Sometimes I have to squeeze myself that I am living in a time, where politicians & other "higher educated" people do not even understand basic biology. Are they stupid, or given over to a depraved mind? Do you remember or seen the movie even if you were born after that time, the classic scene in "Kindergarten Cop"? How did we get there in roughly 36 years, since this movie was released. Many western societies have moved beyond Sodom & Gomorrah. Judgement delayed does not mean judgement denied. Come Lord Jesus, come soon. In Australian State schools children as young as 4 to 5 are now being brainwashed with this nonsense. Come Lord Jesus, come soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPP_In40at4&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPP_In40at4&t=3s

There is a whole generation growing up that is completely brainwashed, woke & ignorant, specially the one's with the so-called higher education. Our society is in extreme dire-straights. People please wake up out of our slumber! Douglas Murray’s URGENT Call: “The End of Freedom Is Closer Than You Think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNn-XgQ_OI

Like any movement, reformation or revival it is not all perfect, but sometimes it is good to look into & learn from the past. In regards to raising children it will be better advice than many of this generation parents find on "Google".

Today, Australia’s Full Federal Court ruled AGAINST women-only app founder Sall Grover in the landmark “Giggle v Tickle” case. Here’s what happened: Sall Grover created a women-only social networking app called Giggle for Girls. A biological male named Roxanne Tickle, who identifies as a transgender woman, joined the app. Grover removed the account because she believed the app should remain exclusively for biological women. Tickle sued Grover for discrimination. A lower court had already ruled against Grover last year and ordered her to pay $10,000 compensation. Grover appealed that ruling to the Full Federal Court. Today, she lost again. And the Court made the outcome even harsher. The judges changed the finding from “indirect discrimination” to “direct discrimination” and doubled the damages Grover must pay Tickle from $10,000 to $20,000. But the most chilling part is THIS: The Court also punished Grover for repeatedly referring to Tickle as “he” during the legal fight. The judges called it “hurtful”, “gratuitous” and “unnecessary”. Think about what that means. In modern Australia, a woman can now be punished by the courts for refusing to call a biological male a woman. This is no longer just about one app. This is about whether women are even allowed to have female-only spaces anymore. It’s about whether biological reality still matters under the law. It’s about whether ordinary people can be forced to say things they do not believe, under threat of legal punishment. And here’s the truly shocking part: The Court openly admitted it was simply applying the law AS WRITTEN. Those laws were changed in 2013 under Julia Gillard’s government when “gender identity” was inserted into the Sex Discrimination Act and biological definitions were removed. Now Australia is living with the consequences. After the ruling, Sall Grover said: “Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia.” Pauline Hanson responded: “It flies in the face of biological reality, and strips rights from women.” Whatever your politics, this should concern you. Because once the law starts punishing people for speaking obvious truth, every freedom becomes fragile. Women lose boundaries. Language loses meaning. Reality itself becomes political. And history shows that never ends well. (Queensland, Australia) — Westerners are used to delineating the years with the timestamps of BC and AD, but since 2020, we have also become accustomed to using BC in a different way—before COVID. Although many have attempted to whitewash the entire event, there are some who are unwilling to let their governments get away with the serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences of the mandates and lockdowns. In my home state of Queensland (Australia), one such man’s fight against the Queensland Government continues. But in attempting to absolve themselves of the claims, the Queensland Government has now put forward an argument that should alarm every Christian under its governance. The case in question involves a young legal professional by the name of Jayden Beale and relates to COVID-19 workplace vaccination mandates implemented by the Queensland Government during the 2021 and 2022 period. His application has been filed pursuant to Section 59 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), which provides a pathway for individuals to challenge alleged breaches of their statutory rights by a public entity. However, the case is not the first of its kind in Queensland. Dozens of Queensland Police Service and Queensland Ambulance Service staff challenged workplace mandates in 2022, with the Queensland Supreme Court later ruling (in 2024) that those mandates breached Section 58 of the Human Rights Act. Although it was a significant win for those who had been stood down from their positions for refusing “the jab” the Court had made it clear that the decision to impose a mandate was substantively compatible with human rights but there was a failure at a procedural level. Had the procedural element of the mandates not failed, the mandatory vaccine mandates would have remained intact. Therefore, if and when there is another “pandemic,” it is likely businesses and government institutions will again impose vaccine mandates on staff, this time being more careful to get the procedure right. This is why Jayden Beale’s case is so important. It has the potential to set a precedent which would remove that risk entirely for those who object on a human rights basis, particularly when it conflicts with faith-based convictions. So, in the case of Beale vs Queensland, Mr Beale has sought to argue that measures adopted by the Queensland Government at the time were unlawful or disproportionate, particularly in relation to bodily autonomy, informed consent, and freedom of belief. In fact, in his original application to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, he pointed to the fact that he was opposed to the vaccine mandate on the basis of 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.“ So, in the ever-evolving legal landscape, Beale is attempting to argue that the mandates relied on incomplete scientific data and imposed unreasonable burdens on individuals who had grounds to refuse the vaccine due to sincerely held beliefs. The story has received little attention in Australia’s mainstream media due to the fact that most of the Australian public has moved on from the COVID years. Nevertheless, Beale’s case does represent an overdue examination of state power for many still bearing the scars inflicted by government overreach that was prevalent throughout the so-called pandemic. Yet, the Queensland government has attempted (and failed) on six different occasions to dismiss the case, demonstrating it clearly has no appetite to address these objections in an open court. Yet, it was during one of its failed attempts to dismiss the case that the Queensland Government, in obvious desperation, raised the ire of Christians. Legal representatives of the Queensland Government reportedly argued that Beale’s objection to the vaccine mandates was not protected religious activity but “Mr Beale’s subjective interpretation [of] parts of the Bible that he relies upon to support his personal choice to avoid vaccination.” In other statements made by Beale, the government’s position becomes clearer. What they are attempting to argue is that Beale’s objections do not constitute protected religious belief because Beale is relying on a personal Biblical interpretation rather than adhering to a specific church code of conduct. The implication is far-reaching and damaging because it reveals an attitude in public governance which summarily dismisses the important connection between the individual Christian and the Word of God when it comes to matters of conscience and belief. We aren’t talking about immaterial procedural issues here. This is a bold attempt by an Australian public entity to give themselves the right to decide when individual believers can and cannot stand on the Bible when it comes to matters of conscience and personal conviction. Though upsetting, perhaps this should not come as a surprise since we have seen a significant undercurrent in Australian politics which is leading to an erosion of the freedom of belief when it comes to the intersection between faith and public life. Recently, Australia’s first-ever Australian Christian Freedom Index (ACFI) was launched. The ACFI is a collection of data from more than 10,000 Australian Christians who answered questions regarding their views on faith and freedom in Australia. Relevant to the Beale vs Queensland case are two areas of discrimination that Australian Christians reported. One, secular progressivism has recast Biblical belief as socially harmful. Two, because religious freedoms in Australia are not protected as positive rights but as exemptions through a patchwork of existing legislation, religious freedom is perched precariously on increasingly narrow exemptions that can be litigated away or later repealed. In fact, what will come as unwelcome news to Australian Christians is that the findings reveal we have now reached stage 5 (defamation) on Brobbel’s internationally recognised 8-stage persecution scale. The only remaining stages are detainment, torture and martyrdom! In times like these I am reminded of the words of David in Psalm 109:1-3: “Do not keep silent, O God of my praise! For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful have opened against me; they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They have also surrounded me with words of hatred, and fought against me without a cause.” But I am also reminded of what follows Psalm 109—Psalm 110: the announcement of the Messiah’s reign. Our hope does not lie in better secular governance. Our hope is the Messiah!

I am glad I am not the only pastor warning against the rise of Islam & not sticking their head in the sand, ignoring the greatest danger in this last part of the last days: https://www.facebook.com/reel/966634669244156 Another day. Another protest. Are you sick of them yet? I can see that hate speech laws are really working.......towards those who oppose Islam & this kind of hate & do not want the conflicts of this world on Australian soil: The are called bigots & racists.

The nerve of these people thinking they can pull it off again The usual suspects are back on the stage trying to push another “new virus” scare campaign. Now for anybody still sitting on the fence, let me give you 5 reasons you should push back 1) The same liars that ran the previous “plandemic” are running this one too. The fake news media, Deborah Birx, the WHO, the CDC, and a bunch of fake influencers all sponsored by the Big Pharma crime syndicate 2)They’re using the PCR test again to tell people they “have it.” The PCR test is a scam. All they have to do is increase the amplification cycle and suddenly everybody tests positive, even if they have nothing. They want more “cases” to advertise more fear, expand the surveillance state, and push more vaccines 3) Jake, the actor they hired to make that fear-mongering video, was sponsored by the same company that owns the cruise line… and they just so happen to be heavily invested in pharmaceuticals What a coincidence. You can even find this clown promoting boosters during COVID 4) Ask yourself this… have you ever met somebody who regrets NOT taking the shots? 5) And let’s remember who really benefited from the COVID scam. It wasn’t us. It was Big Pharma, Big Tech, and Big Government. They consolidated power at the top while enslaving people at the bottom, directly in line with the 2030 agenda They’re testing the public to see how much they can get away with. But this time, we give them NOTHING Turn off the noise And turn on your mind From the start, there’s a few things I learned about the pattern of their virus and pandemic propaganda: 1) They do two things to start with, put out news articles hyping up the danger of contagion while simultaneously putting out factual information that tells people it’s not contagious or a very low risk of contagion and that people reported as victims are in fact deaths from other causes. 2) Reassure the public that it’s very unlikely to turn into a large pandemic or crisis, while the media prints fear porn 24/7. 3) Start putting out escalating and false or manipulated death statistics, while still claiming its’s not a big deal while the media builds the momentum of fear to validate coming restrictions to our civil liberties with the public. 4) Start talking about potential vaccines as a carrot of ‘hope’ being dangled to an increasingly fearful public. 5) Wear people down with constant ever spiralling controls that they then see jabs or digital solutions (remember health passports that were really digital id) as the way back to normal. This clever process of cognitive dissonance and inducing fear and then hope, locks people in . Don’t be sucked in again.

It is painful to see & watch how Western Democracies are surrendering & giving to Islam. We also see now the mergence of Marxism & Islam which makes it even more dangerous. What have these two in common? Hate for the Jews & Christians! In essence Islam is a religion of death & hate & yes many who are Muslim are not violent, but as they say only 10% are extremists or Islamists, but that this is still a lot of people who are living among us. What can do? First of all do not live in ignorance, study, read & listen what they actually stand for. Secondly pray that many Muslims come to Christ, the Prince of Peace, which is already happening. If you want to be better informed watch these clips below: Why are the most dangerous terrorist groups all Islamists? https://www.facebook.com/reel/1446834326457260 Dangers of Marxism: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1103243744966580 The horrible truth about Iran: https://www.facebook.com/reel/748766704261802 The Real Reason Jew-Hatred Exists: https://youtu.be/fzVY6_AR3qA?si=w_U1-TlETNi6whHS Exposing 1,400 Years of TRUTH: https://youtu.be/-I4UzUQTTn0?si=BgRALt0u5SbgCKwY The Islamic Takeover Of The UK Is Already Happening! https://youtu.be/Xhn07qaqI1Y?si=5eRW0HJHidvBLoV8 Connecting The Dots Between Islam and The Radical Left https://youtu.be/rHf4NWM_yco?si=fwrbvu2EiV1yBxQE Exposing Islam's Entire History To The World! https://youtu.be/qfzopst14-Q?si=yg6GZmD173wIV-es We don't have freedom...': Ex-Muslim Ridvan Aydemir's explosive speech https://youtu.be/qn-hyPLasRw?si=jJWbjsKhVkhlfSh3 No ideology has conquered and colonized as much as Islam https://www.facebook.com/israelislamandendtimes/videos/1813384735880888 This doesn’t make any sense: Douglas Murray" https://youtu.be/_9AAUOU9z5k?si=uMruvxrJgu9bA4mv Is Albo a closet Communist... without the closet? https://youtu.be/4S-KxekvSq4?si=y-mADQsJg5zrx623

Australia’s Envoy of Islamophobia has released a report with 54 recommendations on how to combat Islamophobia.[1] Islamophobia is defined as the fear, prejudice, or hatred of Muslims and Islam, often leading to discrimination and hostility. This prejudice can result in verbal and physical attacks, social marginalisation, and bias, affecting Muslims. The report highlights examples of Islamophobia and asserts that it is now widespread in Australian society. In this article I want to present a Christian perspective on responding to Islamophobia. The Islamophobia Report The report by the special envoy is, in my opinion, disturbing. James McPherson has given an excellent review of it and I report that here: Special envoy Aftab Malik wants the Australian Government to formally recognise International Day to Combat Islamophobia. Government departments are asked to hold workshops addressing unconscious bias against Islam. The Home Affairs Department is instructed to review how anti-terror laws might have unintended consequences for Muslim communities. If the envoy gets his way, schoolteachers will undergo training on Islamophobia as well as on Islamic theology. Universities would be required to incorporate modules on Islamophobia as essential components of their courses. And all Parliamentarians, and their advisers, would be made to undergo compulsory training on Islamophobia, every year. But there was one recommendation I found particularly curious. And to me, it demonstrated perfectly just how unserious this entire report was. The Albanese government’s Islamophobia envoy wants an inquiry into “anti-Palestinian racism”. Because, of course, when Australians get cranky about their CBD being shut down every weekend by marchers chanting “From the river to the sea,” it could not possibly be about the Hamas flags, the intifada slogans, or the calls to wipe out the world’s only Jewish state. No, no — Australians just woke up one morning and thought: You know what we need today? A new minority to irrationally hate. Aftab Malik says Palestinians feel unsafe expressing their identity. Possibly because their public “identity” — has, for the past two years, almost been expressed by blocking traffic, shouting for the death of Jewish soldiers, and waving banners that make ASIO twitch. But instead of telling activists to tone it down, Aftab Malik wants taxpayers to fund a Commission of Inquiry into why Australians are not applauding. It is the progressive playbook in a nutshell: do not change the behaviour — criminalise the criticism. So sure, let us have a national investigation into why Australians are not thrilled about weekly traffic jams and chants for the destruction of Israel. A sober response to this report would be that it is an attempt to subjugate all criticism of Islam. Possible Concerns about Islam Why is there a concern about Islam in the wider community? Are there valid reasons to view Islam with suspicion? I think there are: Muslims tend not to assimilate in the same manner that other migrant groups have. Muslims are often in the news for protesting issues that do not concern mainstream Australia. There are Muslim majority countries where Islam is dominant and the perception is that there is intolerance of other religions. An horrific example of Muslim aggression against Christians is seen in Nigeria where thousands of Christians have been killed by Muslim jihadists. One voice that raises these concerns is that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She gained international attention following the murder of Theo van Gogh by an Islamist who threatened that she would be next. Her book Infidel tells her story.[2] Raised in a strict Muslim family, Hirsi Ali survived civil war, female mutilation, brutal beatings, adolescence as a devout believer during the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and life in four troubled, unstable countries ruled largely by despots. She escaped from a forced marriage and sought asylum in the Netherlands, where she earned a college degree in political science, tried to help her tragically depressed sister adjust to the West, and fought for the rights of Muslim women and the reform of Islam as a member of Parliament. Under constant threat, demonised by reactionary Islamists and politicians, disowned by her father, and expelled from family and clan, she refuses to be silenced. She has become a Christian and warns of the dangers of fundamentalist Islam to those who hold to Western values. Another area of concern is the teachings expounded in the Quran. The Quran is held by Muslims to be the infallible word of God. Therefore, its teachings are important for the sincere Muslim. Here is a simple outline of what the Quran has to say about the treatment of infidels or the unbeliever in three different surahs (chapters): Surah 2:191 – “slay the unbelievers.” Surah 3:28 — “Muslims must not take infidels as their friends.” Surah 47:4 — “Do not seek peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them.” There are many references in the Quran that echo the same sentiments. Disagreement is Not Hate It is important that we understand that disagreeing with a religious view or an ideology does not mean that we are embarking on hate speech. To put it simply, disagreement is not hate. If we are restricted in the ability to criticise a differing point of view, a religion, or an ideology then we are removing a fundamental human right of free speech. I do not trust our current government to act wisely in this situation. Recently $27 million has been given to an Islamic group where the Mufti associated with it has called for jihad. This is an irresponsible act on the part of our government. It seems to me that the current federal Labor government is keen to appease Muslims but not so keen to address other vital issues of discrimination. Christians are discriminated against. I hear nothing from them expressing a concern about this. They have aired some concerns about antisemitism but actions speak louder than words. They have done nothing to combat antisemitism. Rather, in my opinion they are subtly promoting it. That may be contentious but that is how I perceive their actions. I do not condone attacks on Muslim women because they wear a particular garment that identifies them as Muslim. But there are laws to prevent this and there is no need for any other laws to be implemented. If we are going to have a socially cohesive society, then we must not allow an intolerant, totalitarian ideology to determine what we are allowed to say and what we are allowed to do. Christianity and Islam are not Compatible Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for our sins, and on the third day rose again from the dead. He lives now and is fulfilling the kingdom purposes of God bringing history to an end when he returns. This is witnessed to in the Holy Scriptures and in our ancient creeds. This is in stark contrast to Islamic beliefs about Jesus. The Quran has several references to Jesus, and here I note two important ones. First, the crucifixion of Jesus is denied.[3] Second, the Quran strongly asserts that “God” does not have a son and that he is one and so denies the Trinity.[4] To question what Muslims believe and express our viewpoint is not Islamophobia. In a free society we have the right to defend our beliefs and challenge those who disagree with us. The Way Ahead The way ahead is not to allow a totalitarian, intolerant, ideology to have the final say in all areas of our society. This is what the 54 recommendations in the report would permit. The recommendations should be rejected. Therefore, there should be an encouragement to respect people, to respect our differences and allow sensible dialogue where appropriate. The acceptance of the report on Islamophobia as a basis for a policy in responding to Muslims’ beliefs and practices in our country would be a serious restriction on free speech in Australia. I point out that one of the recommendations is that the issue of religion should be removed from anything to do with terrorism. However, most terrorist incidents are perpetrated by radical Muslims.[5] We cannot stand against evil if we do not recognise what evil is. Conclusion The narrative associated with Islamophobia is being used to restrict sensible debate. Islamophobia is being used to identify problems that can be dealt with by laws already legislated. To cry Islamophobia when an injustice occurs and hence prescribe special treatment for Muslims is to disrupt social cohesion and it discriminates against non-Muslims.

An interview with historian Raymond Ibrahim challenges ten enduring myths about Islam, arguing historical clarity is essential amid terrorism, immigration pressures, and Western cultural self-doubt. One of the most important podcast interviews of 2025 has snuck in right at the end of the year. Academic historian, public speaker and Islamic scholar, Raymond Ibrahim spoke for over two hours on the podcast platform Triggernometry about “The Real History of Islam“. In light of the recent Islamic terrorist attack at Bondi, the whole thing makes for required listening. What follows is a summary of some of the most salient points. In particular, debunking ten of the biggest myths relating to the religion of Islam. The list is in no way comprehensive, but my hope is that more people will take the time to benefit from the entire interview as well as Ibrahim’s internet resources and numerous books on the subject. The Ten Biggest Myths about Islam Muhammad was always convinced the revelations he received through the “angel Gabriel” were legitimate. In reality, Muhammad was initially harassed, beaten and physically assaulted. This caused him to seriously question that he was interacting with God, and he feared that it might even be the devil. Instead, he had to be convinced by his wife that the supernatural experiences and forceful messages he was receiving were indeed from ‘Allah’ and that he needed to ‘submit’. Muhammad was a man of peace and never compelled people to convert. While early on in Islamic history this was true, especially when his followers were weak and outnumbered, as his power and influence grew, so did the content of his message. In the words of Ibrahim, the founder of Islam was essentially a “war lord”, and later revelations abrogated earlier ones which called for calm. Jihad only means to “strive and struggle” against one’s own failings and has nothing to do with acts of violence. As the example of Muhammad himself clearly illustrates, military conquest was integral to Islam’s growth. That said, jihad can also take many different forms as the Jihad of the Tongue, Jihad of the Pen, Jihad of the Wealth and even Jihad of the Babies. Whatever promotes Islam contributes to the success of Islam’s “holy war” against unbelievers. The consumption of alcohol is always wrong. While that is a requirement put upon Muslims in this life, Ibrahim shows how it is strangely reversed in the next. Experiencing paradise in Islam is about indulging in “rivers of wine delicious to those who drink” (Qur’an 47:15). This comes with the added promise of never becoming drunk or having a hangover – “Their wine will not cause intoxication or headache” (Qur’an 37:47; 56:19). The Crusades were an unprovoked attack upon Muslims. The popular scholarly narrative among some historians is that before the first crusade in 1095, Muslims had lived in peaceful co-existence with Christians for five hundred years. Once again, this is patently untrue. Muslims had attacked and conquered many Christian regions such as Egypt, Syria and even where the great Augustine of Hippo once lived in north Africa (modern day Tunisia). For more on why the Crusades were seen as a moral necessity, see Rodney Stark, God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (HarperCollins, 2009). The Crusaders were motivated by gold, fame and land. Once again, this is simply not true. Instead, the main motivation of the Crusaders was to provide protection for Christians travelling through the Holy Land on pilgrimage. There was also a concern for the overall security of the region and the increasing threat of Muslim military expansion. If anything, the Muslims were the greater fighting force, and what is remarkable is how successful the Christian crusaders ultimately were in achieving what they did, especially via the first crusade. The Spanish Inquisition was intolerant and evil. The historical context in which this practice arose is much more complicated and nuanced that many people realise. After the re-conquest of Granada in Spain, approximately 500,000 Muslims claimed to have suddenly converted to Christianity. However, they did this to deliberately deceive and undermine their new Christian rulers. As a result, church authorities had to actively discern who was genuine in their faith and who was not, lest a new form of religious jihad arise from within. Islam produced a “Golden Age” of technology and cultural development. Many of the countries that were colonised by Europeans understood what occurred, in Ibrahim’s words, as “the greatest time” in their history. This is because European colonisation brought medicine, learning, science and technology. In comparison, most of the places where Islam conquered were completely devastated. In short, Islam didn’t create civilisation, but instead cannibalised the ones which already existed after Islam conquered them by force. Islam is currently invading the West. While some might obviously think and feel this way, the mass migration of Muslims has occurred due to Western political leaders actively enabling it. Hence, what we are witnessing is not so much an invasion as an intentional invitation, which we are increasingly reaping the fruit of. What’s more, “white guilt” is a manufactured cultural cancer which is destroying the West from within. Radical Muslims are not being true to their religion. Most people consider 10% of Muslims as being “radical” in their religious beliefs. However, it is nominal Muslims who are not being faithful to the tenets of their religious beliefs. Why is that people who are serious about following Jesus forgive their enemies, whereas Muslims who follow Muhammad follow his example by slaying them? Ibrahim has written extensively on this issue from a historical perspective, especially in his latest book, The Two Swords of Christ: The Five Centuries of War between Islam and the Warrior Monks of Christendom (Simon & Schuster, 2025). Bondi Terror, Immigration, Assimilation and Western Self-Loathing The recent terrorist attack in Bondi has revealed just how serious the threat of Islamic terrorism is. It is vital that everyone understands the religious beliefs which are motivating the people who are coming in — largely unchecked — into the West. When these immigrants are unwilling to assimilate, but instead remain in smaller ghettos, extremism thrives. Ibrahim’s most provocative point, though, is that it is not Muslim people who are ultimately the problem, but the policies of politicians in the West. The self-loathing and hatred of our own country is the thing that is destroying Western civilisation the most. The religion of Islam is simply filling an ideological vacuum which Western liberalism has inflicted upon itself. Like the proverbial Trojan Horse in Greek history, what we need to understand and realise is that under the ‘gift’ of multiculturalism lies a latent danger which needs to be recognised and dealt with before it’s too late. For places such as the United Kingdom and possibly even Australia, the fighting has already begun.

If you are called to evangelize Muslims, then you are already called to speak with moral clarity. You can’t separate those two. The gospel doesn’t come to people in a vacuum—it confronts what they already believe. And if you’re not willing to name what stands in the way, you won’t be able to make clear what Christ actually offers. At that point, what you’re calling evangelism starts to drift into something else. It sounds compassionate, but it ends up being confusing. Hebrews 4 has to sit at the centre of this. We have a great high priest—Jesus, the Son of God—and because of Him we draw near with confidence. That’s not just a comforting idea; it’s a claim about reality. It means access to God is not something we work our way toward. It’s been opened. Sin isn’t managed or balanced out—it’s dealt with. And because of that, the believer doesn’t approach God guessing, or hoping it might be enough. He comes with confidence, because Christ has already done what needed to be done. Once you see that, the contrast with Islam isn’t hard to find. Islam has devotion, discipline, seriousness about God. But it doesn’t have mediation in this sense. There is no high priest who bears sin, no atonement that secures reconciliation, and no confidence that comes from a finished work. A person submits, obeys, hopes—but doesn’t draw near with assurance. The distance between God and man is still there. That’s not a small difference. That changes everything. And this is where evangelism becomes real. You’re not asking someone to add something to what they already believe. You’re calling them out of one way of relating to God and into another. From distance to nearness. From uncertainty to confidence. From striving to grace. That’s not a tweak—it’s a turning. And if you don’t make that clear, you’re not actually calling for conversion. You’re just creating overlap. I remember growing up & living in Europe and realizing something wasn’t right. It wasn’t just that Islamism had a presence—that wasn’t surprising. It was that it couldn’t really be named. People circled around it. Language got softer. Judgments were avoided. And the more I watched, the clearer it became: this wasn’t just caution. It was the loss of categories. If you don’t have a category for what is false, you won’t be able to say what is true for very long. So when we talk about moral clarity, we need to be honest about what we mean. Do we mean clarity about what is good? Or clarity about what must be opposed? Because in a lot of Western churches, those have been pulled apart. Love gets emphasized. Compassion gets affirmed. Inclusion becomes the language everyone is comfortable with. But when it comes to naming evil—clearly, specifically—there’s hesitation. And when that happens, “good” starts to float. It sounds right, but it doesn’t land anywhere. The problem is deeper than tone. It’s theological. If evil isn’t real—if it’s not something that shows up in beliefs, systems, and structures—then you don’t really need clarity. You just need empathy. But if evil is real, then refusing to name it isn’t kindness. It’s blindness. And blindness doesn’t stay neutral for long. At its core, evil is not just doing wrong. It’s calling what is false true, and then expecting others to live by it. It’s a rejection of God’s order, not just a mistake within it. And when that takes shape in systems or ideologies, it starts to form people. It shapes what they believe, what they’re allowed to say, even what their conscience can do. If you don’t have a category for that, you’ll miss it when it’s right in front of you. That’s why the relationship between Islam and Islamism matters, and it needs to be handled carefully but clearly. Islam is a theological system built around the sovereignty of God expressed through law and submission. Islamism takes those commitments and pushes them into the political sphere. It’s not something dropped in from the outside. It’s what can happen when those ideas are applied more fully to public life. Not every Muslim goes there. But it’s not an accident when some do. And where that happens, the effects are real. Conscience gets constrained. Speech narrows. Certain questions become dangerous to ask. This isn’t just about politics—it reflects a different understanding of God and what it means to live before Him. Christianity forms people who draw near to God through a mediator, with confidence. Islam, without that mediation, forms something else—something more uncertain, more externally shaped. And over time, that doesn’t stay personal. It starts to shape communities and cultures. This matters at the personal level more than we usually admit. If there’s no mediator, then at the end of the day you’re still just a servant under command. You do what you’re told, you submit, you try to be faithful—but you’re never really sure where you stand. There’s always that uncertainty. But in Christ, something fundamentally shifts. You’re not just given instructions—you’re brought near. You’re reconciled, even adopted. You don’t come to God hoping you might be accepted. You come because you already are. That’s not a small adjustment. That’s an entirely different identity. And once identity changes, everything else starts to follow. If a system is built on law without mediation, it leans on external control, because there’s nothing settled underneath it. Authority has to be reinforced. Lines have to be guarded. But where reconciliation is real, obedience comes from a different place. The conscience isn’t shut down—it’s changed. And that doesn’t stay inside a person. Over time, it shows up in how people live, how they relate, and how a community actually functions. Some will say that speaking this way makes evangelism harder. That it creates barriers. That it sounds harsh. But that assumes clarity and love are in conflict. They’re not. If someone is going to come to Christ, they need to see both who He is and what they don’t have apart from Him. They need to see the difference between submission without atonement and reconciliation through the Son. If we avoid that, we’re not being kind. We’re withholding something essential. So we have to say this plainly. Loving Muslims is not the same as affirming Islam, and it’s not the same as ignoring Islamism. If you blur those lines, your message falls apart. Compassion without clarity turns into sentimentality. Clarity without compassion turns into harshness. But the answer isn’t choosing one over the other. It’s holding both together. Part of the challenge is that we’ve been shaped by a culture that treats clarity as a problem. In many Western contexts, emotional comfort has become the highest value. So anything that feels sharp gets softened. But that doesn’t translate well everywhere. In many Muslim contexts, clarity reads as honesty, not hostility. Conviction signals that you actually believe what you’re saying. So the very instincts we’ve learned can end up undermining our credibility. Which means something has to change at the pastoral level. You have to preach Christ not just as Saviour, but as the one who brings people near to God. You have to make clear that what Islam cannot provide—atonement, mediation, assurance—Christ has already accomplished. You have to train your people to understand these differences, not in a combative way, but in a truthful one. And you have to be willing to say what is false, even when it costs you something. Let me put it simply. Christianity offers access to the Father through the Son. Islam offers submission without mediation. If you don’t see that clearly, you won’t preach clearly. And if you don’t preach clearly, you won’t evangelize faithfully. A church that won’t name what is false will eventually lose its grip on what is true. And when that happens, it won’t draw near to God with confidence, it won’t speak about Christ with clarity, and it won’t be able to carry the gospel into a world that actually needs it.

Revelation 13:16-17 Also he compels all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead [signifying allegiance to the beast], and that no one will be able to buy or sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. This portion of scripture in the Book of Revelation is not only prophetic, meaning it is going to happen, but also a warning. The door to salvation is still open, but at the same time we see signs that this door will be closing soon. The church dispensation, the time of the gentiles will come to an end soon with the rapture & the Lord will pick up again His plan & purpose with Israel for Salvation & judgement / wrath for those remaining on the earth, unless they don't take the Mark of the Beast. It is happening right in front of us now & most world leaders, especially in the "West" all doing & saying the same things: *Build back better (if want to build back better you first need to destroy the old order) *New World Order *One World Government *War on farming *Ever increasing power prices *Blackouts *Social Credit Systems *Banks spying on your purchases *Following the narrative of the so called "climate change" which leads to declaring a "climate emergency" *Climate lockdowns *Wealth transfers *Pushing of EV's *15 Minute cities *Pushing of "renewable" energy which is unreliable & very costly *Pushing of sexual perversion in every aspect of society, especially on the young *Pushing of digital ID & digital money *Government censorship through the so-called: "Mis-information & Dis-information Bill" *Rewriting & changing of history *Open borders, which leads to vast of amounts of people from other cultures & religions with never any intention of adapting to the host country, or even worse, bring in more drugs, crime & even terrorism. *Increased hate against Jews & Christians, while tolerating Islam, a religion of intolerance, hate & violence *Schools & Universities are indoctrinating the students with all kinds of unproveable woke theories, instead of educating them with facts & teaching then to be critical thinkers *Signing away of our own autonomy as nations to the WHO, WEF & UN *Government becoming more & more involved in your life including your health, which is really a "Trojan Horse" for Marxism / Communism *Destroying the country from the inside out, by desecration of all normal healthy values & national identity, and teaching the young people in schools & universities to hate their own country, history & race I am sure this list is not complete, but the end goal of all this is leading to total control, an Orwellian society, lead by a One World Government in turn taken over by the Antichrist. The spirit of the Antichrist is already at work as we can see in the above list. The reason I am writing this article is that so many don't see this! And yes I am not talking about the world, but the church! So many pastors & churches carry on as normal, I even heard Christians say: "It's all now gone back to normal after COVID" No a thousand times no: it is not, "the best is still to come" as so many pastors preach, on the contrary the hardest time is still to come, very possibly even 2024! This blog is not to scare you, but to prepare you, and most of all we have the blessed hope! Titus 2:13 awaiting and confidently expecting the [fulfilment of our] blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus,

This is something that most Australians already knew, besides the people still watching this biased, woke & wicked taxpayer funded broadcaster. An independent research group that investigated ABC's coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict compiled the findings into a 58-page report and submitted it to the Royal Commission. Below are just a few examples from the report that demonstrates: - How ABC used sick children with genetic disorders, portraying them as victims of starvation. - How ABC reported on a child allegedly killed by the Israeli army, while having evidence that this did not happen. - How, for emotional effect, ABC manipulated casualty figures, presenting absurd numbers as “shocking”, concealing killed militants, and portraying dead Palestinians as “mostly women and children”. - The report compares one of ABC’s Q&A programs dedicated to Gaza with “Evening with Vladimir Solovyov”, the main propaganda show on Russian TV, and demonstrate the similarities between them. - The report also demonstrate that ABC staff lack military knowledge regarding urban warfare, leading to the uncritical repetition of Hamas disinformation. It shows how ABC’s own broadcast footage proves the Israeli claims they cast doubt upon. These examples, and many more, can be found in the report that can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/ABC-of-hate Australian Broadcasting Corporation coverage of Gaza war fueled antisemitism, ABC Watch claims ByJERUSALEM POST STAFF: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has shown continued journalistic bias in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict, independent research group ABC Watch claimed in its new report, which has been submitted to the Royal Commission into antisemitism. ABC is a publicly funded national broadcaster and, as such, has a legal and ethical obligation to report impartially and objectively. ABC Watch, however, found that the ABC has repeatedly failed to meet that obligation, and has either wittingly or unwittingly promoted “extremist narratives that vilify Israel and, by extension, Jews.” This, it said, contributes to antisemitism within the Australian community, which in some instances has resulted in intimidation, doxxing, harassment, arson attacks, and the Bondi shooting. One of the examples given in the report is that ABC maintained a “famine” narrative by the repeated use of distressing imagery of children with severe pre-existing genetic or medical conditions, falsely presented as victims of starvation caused by Israel, despite available medical explanations and the presence of healthy family members. One of the most noteworthy cases is that of Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, who was born with cerebral palsy. Despite this, on July 27, 2025, his image was shown during an interview with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and framed as proof of starvation, with Albanese condemning Israel for “breaching international law.” ABC Watch said that, by failing to show the cause of emaciation was genetic, the ABC broadcast a false claim. ABC pushed UN baby starvation claim Another example of misleading reporting was the publication of UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher’s, May 2025 claim that “14,000 babies [in Gaza] will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them.” This claim was quickly proven to be false. ABC, however, reported it as “shocking” and “a devastating warning.” While ABC did later change Fletcher’s original quote to “14,000 are at risk of dying in the next 48 hours” instead of “14,000 babies that will die in the next 48 hours,” the report said this was issued too late and was inadequate to repair the damage already done. Then there was the case of a story fabricated by ABC about a Palestinian boy whom the channel claimed had been shot dead by Israel, despite the ABC possessing information that he was alive. A leaked email chain between an ABC reporter and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation showed that, on the day of the broadcast, ABC reporters were told by the boy’s stepmother that she believed he was alive, but they either omitted or suppressed this information. The ABC also ignored publicly available evidence that categorically refuted the claims. “By broadcasting a false accusation of Jewish soldiers killing Arab children – already debunked and corrected, while knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence, the ABC effectively fueled rampant antisemitic sentiment in Australia, during a national crisis,” the report says. The report also writes that ABC relied on Gaza-based “journalists” operating under Hamas control, many of whom are affiliated with Hamas itself. For example, ABC contributor Abubaker Abed openly glorified Yahya Sinwar while celebrating the October 7 massacre. He has shown solidarity with Hamas. The ABC, however, presented him as a writer and reporter, without referring to his ideological positions. “The ABC relies heavily on local Gazans presented as ‘journalists,’ despite Gaza being a territory controlled by jihadist groups where free journalism is impossible. No serious media organization would claim to have independent journalists operating under ISIS, al-Qaeda, in North Korea, or in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Yet, when it comes to Hamas-controlled Gaza, all standards are completely abandoned.” The biased reporting during the Israel-Hamas War did not cease after the Bondi attack, the report alleges. Instead, the ABC’s pattern of hostility, selective framing, and misinformation did not slow down, but “continued across multiple areas of reporting, reinforcing false narratives.” It concludes that the ABC has repeatedly framed legitimate political positions as moral crimes and fueled hostility towards all those who support Israel. The effect, it argues, was to legitimize hate against Jewish Australians. “The sheer scale of the journalistic failures and demonstrated bias – as the journalistic failures on the Gaza war always went one way, namely against Israel – contributed directly to radicalization in society and intensified militant antisemitism across Australia,” the report concludes.