speaks to us when we pray”. He continues, “Prayer is a two-way conversation. It’s not just a question of us pouring out our requests to God and then going off without ever listening, because he may want to speak to us when we pray”.

He then gives us an illustration to show how silly it would be for us to simply pour out our feelings then walk away before a response could be offered. Gumbel says that none of us would go to see our doctor and simply reel off a list of ailments that were troubling us and then walk out of the room before the doctor had chance to offer some medical advice. It would be ludicrous to do something like that, suggests Gumbel. Similarly it would be just as silly, when praying to God, to reel off a number of problems and then end the prayer before God could supply you with an answer. We must understand that God guides us through prayer.

We can also tell when God is guiding us if we have, for example, “a good thought” such as “maybe I ought to ring that person” or “maybe I ought to write a letter to that person” . All these nice thoughts emanate from God, claims Gumbel.

The Holy Spirit can guide us in more unusual ways, such as, “prophecy or visions or pictures or angels” or even “in dreams”.

Gumbel admits that, “Guidance is a very difficult thing,” but thankfully “there are various tests” that we can perform. “St John says, ‘Test the spirits to see whether they’re from God’”. Now that sounds interesting. I’ll have to raise that particular point in our discussion after the presentation. If we can test these things then maybe we as a group can devise a way in which we can demonstrate God’s involvement in earthly life. I do hope so.

Gumbel then gives us some examples of how we can test that an idea emanates from the Holy Spirit. We should ask ourselves, “Is it in line with the Bible? Does it promote love? God is love, so if it’s not a loving idea then it wont come from God”

I must say that I found that sort of “test” to be very disappointing. Is that really how we are to test if an idea in our heads has come from God? How weak is that?

Do we sit and ponder, “Errr… I’m not sure if God is communicating with me…so… errr… let me think… errr… yes, this is a decent idea that I have in my head and it involves love so it must have come from God, therefore God was communicating with me”.

My goodness.

The 3rd way in which we know that God is guiding us is:
#3: COMMON SENSE:

Gumbel starts by stating, “God has given every human being a conscience” which is “like a very sharp knife that can be blunted if it’s misused and ignored. But if it’s used in the right way it can become more sharp. God has also given us minds to think and reason”.

He continues, “In the big decisions [in life] common sense is very important”. He then gives us an example of how we should use common sense when confronted with a big decision, such as to who we should marry, “Paul warns us of the danger of marrying someone who is not a Christian” and that “if we’re a Christian we should look to marry a person whose faith we respect”. It’s all “common sense” says Gumbel.

The 4th way in which we know that God is guiding us is:
#4: COUNSEL OF SAINTS:

Gumbel begins, “The word ‘Saints’ is used in the New Testament to mean ‘all Christians’, in other words the church”. He then offers us a Bible verse:

[Proverbs 12:15] “The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice.”

Make of that what you will because that is all he offers in support of point #4.

The 5th way in which we know that God is guiding us is:
#4: CIRCUMSTANTIAL SIGNS:

Or to put it another way, “The providence of God” says Gumbel

He then paraphrases Psalm 37:5 “Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will act.”

Gumbel explains that particular verse, “What he means is this: if we’re faced with a difficult decision, as all of us are from time to time, we can go to the Lord and say, ‘Lord, I don’t know which direction to go. I don’t know whether this decision is right or whether it’s not’”. By doing this we are committing ourselves to the Lord. We are putting our trust in him. Gunbel continues, “His [God’s] promise is this… he WILL act. God can shut doors or he can open doors”. and then adds, “But we have to be willing to say [to God], ‘I trust you with this’”.

Gumbel then gives us an account of a circumstantial sign. He tells us the story of two of his friends, a young man and a young lady, who were going out with each other. They’d become Christians and after a little soul searching they decided that it was for the best that they split from each other temporarily. During this time they would leave it in God’s hands to show them whether or not they should stay together. After a week of being apart from each other, and after a series of chance occurrences, they happened upon one another in the street. They ran towards each other and met in a loving embrace. The young man later wrote about this episode, “Meeting like that was a chance in a million, and we took it as a sign from God”. Gumbel then tells us that they’ve since been happily married for nearly thirty years.

Isn’t this what anyone else would call a “coincidence”?

Gumbel ends his presentation with a prayer. The pastor switches off the DVD and switches on the lights…

“I liked that! It was my favourite so far” says the pastor. The Christians are in full agreement. I must admit that I enjoyed it too.

The pastor talks about similar relationship difficulties to those of the young couple. He solemnly admits that his own marriage once went through some really rough times, and that such difficulties arose because “God was calling me to the ministry but I kept fighting it”.

Why did he keep fighting it? Didn’t he trust God or something? What’s all that about?

As a group we chat for a few moments about certain relationship difficulties. It’s not long before there’s a pause in the action. The pastor looks around the room to see if anyone has any questions. There are none forthcoming so I offer something:

Me: “Early in his presentation Gumbel gave us an example of someone sitting in the doctor’s surgery reeling off his problems without waiting for a response from the doctor. He gave this as an analogy to us praying to God without waiting for a reply, leaving God to ask, “Don’t you want to hear what I have to say?” Well in a way I’m sitting in the doctor’s surgery now but I’m actually hanging about for a response. But I’m not getting one. If God doesn’t want to speak to me personally he can speak to me through one of you, I don’t mind”
Pastor: “Can I share with you what I felt God say to me today?”
Me: “Of course.”
Pastor: “I was praying this morning and I was also reading the Bible. I read these two verses and I just felt God say to me, “That’s for Steve””.
Me: “Ok”
Pastor: “It’s from Luke chapter 19 verses 41 and 42. “As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes”. I hope you don’t mind me being personal here but there are two sets of eyes: there’s Jesus’ eyes and there’s your eyes. I really sensed that God was weeping over you, Steve. That’s the passion that Jesus has for you. There is something inside of you that’s wondering what all this [life, the universe and everything] is about”.
Me: “Yes, you’re right. I’m interested in the ‘big’ questions”
Pastor: “Jesus is longing that you’ll know peace, but at the moment it’s hidden from your eyes. It’s interesting that you say that you’re here waiting for God to respond to you because I felt, and this is entirely up to you, but I felt that God wanted us to pray for your eyes, your spiritual eyes, to be opened. I think that God sees your heart and he knows you want answers, but I felt him say to me that you’re blind.”
Me: “Do you think that God sees me as hard-hearted perhaps?”
Pastor: “I don’t think you’re hard-hearted, Steve. I see you as a very gentle person, a very thoughtful person and a very caring person. I think “hard-hearted” would be the last phrase I’d use to describe you. But your blindness is, and I don’t want to sound rude here, but your blindness is an illness that can only be healed by Jesus. In the Bible Jesus said, “I’ve come to give sight to the blind,” and he meant that both physically and spiritually. And Jesus went around laying hands on people and they received their sight both physically and spiritually”
Me: “Thanks. However I must ask that if it is true that God is weeping over me and he knows I have a good heart, why does he contact you to tell you to read a bible verse to me? Why does he contact you to tell you to tell me that he’s weeping over me? Why doesn’t he come to me and tell me that?”
Pastor: “I think he has”
Me: “But I’m not aware of that”
Pastor: “Maybe not but…well… I can only offer to you what I’ve heard God say to me”
Me: “Yes, but why didn’t he just say it to me, though? Wouldn’t it have been easier, and a lot more persuasive, if he had cut out the middle man?”
Pastor: “In the last six months [the long-standing male member] has shared things with me, which were about me, which he felt were from God. Now, I could have said, “God, why didn’t you tell me that directly?” but I didn’t because I feel that [the long-standing male member] has, after listening to God and on my behalf, brought the words that he’d had for me straight from God. That gives me a real thrill to think that God is THAT interested in me! I feel that I’m more likely to succumb to wishful thinking, whereas [the long-standing male member] has no agenda.”

In other words he could merely be imagining that God was speaking to him, whereas [the long-standing male member] is an unbiased source so whatever comes from him must be legit. But I must ask, why couldn’t he be guilty of wishful thinking too?

Isn’t it incredibly revealing, though, that he admits to being prone to wishful thinking? Maybe he’s revealed more here than he would have liked.

The conversation is getting a bit heavy now as the pastor has tears in his eyes because he is so passionate about the fact that God communicates with him. I try to lighten the tone:

Me: “What if [the long-standing male member] came up to you and said, “I’ve just heard from God, and I felt that he was telling me to tell you that you must give me a couple of thousand pounds per month, paid directly into my bank account”

The group laughs. The pastor then responds by telling me that such a message couldn’t possibly have come from God because it doesn’t fit with scripture.

Interesting.

Anyway, after that minor diversion I get back on track by asking:

Me: “Why are such things so vague, though? We are after all talking about a God who is everywhere, knows everything and can do anything, but the only way I can get to know if he exists is if you come up to me and say, “Steve, I think that God has told me to read this Bible verse to you”.
Pastor: “Well it’s more than that. I felt as though he asked me to ask you if you’d be willing to be prayed for. And for your eyes to be opened.”
Me: “I have no problem with anyone wanting to pray for me.”
Pastor: “That’s fantastic. So tonight before you go, and with your permission, I’d like to do that”
Me: “Of course you can”

Things are getting interesting now!

These sessions are getting better by the week. It would appear that by the end of the evening I’m going to be surrounded by a mob of salivating Christians, who will be trying to will the power of the Holy Spirit into my doubt-riddled soul. I sit and listen to the rest of them chat as I try to imagine what is going to happen to me later on.

The conversation jumps swiftly from one topic to the next, and I’m quite content to sit quietly, that is until “punishment”, “discipline” and “hell” enter the discussion. The pastor explains to us that he has to discipline his own children but he does so because he loves them, and that it’s for their own good in the long run. He likens this to God sending non-Christians to hell.

Pastor: “God’s punishment is a discipline that comes out of his love. Just as my love for my children expresses itself both in abundance and in strict discipline at times.”
Me: “I don’t doubt that we need to have some sort of discipline in the world, but torturing someone is a different matter. When [my fellow sceptic] and I die we are, supposedly, going to get tortured for an eternity”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yes, but that torture is self-inflicted”
Me: “Didn’t you say the other week that my doubts were justified?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yes… errr… yes… but when God speaks to you it depends how much of an argument you put forward to God. You say you’re genuinely searching so God will genuinely break through, because if we draw close to God he’ll draw close to us”
Me: “The thing is, though, according to your belief, if I were to have a heart attack now and die I’d be spending an eternity in a lake of flames, even though I’d genuinely looked for God, but never heard from him or stumbled across any evidence for his existence”
Long-Standing Male Member: “If you don’t have a relationship with Jesus, where you’ve surrendered your life to Jesus, that is what will happen, yes”

It astonishes me how Christians can say things like that and not even flinch at the thought. The threats of eternal torture roll effortlessly off the tongue. They are quick to tell us how much their God loves us all, but are just as quick to tell us that he created an eternal pit of flames in which to torture those of us who do not reciprocate his love. Isn’t this just absolutely bizarre?

The pastor supports what the long-standing male member has just told me. He agrees that I’m doomed to (and deserving of) being sent to a place of eternal torture “because that’s been your choice”.

My choice? I don’t think so. We’ll come to that in a moment.

I ask them about this supposedly loving God who tortures his children for an eternity:

Me: “If your children had been naughty would you discipline them by holding their hands over a hot flame for a few seconds?”
Pastor: “No”
Me: “What about holding their hands over the flame for ten seconds, then? What about a minute, an hour, a day? How about a zillion years? How about even longer without any chance of them ever being able to pull their hands away?”
Lady Three: [Long pause] “But what if they threw themselves in the fire?”
Me: “But I’m not throwing myself in any fire”
Lady Three: “Maybe on a spiritual level you might be. The Bible says we were created to have a relationship with God, to have a two-way communication with him”
Me: “But God isn’t communicating with me”
Lady Three: “You can’t have communication with God without having a faith that he’s there”
Me: “I’ve had faith that he was there. I’m a former believer. And I can honestly say that I’ve never heard from God”
Lady Three: “What made you believe back then?”
Me: “I was raised that way. I didn’t know any different. I suppose if I’d have been raised in Pakistan I’d have been a Muslim”
Pastor: “I always think of it like we’re walking towards a cliff. God doesn’t push us over that cliff. All the time God is saying, “Look at the cross. My son died for you. Look at the cross. You don’t need to go over that cliff!””
Me: “But I genuinely do not see the cross or the cliff, despite being told that they’re there, and despite me looking for them for many years”
Long-Standing Male Member: “That’s because you’re like a blind person walking without a guide towards the cliff edge”
Me: “If I’m blind then I’m not choosing to throw myself off of a cliff that I don’t even know is there!”

Again, I’m dumbfounded at the way these Christians attempt to defend their beliefs. Much of it is childish. Some of it is just plain absurd. It’s as though they have never questioned these beliefs in the past, and have never even heard anyone else question them either. So now that someone IS questioning them (i.e. me) they panic and leap to the first thing that comes into their heads.

The long-standing male member then suggests that maybe God is communicating to me by nudging me towards attending the Alpha Course every week (I seem to remember that someone else suggested this in an earlier session too). I pose a similar question back at him:

Me: “And when I talk to Muslims maybe it is Allah who is guiding me towards them?”
Long-Standing Male Member: “And that’s the choice you have to make. How do you know that God is not telling you things through us?”
Me: “I don’t.”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Well I’m saying to you that God IS telling you things through us”
Me: “But I’d just have to take your word for that”
Long-Standing Male Member: “Yes”
Me: “But why would I take your word for it about your God, rather than the word of a Muslim, Sikh or Hindu about their gods?”

There’s a momentary pause before the pastor interjects by changing the subject. In a previous session I had told the group that Christianity was not original in having a godman sent to earth. One of the names I’d mentioned was Krishna, a Hindu deity. Krishna was an earthly manifestation of the Hindu god Vishnu, and he is still worshipped today. The pastor wants to pull me up on the topic of Krishna.

The pastor cannot understand how anyone could seriously believe in Krishna due to the fact that he “went around killing people and took sixteen thousand wives!”

The Christians in the group erupt into fits of hysterical laughter, and it doesn’t stop for almost a full minute. It’s as though someone has just told the greatest joke in the history of the universe.

They obviously find it ludicrous to believe in a god who kills humans. Yet they believe in the Christian God, the most notorious killer of all. Remember, this is the very same God who slaughtered the entire world’s population barring Noah and seven members of his family. And this is the same God who slaughters people on almost every page of the Old Testament.

They obviously find it ludicrous, too, to believe in a god who marries many women. Yet they believe in the Christian God who impregnates a young virgin without so much as asking her permission.

It blows my mind how can they laugh at one set of beliefs whilst holding firmly to a similar (or even sillier) set of beliefs themselves. It really is remarkable.

At this point Lady Two, who has been quiet for almost the duration of the evening so far, turns to me and asks:

Lady Two: “Have you repented? Do you feel the need to repent before a Holy God?”
Me: “No, not really”
Lady Two: “Do you think your life is ok?”
Me: “Yes I do”
Lady Two: “Before a Holy God? Say the Bible is true, do you think that everything in your life is as good as you can get it to please a Holy God?”
Me: “If the Bible is true then no, my life wouldn’t be pleasing to him because I’m not a Christian. I’d have to make myself a Christian, pretty sharpish I’d imagine”
Lady Two: “You know that night when I prayed for 100% faith?…”

Oh dear. We’re only 25 seconds into the conversation and already she wants to present her testimony again. The exact same testimony that she’s given at almost every session so far. “I never thought anyone could have 100% faith”… “God filled me with his Holy Spirit”… “It was complete POWER”… “Tears rolled down my face”… “The Bible sank into my chest”… “God had revealed himself to me, a nobody”…

You get the picture.

Her testimony lasts for about eight minutes before the pastor interrupts to state that now is a good time to pray for me. I’m quite excited at the thought. I’m just hoping, though, that it’s not going to be embarrassing. In my head I picture the scene from the film “The Exorcist” where the priest is attempting an exorcism on the demon-possessed young girl, dousing her with Holy Water as she squeals and vomits as her head spins around 360 degrees. I’m hoping it’s going to be a milder experience for me!

The pastor suggests that after he has finished with me I should go home and “read the Bible afresh so that God can speak directly to you through his word”. The long-standing male member adds, “Part of my love for God is to read the Bible. And as I read the Bible I sense God speaking to me, sometimes very consciously, to the point of tears”.

The pastor asks, “Can I pray for you? I’d like to lay my hands on you because Jesus did that”. I respond with a “No problem”.

He walks towards me and rubs his hands together as if to warm them up. I smile and say to him with a wink, “Be gentle with me”.

He puts one hand on the top of my head, holds his other hand in the air, closes his eyes and then begins his prayer:

Pastor: “Father God I just want to thank you for your word. God I want to thank you for Steve. I just want to thank you Lord that you do weep over Steve and that your eyes, Lord, are full of tears. I just want to thank you for Steve’s heart, Lord. He’s earnestly seeking you, Lord, and I want to thank you for the honesty and integrity with which he speaks to us. I praise and bless you for that, Lord. I lay my hands on him now just as Christ laid hands on the blind, and I want to pray in Christ’s name Jesus, Lord, that you will open his spiritual eyes that he may receive all he longs for. And Lord please make him be certain about the things of which he currently has no certainty. Open his eyes I pray. As he reads the Bible from this day onwards he’ll find you speaking to him and showing him the way. I ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen”

He stands quietly for a moment, with his eyes closed and his hand firmly gripping my head. He’s in the zone. I look around the room and the other Christians have their arms aloft. Some have their eyes closed and are rocking back and forth in their chairs, mumbling inaudible prayers to God.

A few seconds later the pastor lets go and thanks me for allowing that to happen. I tell him that it’s no problem. I look around the room again and the Christians seem quite moved by the experience. Ladies Two and Three have tears in their eyes. I’d say that they’re hopeful, if not certain, that I’m on my way to becoming a Christian now that I’ve made that first step.

The room remains quiet; everyone sits motionless as all eyes are focused on me. I sit still in my chair, taking in the moment. I wonder, do I have to say something at this point? Is this the point where I’m expected to start speaking in tongues or throwing myself on the floor, body convulsing from the power of the Holy Spirit? I don’t know. I don’t feel any different. Maybe it’ll come later.

The group remain with their arms aloft, as they take turns to mutter thanks to Jesus. The long-standing male member gives his thanks more audibly than the rest, “I want to thank you Lord for being an amazing God. Even though I might find it difficult to understand that Steve can’t see you, Lord, I pray that you help him to see you and understand you. Lord I pray that you’ll touch his heart, and I thank you, father, for promising to draw close to them who draw close to you. Lord, I give Steve into your hands and I pray that over the next week you will speak to him and that Steve will sense your powers and your presence. Lord, you know exactly how Steve thinks, and I pray that you will reveal yourself to him. This I ask in Jesus’ name. Amen”

His prayer is met by a chorus of amen’s from the group. Everyone smiles. The room is buzzing. The atmosphere is similar to that of an operating theatre after a surgeon has performed a difficult but life-saving operation on a patient. Success is in the air.

Or is it?

We all pack our up things and put on our coats and jackets. Tonight’s session has come to a close. There’s some hearty backslapping and a few excited handshakes. They all wish me well for the week ahead and I thank them for a fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable evening.

This could be a momentous week in my life. God could be revealing himself to me sometime between now and the next session. It’s kind of exciting.

God, the ball is in your court…

He taxes too much. If you vote for him you’ll be homeless. If you vote for the other one, your children will starve. But if you vote for the first guy, they’ll lose all their education and become stupid rejects, begging for day-old scraps behind the ghetto bakery. But the other guy will take your job. And the other one will tax your new raise so you actually come home with $5 less every week. One of them will date your mom. The other will shut down her nursing home. One will have dinner with terrorists at Arby’s while the other just sends him a check at Christmas, even though they don’t celebrate Christmas.

Here’s what I’m saying: There are bigger issues than whose face is on the front page. Every day 6000 kids are killed by mid-term or later abortion. They refuse to allow Bibles in schools, so Christian parents teach home school, allowing their children to learn math and moral values at the same time. While the schools are taking a massive dump when it comes to value and ethics and crime and teaching self-worth, the state of California just outlawed Christians from their God-given right to teach their own kids. Now they have to send them to the cesspool of a school that will teach anti-creation science, thereby infringing on the rights of students to practice their own religion freely (but don’t worry, they won’t attack Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, pagans, wiccans, Scientologists, etc. Just the Christians.)

Let’s see, what else? Lets talk about gay marriage. I’m all for gays to have the right to choose their lifestyle- its their choice. (Just like my kids schooling used to be.) But I’m not for the whole gay-marriage thing. Sure, they can practice it, but that doesn’t really make it a marriage. I know, I know, they’ve redefined what “marriage” is, but it used to be a union before God between a man and a woman. Since most homosexuals don’t believe in or care for God, they can’t really have a union before Him that He will honor. But, what they hey, they ignored my right to practice my faith (only if it’s from the Christian Bible) by ignoring the 1^st amendment, why not ignore the other principals too.

So who is going to do what to help me out? Am I personally going to benefit from either party being elected? Maybe, but probably not. There aren’t a whole lot of things that are going to actually make a difference in the way I daily live my life. I could be wrong, but here’s how I look at it:

If one side is accused of overtaxing and the other of allowing abortions, I will sacrifice a couple bucks, even a couple hundred, per year to vote for the sanctity of life.

If one side is accused of sending jobs overseas and the other of limiting free speech, I’m probably going to have to go for free speech. There will always be a need for jobs on the US. They may not be the best, but we have too many people not to need a ton of jobs. We also have a lot of politicians going after free speech, even though the ones attacked are the churches and the right. Hmm.

If one side wants to build a thousand mile fence at the borders and the other wants to let gays marry, I will go for the fence. Those guys are great climbers and if they can get in through, over or under a military fence, then they deserve to stay. For those that can’t, they can still come here, but have to go through the legal process. Meanwhile, I stand up for what I believe regarding gay marriage. I’m not anti-gay, but I’m not pro-gay. I’m just ok-gay; they can do their thing, but I don’t want tax dollars going toward something I find immoral.

Bottom line, I can’t do anything about the politicians. But, then again, I will probably never have to answer to them. I will, however, have to answer to God. I will stand before Him and be able to say that I voted for the things and the principles that are on His side, His Law, and His eternal purpose. I will say that I stood up for hundreds of thousands of innocent children and supported their right to life. I will say that I voted against the activity that led to His destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, the activities that He calls an abomination. I will be able to say that I stood up for His Word, His teaching, for the right to exhibit by faith, to speak freely the gospel. I will say, “Jesus, I stood up for you.”

What do you stand for?

A great trunk of a man,
red-bearded, flame-headed, stone-toothed jaw clenched
with the force of glaciers cutting into mountains.

And the white bearded man
in the weather-worn cloak with an easy,
practiced smile, lips parted just so,
his left hand held behind his back.

Flames held hot in the thunderer's mouth,
upon his tongue, "One of these days,
I am going to punch you, right in your face."
Then like a fast-moving front, he is gone.

And in the stillness, a deeper tension rises
from beneath graybeard's easy surface, the
smell and clatter of rot rising with his breath
"I'm betting on it."

Corpse
Mother of maggots

Therefore this week I will just be having a look at what Mr Gumbel had to offer. Next week I will endeavour to raise a few more points about this week’s session so that I have some recorded material to work with, as I don’t want to do the group a disservice by constructing conversations from memory. I want to continue as I have done in the previous four weeks, which is to type the discussions up as they actually happened – verbatim - from the audio recordings.

I can’t be fairer than that.

So let’s begin…

I’m one of the first to arrive for this week’s instalment. The pastor and the new Christian male are discussing the action from last weekend’s football (soccer) matches, so we have a laugh and a joke about that for ten minutes or so. The rest of group trickle into the room and we chat for a while as we enjoy a drink and a bowl of fruit salad.

After we’ve all been ‘fed and watered’ the pastor slips tonight’s DVD into the player. This session is called, “Why and How Should I Read The Bible?”…

Gumbel begins this week’s presentation by telling us of the time he and his father journeyed to Russia armed with a concealed box of Bibles.

Why the hidden stash of Bibles?

Gumbel explains to us, “It was back in 1976 and Russia was behind the Iron Curtain and we knew that there was persecution of Christians.” So much so that for the average Russian Christian, “it was very hard to get hold of a Bible”

So off they went in search of people who they thought “would appreciate these amazing Russian Bibles.” In one particular town in central Russia, Gumbel and his father attended a church service but found it “difficult to tell at the time whether the people in the church were genuine Christians or whether they were members of the KGB who were infiltrating the meetings”

I assume Gumbel was then guided by the Holy Spirit to take notice of a man who “had a wonderful beaming face.” Gumbel considered this ‘beaming face’ an obvious giveaway, and led him to conclude that the cheesy-grinned Soviet “MUST have a faith in Christ.”

After the service he followed the smiley man outside and eventually down a neighbouring street “until there was just him and I alone”. Gumbel pulled out a new Bible and offered it to the gentleman. “He was just SO excited!” exclaims Gumbel. “He was jumping up and down. He was dancing!” In no time the pair of them were “running up and down the street dancing together!”

Joyous scenes indeed.

Gumbel then asks us, “WHY was this man SO excited?” There is a momentary pause and the audience leans forward to hear his answer. Gumbel continues, “The Bible is the most popular book in the world”

He goes on to tell us that the works of Shakespeare have been translated into 60 languages, but such numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the Bible. The Christian holy book, he assures us, has been translated into over 2,000 languages. He adds, “it’s the world’s best seller by several miles” and that “44 million copies of the Bible are sold every year”. Impressive numbers, I’m sure you’ll agree.

But how important are such numbers?

British author, J.K Rowling, sold 11 million copies of her book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, in the first 24 hours of its release back in 2007, and has since gone on to sell nearly 500 million books from the Harry Potter series. Do such mind-boggling numbers tell us anything about the truth content of those books? No they do not. And the same goes for the Bible. The sales figures for a book are no guide to the truth of claims made in that book.

Gumbel is still spouting numbers, and offers us the interesting statistic, “In the average American household there are 6.8 Bibles”. Really? I’d bet that in the average American household there are 6.8 mullet-style haircuts too. So what?

He tells us that the Bible is “the most powerful book in the world” and that it has “the power to change lives” and he caps it off by telling us that it’s “the most precious book in the world”. I don’t know about you but I’m getting the sneaking suspicion that Gumbel is quite fond of the Bible and that he would heartily recommend that we read it.

He then asks us, “Why is it so popular? Why is it so powerful? Why is it so precious?”

To answer this he offers us a Bible verse (the Bible is precious because the Bible says so?), [Matthew 4:4]“
Jesus answered, ‘It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Gumbel elaborates, “Material things leave us with a sense of unfulfilment, because human beings, all of us, were created to live in a relationship with God” and that such a relationship is triggered by reading the Bible. God communicates with us through the pages of his word – his “written revelation”.

“The Bible is a manual for life” says Gumbel. Oddly enough I never got that impression when I read the Old Testament. Perhaps all the best tips for living a wholesome, peaceful life were hidden somewhere in between the genocide and incest. I’ll look a little closer the next time I read it.

As we have just learned, the Bible is God’s revelation to us in written form, but God has revealed himself to us in other ways too, claims Gumbel. “God has also revealed himself in creation”. He continues, “The earth proclaims his handiwork. You only have to look around!” He then offers us some examples, “Look at a beautiful sunset, look at the oceans, look at the stars, they speak about God”

Says who? God?

Try this as an experiment: approach a Christian and say, “Allah has revealed himself in creation… The earth proclaims his handiwork. You only have to look around!” and then offer some examples in support of your claim such as, “Look at a beautiful sunset, look at the oceans, look at the stars, they speak about Allah”. See what kind of response you get. I think it’s safe to say that such a claim will be met by ill-concealed laughter and perhaps derision. This is yet another example of how religious people find their own arguments to be completely unsatisfactory.

Gumbel then tells us that science helps us to discover God. He states, “Science is an exploration of the way in which god has revealed himself in creation. That’s why there’s no conflict between science and faith. Indeed they complement one another. They’re two different ways in which we explore Gods revelation.”

He then quotes possibly the greatest scientific mind of all time, Albert Einstein: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. Gumbel uses Einstein perhaps in the hope that such a name will make any uninformed sceptic think, “Hmmm, Albert Einstein agrees with what Nicky Gumbel is saying, so I’ll have to take Christianity very seriously indeed.”

But did Albert Einstein believe in the Christian God?

No he did not. Nor did he believe in ANY personal god. It was Albert Einstein who wrote the following:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Einstein is hardly endorsing Christianity, is he?

Back to God’s supposed written revelation, the Bible. Gumbel admits that difficulties can arise when reading the Bible. One such difficulty, he says, is the existence of suffering. “Every Christian believes that God is love. And yet there is this extraordinary amount of suffering in the world. How can we hold on to believing in a God of love AND seeing all the suffering that is in the world?” What we mustn’t do is abandon our belief, he advises. What we should do, rather, is “wrestle with those problems. And as we wrestle with those problems we get a deeper understanding of the Bible and a deeper understanding of the problems. The Bible is our supreme authority”

He adds that by reading the Bible we “find out what is right in God’s eyes and what is wrong in God’s eyes” He states that the Bible is, “full of practical material for how to bring up children, for example”.

If the Bible is to be believed then I’m not so sure if child welfare is high on God’s list of priorities. He seems to have a penchant for slaying defenceless infants whose only ‘crime’ is to have been unfortunate enough to be the first-born child of a certain couple for example, and God seems to have a liking for having infants offered up to him as a burnt offering (only to present the child’s father, the man assigned the duty of killing the boy, with a rib-tickling “Gotcha! I was just seeing if you’d obey me!” seconds before the child’s throat is to be slit). Yes, God is love indeed.

Gumbel then makes the point that we need rules in life. Without rules there would be anarchy and chaos. Thankfully God has that covered, as he offers us the greatest rulebook of all in the shape of… yes you guessed it… the Bible.

To highlight the fact that we need rules he offers us the tale of how he was once roped in to refereeing a boy’s game of football, after the designated referee failed to show up. Unfortunately Gumbel didn’t know the rules of the game, so it wasn’t long before the match turned into chaos. Thankfully the real referee eventually turned up and managed to sort out all the mess. He imposed the basic ground rules and the boys went on to have a great game of football. They had rules to follow and a lawgiver to obey. Things are better that way, says Gumbel. Similarly, he suggests, life is better when we have basic ground rules to follow (the Bible) and a lawgiver to obey (God).

Gumbel wants us to realise that just because God has laid down some rules for us this does not make him a dictator or a bully. On the contrary in fact, as Gumbel explains, “God loves us. He hasn’t given us this [the Bible] to restrict our freedom. He’s given us this book to set us free. To enjoy life as he intended us to live it.”

Gumbel continues, “He didn’t give us the command ‘You shall not kill’ because he is a spoil-sport… He didn’t say ‘Don’t steal’ because he wanted to ruin our fun… He didn’t say ‘Don’t commit adultery’ because he wanted to ruin all our fun. He said it because he knows that people get hurt. And he doesn’t want people to get hurt because he loves us. This [points to the bible] is how to live. This is life at its very best, and within that we find freedom.”

Moving into top gear now, Gumbel adds that the Bible is “a love letter from God”.

A love letter?

I must admit I haven’t had many love letters in my life, but the ones that I have received have been conspicuously lacking in grizzly tales of mass human slaughter, rape, and torture. If I were to receive a “love letter” from a lady whose career highlight to date was the extermination of the entire worlds population (with the exception of 8 individuals), and that such a lady also had an unhealthy fascination with torturing homosexuals and the non-religious, I think it’s safe to say that her letter would hardly ‘warm the cockles’ of my heart. And I doubt that I’d be inviting her over to my parent’s home for Sunday luncheon anytime soon. I’ll go out on a limb here and admit that those kinds of “love letters” are, to me, a tad unattractive. Maybe that’s where Gumbel and I differ.

Sticking with the love letter theme Gumbel tells us of the time he was parted for a few weeks from his then fiancée (who later became his wife). He found it very difficult, but the two of them wrote to each other every day. Every morning he’d get up and look for a letter popping through the letterbox. “If I saw a letter with [his fiancée’s name] on it I felt this excitement, this thrill. Why? The letter in itself wasn’t what it was about. It was because of the relationship. Because it was a letter from the person I loved” Gumbel, of course, is likening this scenario to that of the Christian’s relationship with God, and the warm personal attachment they feel when they read his love letter to them – the Bible.

Gumbel assures us that God “brings faith to those people that are not Christians” when they take time to read the Bible. As the apostle Paul states [Romans 10:17], “faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of God.”

Surely there are millions of people that have read the Bible and haven’t been imbued with faith as a result? I’m certainly one of them. Why does God not treat us all equally?

Keeping up a strong gallop, Gumbel enthuses “it never ceases to amaze me that this book, about a person who lived two thousand years ago, we can actually KNOW that person. We can speak to them and they speak to us through this book. Communication is vital to any relationship, that’s how we develop relationships, and that’s how relationships grow and strengthen.”

I don’t see much of a “relationship” there, to be honest. I’m a big fan of the work of Robert. G. Ingersoll, the magnificent orator and freethought advocate of mid-to-late 19th century America, but I don’t have a “relationship” with him, as such. His words touch me very deeply and they satisfy me intellectually, but I don’t claim to be in a “relationship” with Robert. G. Ingersoll. Not in the everyday sense, at least. Gumbel claims to have such a relationship, in the everyday sense, with God through the pages of a book. I think Gumbel is misleading us by misusing the word “relationship” in the way that he does.

If anyone is interested in reading some of Ingersoll’s work you can find a link to his writings to the right of this screen, under the “Links” header.

Moving on…

All parents know that when you have a child you have to feed it so it will grow. Gumbel tells us that the Bible is “spiritual food. It helps us to grow” and that it “brings joy and peace”, as well as “gives us wisdom” and “challenges us” and “guides us”

He stresses now that it’s an absolute must that we read God’s word. “If you want to grow as a Christian. If you want your relationship with God to grow you need to set aside time to read the Bible.”

We should read it “rather like with foods: little and often”, then gradually increase the dosage. He suggests that we go to a solitary place to read, as this may help us focus on the message.

Gumbel adds, “I think you’ll find that if you do this on a regular basis over the years you’ll find that day-by-day God speaks to you. Sometimes in very ordinary ways and sometimes in very important ways”

Gumbel then offers us an example of when God spoke to him regarding one particularly important matter. A matter involving his father, “a secular Jew by background”, who died in 1981.

Gumbel states, “I never quite knew, because he was a man of very few words, what he thought or what he’d come to believe. And when he died I was obviously very sad because his death came very sudden, but also I was worried about whether he really had a relationship with God, through Christ. Whether he really had a belief, a faith. It was about ten days after he died that I was reading the Bible [and] I prayed that God would speak to me. I read a verse that day from Romans 10:13 and it says this, ‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ I sensed God say to me, ‘Your father DID call on me and he WAS saved.’”

I happen to feel for Gumbel on this point. I’m sure that every ounce of his being hopes that his father survived death, that he’s living in a paradise free from pain and that he’s in a state of perfect happiness. As humans we all want what is best for our loved ones, but, I’m sorry to say, I don’t see how these supposed admissions from God are anything but wishful thinking on Gumbel’s part. I really don’t.

There are plenty of people that claim to hear voices in their heads. Many of whom are now locked in lunatic asylums for our (and their) safety. Peter Sutcliffe (The Yorkshire Ripper) was also convinced that he had heard the voice of God in his head commanding him to slaughter prostitutes. The thing is I have no good reason for believing that the lunatics are telling the truth and, similarly, I have no good reason for believing the testimony of Gumbel. Though I am not for one moment likening him to the lunatics listed above. He is, on the whole, a reasonable fellow. Only when religion enters the fray does he, in my eyes at least, deviate from reasonableness.

Shortly after God had assured him that his father was safe in heaven, Gumbel’s wife entered the room and said, “I’ve just been reading a passage in the Bible and I think I’ve got a verse which is for your father. Its Acts 2:21 and it says this, ‘And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’”

Obviously Mrs Gumbel knew of her husband’s concerns regarding his father’s fate (as stated earlier), so it’s hardly surprising that she would tell him of a verse that would possibly offer him some emotional comfort. Gumbel doesn’t see it that way, though. He sees this as God guiding his wife to that particular verse so as to prove that he’s a caring God, and a that he is a God who is eager to put their concerns to rest.

Through Gumbel’s presentation we’ve come to learn that God speaks to people. He speaks to the Gumbel family and supposedly millions of others too, but Gumbel wants to know about members of the audience, particularly the fence sitters and would-be-Christians amongst them. A fully focused Gumbel asks, “Let me ask you this question tonight. Do you think the Lord may be trying to speak to YOU?”. A doe-eyed Gumble then looks toward the audience and pleads in a whisper, “In which case will you let him?”

There’s a quiet pause as the room looks towards Gumbel contemplatively. He then brings the presentation to a close with a prayer.

There were quite a few points worthy of discussion in tonight’s session, as I’m sure you’ll agree. A couple of issues that I want to get my teeth into are:

1 – How the Christians in the group reach the conclusion that stars, oceans and sunsets are “designed”.

And…

2 - How the Christians in the group reconcile the existence of an all-loving God with the existence of gratuitous evil in the world.

We did touch upon these issues in our discussion after tonight’s presentation, but, as stated earlier, they weren’t recorded. So I wont include them here. Hopefully I can steer the conversation towards these topics in the coming weeks.

Next week’s session is entitled, “How Does God Guide Us?”

Until then…

I’d like to be the first to welcome them.

Think about it. The evil cabal that Born Again Christians are terrified of is prophesied to bring about a one-world government and instill peace for a thousand years. Sure, it’s all supposed to go to hell after that, but I’ve been doing the math here. I am a chubby, 42-year-old smoker. Let’s face it, I am not going to make it to 80 let alone 1000. So, by the time the evil antichrist exposes himself and draws all humanity down to hell with him, I’ll have already been there for 900 plus years.

In the meantime, though, the idea of living out my life on a planet with a peaceful, one-world government seems a hell of a lot better than, say George Bush.

So here’s to the evil empire and all the false peace, fake tranquility, and imaginary freedom it offers. It’s still a hell of a lot better than what we keep coming up with every election cycle.

Army Awards Contract for “High Speed Portable Portal Iris Capture Solution”

Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

September 23, 2008

Sarnoff Corporation today announced it has been awarded a contract from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory to develop and demonstrate a high speed biometric capture technology solution for iris-based identification. The system will be designed to be ruggedized for field use and quickly deployable.

The new iris recognition system will leverage Sarnoff’s patent-pending Iris on the Move(R) (IOM) technology for fast and reliable identification. IOM is a proven biometric identification system that quickly captures the iris image of a person in motion. The technology is ideally suited for force protection, civil-military operations, and combat situations.

Other iris scanning technologies require users to stop, line up their eye properly, and stare directly into a scanner for a period of time. IOM technology verifies identities at speeds of up to thirty people per minute, allowing subjects to walk through the system at a standard pace, without stopping. In addition, Sarnoff’s design will automatically adjust for subjects’ height without slowing throughput.

"Current biometric ID systems take too long to identify people in high traffic areas and cause long lines to form at checkpoints," said Dr. Don Newsome, President and CEO of Sarnoff Corporation. "This is inconvenient and poses a security risk. The IOM technology makes it easy to set up iris scanning checkpoints that are as reliable as other biometric-based options but quick enough to keep lines moving rapidly."

The IOM system delivers accurate identification regardless of whether the subject is wearing prescription glasses, most sunglasses, or contact lenses. In addition, IOM technology can capture iris images from farther distances than any other commercial iris scanning technology.

Sarnoff has delivered IOM technology to several secure government facilities and private corporations. The technology can be used for a broader range of applications including banking ID verification, border crossing initiatives, event security, payment systems, and employee access.

Video clip example of iris scan in ‘Minority Reeport’. Gov’t embedded idea into movies to “get people ready”.

Article URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6607757.stm

US and EU agree 'single market'

The United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership at a summit in Washington.

The pact is designed to boost trade and investment by harmonizing regulatory standards, laying the basis for a US-EU single market.

The two sides also signed an Open Skies deal, designed to reduce fares and boost traffic on transatlantic flights.

But little of substance was agreed on climate change.

However, EU leaders were pleased that the US acknowledged human activity was a major cause.

Richest regions

Economics rather than the environment or politics was the focus of the summit, says the BBC's Europe correspondent, Jonny Dymond, from Washington.

The two sides agreed to set up an "economic council" to push ahead with regulatory convergence in nearly 40 areas, including intellectual property, financial services, business takeovers and the motor industry.

            Without the US there can't be any success in coping with a globalised world

European diplomat

The aim is to increase trade and lower costs.

Some reports suggest that incompatible regulations in the world's two richest regions add 10% to the cost of developing and producing new cars.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said last month that if the US and EU could set business norms today, they would "secure the markets of tomorrow".

Since she came to office 18 months ago, she has made repairing damaged relations with the US a top priority.

Emission cuts

The Europeans said they were pleased that the US now officially acknowledged that climate change was happening and that human activity was a major cause of it.

"We agree there's a threat, there's a very serious global threat," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

"We agree that there is a need to reduce emissions. We agree that we should work together."

But behind the scenes, says our Europe correspondent, officials were saying that not much had changed.

Ms Merkel will try to nudge the US towards a global approach to climate change before a G8 summit Germany is chairing in six weeks' time, says our correspondent.

But the US has consistently rejected the European approach of imposing national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, saying they would harm the international economy.

Visa hope

The Open Skies agreement will take effect on 30 March 2008 and will allow EU carriers to fly to anywhere in the US and vice versa.

The deal promises to lower airfares and widen choice for passengers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The EU hopes to go further and create an "Open Aviation Area" between the two sides "in which investment can flow freely and in which European and US airlines can provide air services without any restriction," said a EU statement.

The EU is also hoping that the US will agree to withdraw its visa requirement for travellers from a number of EU states.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6607757.stm

Published: 2007/04/30 23:21:16 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Secret Bilderberg Agenda To Microchip Americans Leaked

Elitists want to microchip Americans in name of fighting terrorism, Europeans universally opposed to attack on Iran, Globalists fear oil prices rising too quickly

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Sources from inside the 2008 Bilderberg meeting have leaked the details of what elitists were discussing in Chantilly Virginia last week and the talking points were ominous - a plan to microchip Americans under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups which will be identified as blonde haired, blue eyed westerners.

Veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker relies on sources who regularly attend Bilderberg as aides and assistants but who are not Bilderberg members themselves. The information they provided this year is bone-chilling for those who have tracked the development of the plan to make the general public consider implanted microchips as a convenience as routine as credit cards.

"Under the heading of resisting terrorism there were points made about how the terrorist organizations are recruiting people who do not look like terrorists - blonde, blue eyed boys - they're searching hard for those types to become the new mad bombers," said Tucker.

As we have documented, the blue eyed blonde haired Al-Qaeda line is a familiar talking point that has been pushed on Fox News and within other Neo-Con circles in an attempt to turn the anti-terror apparatus around to target dissidents, protesters and the American people in general.

Ominously, Tucker's source also told him that Bilderberg were discussing the microchipping of humans on a mass scale, which would be introduced under the pretext of fighting terrorism whereby the "good guys" would be allowed to travel freely from airports so long as their microchip could be scanned and the information stored in a database.

Tucker said the idea was also sold on the basis that it would help hospital staff treat a patient in an emergency situation because a scan of the chip would provide instantaneous access to health details.

Tucker underscored that Bilderberg were talking about subdermally implanted chips and not merely RFID chips contained in clothing. The discussion took place in a main conference hall and was part of the agenda, not an off-hand remark in the hotel bar.

Such a bizarre concept may seem unbelievable to some, but over the last ten years there have been dozens of examples of people accepting implanted chips for a variety of different reasons.

In 2004, Mexico's attorney general and 160 of his office staff were implanted with tracker chips to control access to secure areas of their headquarters.

The Baja Beach Club in Barcelona and other nightclubs around the world are already offering implantable chips to customers who want to pay for drinks with the wave of a hand and also get access to VIP areas of the club lounge.

Bilderberg skeptical of attack on Iran

Tucker's source told him that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did attend Bilderberg despite him not appearing on the official list.

Tucker said that his sources told him Gates was in attendance to present his case for war with Iran, but that the majority of Bilderberg members were against an attack at this time.

"The Europeans were generally opposed to an invasion of Iran - Gates made the regular war propaganda drill about how Iran is a nuclear threat to everybody," said Tucker, adding that European Bilderbergers made snide comments about where such nuclear weapons actually were being kept and at one point joking that they were possibly "in Saddam Hussein's tomb".

Despite Bilderberg opposition, Tucker said that the administration was still considering an attack before Bush leaves office in January.

"At least 90 per cent of the Europeans oppose a war, probably closer to 100 per cent," said Tucker, adding, "most of the Americans were passive and deferential to the Secretary of Defense and Condoleezza Rice's pitch in so far as Iran is concerned".

Tucker said that most Americans present at the meeting were opposed to attacking Iran but dare not be as visible and loud in their opposition as the Europeans.

Energy and oil prices

"One of the Bilderberg boys raised this question - should we put a lid on the rise in oil prices, are we reaching the point of diminishing returns," said Tucker, adding that Bilderberg noted how Americans were trading in their SUV's in record numbers for small and more fuel efficient cars and using more public transport to combat high gas prices.

Tucker's source said that Bilderberg were predicting $5 for a gallon of gas by the end of this summer and oil over $150 dollars a barrel, but that this was a ceiling and oil prices would probably begin to decline thereafter because they thought the acceleration had happened too quickly.

As we previously reported, Bilderberg called for oil prices to soar in 2005 when oil was a mere $40 a barrel.

During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. With that target having been smashed months ago, the acceleration towards $150 is outstripping even Bilderberg's goal, which is why the elitists expressed a desire to cool prices at least in the short term.

Just two days after he left Bilderberg, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, George W. Bush and others expressed support for a strong dollar and Bernanke hinted that interest rates could rise, which immediately caused oil prices to drop in line with Bilderberg's consensus.

Masons are chipping their kids at a local fair!!!! They do a retinal scan, voice recording and they put an RFID chip in the kids as a carnival attraction.

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7octwsoi4HM

 Videos:

Concentration Camps in US:

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqi123hBw2A

Concentration Camps in Texas

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxYxTly-yo8

Apparently, there are a number of buildings throughout the US that are supposedly “abandoned” warehouses and large factory-style businesses. These buildings have unique additions, such as military personnel, US Army & Air force vehicles, wind socks and other markers for helicopters,  the addition of barbed wire- pointing inwards (to keep people in, not out) and added heating systems (for buildings deemed “not in use”).  This is one piece of the puzzle.

Bill Clinton was asked about these and basically said, “We need to get along with other agencies and cooperate in our inter-dependant world” He DID say, “We’re better off with NATO. We’re better off with the United Nations.” Hand over our control? Live under the dictatorship of a one world government?

Here’s that link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFPsHPKY0y8

The world’s government is planning on mass world depopulation. Many cases of witnesses have seen and taped the piles and piles of caskets. This is for those who die in the depopulation and those who disobey the martial law. Hundreds of thousands of caskets in scarcely populated rural areas. About 1 ½ min into this video is a close-up. Second video even better.

  URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYp85QMJd1Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGa_sdyRS7Q

FEMA has already built underground caves and tunnels and is ready for a nuclear attack or “plague” to strike. We already know that the governments are working together (google “Builerberg” for more) and that they will more than likely intentionally release the pestilence and/ or weapons to annialate up to 80% of the world’s population. In this video, the FEMA agent becomes suddenly quiet when asked about the underground facilities, even though it is supposedly for “security in the event of an attack”.

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S2J3i34XW8

A massive conspiracy to create a new one world order?

Watch these, and see the evidence. Then make your decision. (2nd half of this video is of the concentration camp, above)

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXlEfUGEzl4

This last video is VERY LONG. Its over 2 hours, so watch it as you have time. This is an exclusive documentary about the secret Bilderberg meetings and the plans that the governments have for martial law, with piles of proof and evidence. Here’s the video, followed by Wikipedia’s definition and explanation of the Bilderberg group, and a list of attendees:

 URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&ei=kPPWSOX1NqXGrQK_iOnZAg&q=alex+jones+endgame&hl=en

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&ei=kPPWSOX1NqXGrQK_iOnZAg&q=alex+jones+endgame&hl=en]

Origin and purpose

 Hotel de Bilderberg

The original Bilderberg conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in The Netherlands, from May 29 to May 31, 1954. The meeting was initiated by several people, including Joseph Retinger, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, who proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting understanding between the cultures of United States of America and Western Europe.[5]

Retinger approached Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who agreed to promote the idea, together with Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, and the head of Unilever at that time, the Dutchman Paul Rijkens. Bernhard in turn contacted Walter Bedell Smith, then head of the CIA, who asked Eisenhower adviser C. D. Jackson to deal with the suggestion.[6] The guest list was to be drawn up by inviting two attendees from each nation, one each to represent conservative and liberal (both terms used in the American sense) points of view.[5]

The success of the meeting led the organizers to arrange an annual conference. A permanent Steering Committee was established, with Retinger appointed as permanent secretary. As well as organizing the conference, the steering committee also maintained a register of attendee names and contact details, with the aim of creating an informal network of individuals who could call upon one another in a private capacity. Conferences were held in France, Germany, and Denmark over the following three years. In 1957, the first U.S. conference was held in St. Simons, Georgia, with $30,000 from the Ford Foundation. The foundation supplied additional funding of $48,000 in 1959, and $60,000 in 1963.[6]

Dutch economist Ernst van der Beugel took over as permanent secretary in 1960, upon the death of Retinger. Prince Bernhard continued to serve as the meeting's chairman until 1976, the year of his involvement in the Lockheed affair. There was no conference that year, but meetings resumed in 1977 under Alec Douglas-Home, the former British Prime Minister. He was followed in turn by Walter Scheel, ex-President of West Germany, Eric Roll, former head of SG Warburg and Lord Carrington, former Secretary-General of NATO.[7]

Attendees

Main article: List of Bilderberg attendees

Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America.

Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger, as is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of British Petroleum. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss engineering company ABB. Former U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary and former World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member. The group's current chairman is Etienne Davignon, the Belgian businessman and politician.

Mainstream criticism

Critics claim the Bilderberg Group promotes the careers of politicians whose views are representative of the interests of multinational corporations, at the expense of democracy.[8] Journalists who have been invited to attend the Bilderberg Conference as observers have discounted these claims, calling the conference "not much different from a seminar or a conference organized by an upscale NGO"[9] with "nothing different except for the influence of the participants."[10]

 Conspiracy theories

The group's secrecy and its connections to power elites encourages speculation and mistrust by such groups or individuals who believe that the group is part of a conspiracy to create a New World Order. This is further encouraged by the frequent use of the term 'New World Order' by its members when referring to their ultimate goal of world integration. The group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots by groups such as the John Birch Society.[11] This thinking has progressively found acceptance within both elements of the populist movement and fringe politics. [12] According to investigative journalist Chip Berlet, the prominent origins of Bilderberger conspiracy theories can be traced to activist Phyllis Schlafly. [13]

Radio host Alex Jones claims the group intends to dissolve the sovereignty of the United States and other countries into a supra-national structure similar to the European Union. This accusation is also linked with others claiming plans for a merger of Canada with United States, hoping Canadian influence will be calming to American society and foreign policy.

From "The Hunt for Red Menace:" "The views on intractable godless communism expressed by [Fred] Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly's A Choice, Not an Echo which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest. Schlafly's husband Fred had been a lecturer at Schwartz's local Christian anti-communism Crusade conferences." [14]

Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states "In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg."[15]

Denis Healey, a Bilderberg founder and former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, decries such theories. He was quoted by BBC News as saying "There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion."[15]

Some popular media references to the group are in Fredrick Forsyth's novel "The Icon" where the group decides to undermine a nationalist Russian leader loosely modeled on Vladimir Putin (among others).

Royalty

•               Prince Philip (1965, 1966, 1967), Duke of Edinburgh

•               Prince Charles (1986), Prince of Wales

•               Prince Bernhard (Chairman of Bilderberg Meetings 1954-1976), father of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

•               Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands[3]

•               Claus von Amsberg (1967, 1968, 1971, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986-1989), husband of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

•               Willem-Alexander, Prince of Orange (1990, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2008), Crown Prince of the Netherlands

•               Juan Carlos I, King of Spain (1989)

•               Queen Sofia of Spain, wife of Juan Carlos I, King of Spain (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1996)

•               Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca, younger daughter of Juan Carlos I, King of Spain

•               Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant (1992, 1993, 1996, 2008), Crown Prince of Belgium

•               Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King of Sweden (1995)

•               Harald V of Norway, King of Norway (1984)

•               Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein (1985, 1986, 1987)

•               Prince Axel of Denmark (1955, 1957)

Politics

United States

•               David L. Aaron (1977), former Deputy National Security Advisor

•               Dean Acheson (1957, 1958, 1964, 1966), former United States Secretary of State

•               Keith B. Alexander (2008), current Director, National Security Agency

•               Roger Altman (2008), former United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

•               John B. Anderson (1977), former US Congressman

•               Michael Armacost (1997), President, Brookings Institution

•               Nancy Kassebaum Baker (1988), former US Senator

•               George W. Ball (1954-1992),[4] former U.S. diplomat

•               Evan Bayh (1999), current US Senator, former Democratic Leadership Council Chairman, also attended the Renaissance Weekend. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Member of the Alfalfa Club

•               Lloyd Bentsen (1989, 1992, 1995 - 1997), former United States Secretary of the Treasury

•               Sandy Berger (1997), former National Security Advisor (United States)

•               James H. Billington (1992), former Librarian of Congress

•               Eugene R. Black, Sr. (1957, 1966), former President of the World Bank

•               John Bolton (2003)

•               John Brademas (1966), former US Congressman

•               Bill Bradley (1985), former US Senator

•               Nicholas F. Brady (1984, 1986, 1988, 1991), former United States Secretary of the Treasury

•               Edward Brooke (1968), former US Senator

•               Zbigniew Brzezinski (Guest, 1966, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1978, 1985), President Carter's National Security Advisor

•               McGeorge Bundy (1956, 1957, 1964, 1966, 1980), former National Security Advisor (United States)

•               William Bundy (1977)

•               Clifford P. Case (1958), former US Senator

•               John Chafee (1979, 1986, 1991, 1992), former US Senator

•               Frank Church, former US Senator

•               Hillary Clinton (1997), current US Senator, also attended the World Economic Forum, the Munich Conference on Security Policy, the Salzburg Global Seminar and the Renaissance Weekend. Member of the Democratic Leadership Council

•               Bill Clinton (1991),[5] former US President, 1993 - 2001

•               Carlos M. Collazo (2003)

•               Barber Conable, former President of the World Bank

•               Richard Cooper (1975, 1977), former United States Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs

•               Jon Corzine (1995 - 1997[3], 1999, 2003, 2004), current Governor of New Jersey

•               Kenneth W. Dam (1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989-1997), former United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

•               Richard Darman (1987), former United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

•               Thomas A. Daschle (2008), former US Senator

•               Lynn Davis (1995)

•               John M. Deutch (1998), former CIA Director, former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense

•               Thomas E. Dewey (1956, 1957, 1966), former Governor of New York

•               C. Douglas Dillon (1968), former United States Secretary of the Treasury

•               Christopher Dodd (1999 - 2001), current US Senator

•               John Edwards (2004), former US Senator

•               Stuart Eizenstat (2002), former United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury

•               Mike Espy (1994), former United States Secretary of Agriculture

•               Daniel J. Evans (1986, 1988), former US Senator, former Governor of Washington

•               Dianne Feinstein (1991), current US Senator

•               Douglas Feith (2004)

•               James Florio (1994), former Governor of New Jersey

•               Tom Foley (1988, 1990, 1995, 2002), former Speaker of the US House of Representatives

•               Gerald R. Ford (1964, 1966), former US President, 1974 - 1977

•               Harold Ford, Jr. (2008), current Chairman, Democratic Leadership Council, former US Congressman, Vice Chairman, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

•               Donald M. Fraser (1971), former US Congressman

•               Peter Hood Ballantine Frelinghuysen, Jr. (1964, 1966, 1971), former US Congressman

•               J. William Fulbright (1956, 1957, 1964), former US Senator

•               Cornelius Edward Gallagher (1963, 1966), former US Congressman

•               Melinda Gates (2004), wife of Bill Gates

•               David Gergen (1992, 1995), political consultant and presidential adviser during the Republican administrations of Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, campaign staffer for George H.W. Bush and adviser to Democratic President Bill Clinton