The following articles are compiled by:

Leo Wong

Leo@WatchmenWatching.com

 

 

 

Catholic author Nancy Brown calls Harry Potter 'Christian literature': Insists J.K. Rowling is a believer who incorporates faith into books

WorldNetDaily.com

 

Homeschooling mother and literature expert Nancy Brown once banned all "Harry Potter" books from her home, having heard witness after witness to the book's "evil" content. But when a trusted friend recommended she give the boy wizard a second chance, she did – with great trepidation. The results of her tests were a surprise to both the Catholic community, and to Brown herself, and are detailed in Brown's "The Mystery of Harry Potter: A Catholic Family Guide."

 

"I began reading the first book, and immediately, I started absorbing the plotline, the characters. The fact that they were witches immediately fell to the background. First and foremost, they were people," Brown told WND.

 

After she encountered the humanity of the characters, Brown found that the themes became infinitely relatable, and even spiritual.

 

"This was a story about good and evil," she said. "The choices that Harry Potter had to make were important. His momentary despairs, his aching feelings for his parents – these things resonated with me."

 

"I thought, 'Gee, these books really do have good themes, although they were couched a story about witches and wizards,'" she said.

 

Brown's conclusions are in opposition to the positions adopted by others regarding the books.

 

Caryl Matrisciana, a well-known expert on contemporary cults, paganism and the occult, agrees with Brown that parents should serve as a filter for their children, but she feels they should start by banning "Harry Potter" from the home.

 

"There is no doubt children are being seduced into believing the dark-arts are 'fun,' benign and a positive power for personal enablement," she said. "But responsible parents must be aware that …the supernatural world is a reality and dabbling with its dark-side is not harmless."

 

Brown does not believe "Harry's" abundance of Christian themes is accidental and contends author J.K. Rowling is a Christian.

 

"I know that she was raised a Christian in the Anglican Church. She attends the Church of Scotland. To me, the indications are that she is a Christian. If she was a member of any atheist/Wiccan organization, they would be claiming her as a member," she said.

 

 

Comments:  To borrow a quote from Jan Markell, “These are days of Weapons of Mass Deception (WMD)”.  If J.K. Rowling is a true Christian, then so is shock jock Howard Stern.  Only God knows.  We can only surmise by their fruits (Matthew 7:20).  Just because a person was raised in the Anglican Church of England and now attends an equally liberal mainland denomination called the Church of Scotland doth not a Christian maketh.  She’s brainwashing millions upon millions of young souls into dabbling in the occult and that’s plainly against the Bible. So how can a believer in Jesus indwelt by the Holy Spirit consistently perform things that are contrary to God’s Word? Preposterous! The dark mystical world of warlocks, witches and magic is the exclusive domain of Satan.  She’s a willing dupe of Lucifer.  2 Corinthians 11:[14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. [15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

Nancy Brown can believe what she wants about J.K. Rowling; it’s Brown’s soul that’s at risk.  The tragedy is Brown’s endorsement of Harry Potter that’s leading many souls down the road to perdition.  Stay many arm’s length away from Potter!

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Syrian President Assad wants talks but only with U.S. President Bush

Source: www.haaretz.com

 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met Wednesday in Tel Aviv with ambassadors of European Union countries to Israel, a gathering that in great part focused on Syria and the possibility of a renewal of peace talks.

 

Olmert acknowledged that the Syrian talks is an issue that the ambassadors are very interested to discuss, and stressed that he did not believe there was a threat of war.

 

Olmert said: "Syria does not want war and neither does Israel, but this does not mean that the situation will turn into negotiations. Assad says he wants negotiations, but in practice he means negotiations with the United States and [President George] Bush and not with Israel," the prime minister noted.

 

Comments:  Mr. Bush may have been an occasional mediator in the posh jobs he held prior to becoming U.S. president, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to make a career out if it.  If Syria is really serious about peace with Israel and getting back the Golan Heights, Syria needs direct talks with Israel.  Mr. Bush has the clout to urge Israel to do this and do that, but Israel won’t do anything that she doesn’t want to do.  The powerful and influential Jewish lobby in the U.S. Congress is the major vehicle driving U.S. policies concerning the Middle East.

 

Israel prefers the status quo of retaining all disputed lands that the Arabs want returned.  The best thing for Israel is to hang onto them as long as possible.  Countering this stay-the-course policy is that Israel’s population is increasingly weary of suicide bomber attacks and conflicts such as last summer’s Second Lebanon War.  Settling the Palestinian issue is paramount and once that’s done, the Syrian front can be dealt with.  But with Syria preparing for possible war, a parallel approach to peace talks might be more prudent.  Just when everyone dismisses Syria as being serious about a pre-emptive, it’s at that time that Syria will most likely strike.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

U.S. House of Representatives voted to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring

Source: www.nbc5i.com

 

The measure passed 223-to-201 in the Democratic-controlled House despite a veto threat from President George W. Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

 

The legislation would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada wasted no time in responding to the president.

 

"It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation. That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq, and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al-Qaida," he said in a statement.

 

Comments:  As in Canada, the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq are unpopular with the majority of American citizens.  The final year of an American president’s term in office is an opportune time for troop withdrawal, but with Mr. Bush serving his second and final term, he won’t be pushed around by the U.S. Congress.  The only drawback is pressure from within his own Republican Party to bring the troops home in Election Year 2008.  With the Democrats fielding a powerful Hillary Clinton-Obama Barack-John Edwards trio of U.S. presidential hopefuls, the GOP will lose the election even before the primaries begin.  Mr. Bush has to appear to assist the GOP candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney.  They need a boost to even be in the same arena as the Democrats.  Troops coming home would benefit both parties, especially the Democrats.  Mr. Bush needs to make it appear that the Republicans went along with it to appease the growing dissatisfied American public.  Mr. Bush needs a lesson or two in juggling and in sleight of hand.

 

America’s presence in Iraq is oil based.  Iran would have seized the oil fields by now.  Iraq would be a staging platform to invade Iran should it need be.  A total U.S. withdrawal would invite Iran to fill in the vacuum.  Israel would have to act in that case.  2008 looks like a pivotal year in Bible prophecy fulfillment.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Jordan’s king in Canada to discuss Middle East peace

Source: Jerusalem Post

 

Jordan's King Abdullah II arrived in Canada on Thursday to discuss greater involvement by Canada in Middle East peace talks and a potential new trade deal between the two countries.

 

The 45-year-old monarch is expected to ask Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to consider a role for Canada as a broker, particularly in talks to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Jordan is one of the few Arab states that recognizes Israel, and is actively trying to kick-start a new peace process.

 

The Conservative Canadian government's more pro-Israeli stance is not perceived as an obstacle to Canada's participation, said Nabil Barto, Jordan's ambassador to Canada.

 

"The Canadian government is very strong in its commitments to both sides, the Israeli side and the Palestinian side," Barto said.

 

Comments:  Canada is just a mere bit player in the world scene.  The only thing most people perceive Canada to be is a country that has a reputation of promoting peace.  For that very reason, Jordan King Abdullah is urging Canadian PM Stephen Harper to lend a helping hand in the peace process.  Canada is double-faced though.  On the one hand, it appears Canada is pro-Israel because of Harper’s staunch Christian values yet his own Foreign Minister Peter MacKay has pleaded with Israel to concede more land to the Arabs.  This mixed message gives the Jordanian king hope that Canada can be influential in its dealings with Israel.  Of course, the ideal situation for the Arab world is for all nations to gather against Israel and isolate her.  The pressure of public opinion has been a long proven strategy when all else has failed.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

'Nobody goes to Hell': Minister labelled a heretic: One minister challenges the idea of Hell and loses his mega‑church congregation

Source: ABC News

 

Virtually every religion throughout human history has some notion of a horrible life after death. And though the threat of fire and brimstone is not preached as fervently in this age of reason, one man in Tulsa, Okla., knows just how hard it is for modern believers -- and their religious institutions -- to let go of the medieval vision of hell.

 

He knows firsthand that when it comes to filling pews, hell sells. And when he stopped believing in it, he lost an evangelical empire built over a lifetime.

 

Throughout his rise, Pearson preached the fundamentals: Everyone is born a sinner. Everyone is going to hell … unless they accept Jesus Christ as lord.

 

One sermon from the late '90s displays his passion: "Thank God, I don't have to go to hell, even though I deserve hell," he shouted. "But Jesus vicariously substituted for me, took on death, hell and the grave, and I have the victory today."

 

"I couldn't reconcile a God whose mercy endures forever, and this torture chamber that's customized for unbelievers," Pearson said.

 

And he often agonized over the fate of his non-Christian family members. According to his faith, they were doomed to hell.

 

"How can you really love a god who's torturing your grandmother? And that's what I went through for years."

 

The more he studied, the more Pearson saw the Bible not as the literal word of God but a book by men about God -- primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and human emotions.

 

Pearson believed that God was telling him hell is the creation of man on earth.

 

Pearson began sharing this message, and it wasn't long before Christian magazines demonized him. The denomination that made him a bishop officially labeled him a heretic. His assistant pastors quit, and his congregation dropped from 6,000 to fewer than 300.

 

"When people leave by the thousands, it's like pulling clumps of your hair out at one time," Pearson said. "It was hell. Now that's hell. The people who created hell for me are people who used to love me and will call themselves followers of Christ. It wasn't some secular, atheist, God-hating infidel that denounced me … my own brethren, with whom I sat, and ate, whose babies I dedicated."

 

Pearson stuck with his new message, even after losing his church altogether. He now rents space from the Episcopalians across town. And his congregation is growing. Slowly, people from all faiths are adding to the few who never left, despite being labeled heretics themselves.

 

"I think hell is a state of mind," said Teresa Reed, a music teacher, stuck with Pearson throughout the turmoil. "And if my family heard me say this, which they probably will, there will be fasting, prayer and sack cloth and ashes for my damned soul."

 

After the avalanche of hate mail and all the rejections, Pearson says people are slowly warming to his ideas.

 

Pearson said he firmly believes, as he told his congregation one recent Sunday, "We may go through hell, but nobody goes to hell."

 

But his current message does not focus on hell, even the hell that humans sometimes create here on earth.

 

"My hope is that, that people will learn to love themselves, accept themselves and celebrate themselves. That's pretty dramatic, but I think it'll save the planet."

 

Comments:  What a sad state of affairs for a once fervent fundamentalist preacher.  Having thrown out the literal interpretation to embrace the allegorizing/spiritualization of scriptures, Pearson is now leading many souls to eternal damnation.  Has he ever thought that God took away his mega-church status because he stopped preaching that Hell exists?  Hell is not a figment of the imagination of some sadistic legalistic Christians.  It’s a real as the skin cancer on your face and arms.  Hell was created for the Devil and his fallen angels.  Yes, it wasn’t originally intended for mankind, but when the unregenerate reject God’s Son Jesus Christ as the Saviour of sinners, what else could God have done to uphold His Holiness but to open the gates of Hell to Christ rejecters.  God doesn’t send sinners to Hell.  They decide to go there because they love darkness rather than light.

 

Mr. Pearson is now in the company of liberal minded mainline Protestants.  The “God is Love only” people have in their midst a defector from THE faith.  (The post-modern self-esteem improvement, lovey dovey, your best life now, you can be a god messages pervade this ‘no judgment of God’ world.)  He is no longer in happy fellowship with the Lord.  He has chosen his lot with professing Christians who will awake in Hell someday in horror to realize that Hell is indeed real and hear the laughter of demons resonate from its rafters.  Psalm 9:[17] The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.  Revelation 20:[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

It should be noted that Pearson is a universalist, i.e. in the end, everyone will go to Heaven no matter if they’re Christian or not.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

Keep watching (Matt 24:42)!

 

Until next time,

Shalom!

 

 

Watchmen Watching HOME PAGE

Millennium Weekend Ministries Home Page