The Royal Australian Army Chaplains’ Department is to lose their traditional motto held since 1913, because it is offensive to Muslims. Australian Chaplain Badge The offensive badge
The cap badge and motto of the Australian army chaplains is presently identical to those held by the British army, a legacy and tradition dating back to the founding days of the Australian nation as it established itself as a Dominion independent of Great Britain. Emblazoned on a Maltese cross and wreath in purple and gold, the motto ‘In This Sign Conquer’ is thought to be a reference to the crusades. Now just five months after a Muslim Imam joined the Australian forces religious advisory committee, that history is to be swept away, reports Australia’s Daily Telegraph. Despite the sudden push for change, there is not thought to presently be a single Australian Muslim chaplain in the army.
The chaplaincy of the Australian army, like the armed forces of many Commonwealth nations has traditionally had a number of badges to suit different occasions and roles. Chaplians also wear badges derived from the Templar cross, the Latin cross, and the star of David. Australia is not the first force to erase their Christian heritage for fear of giving offence. The cap badge of the Canadian chaplaincy had both the motto and crosses removed in 2006 when the service went officially ‘multi-faith’. One of the new Canadian badges even features the Muslim crescent.
Australia’s flag also incorporates the flag of St. George in the canton, another highly visible historic symbol of the crusades. Like in New Zealand, which is presently voting whether to adopt a new flag and do away with their colonial heritage there is a long running debate in Australia about whether they should change.
A spokesman for the Australian Department for Defence has denied this symbolism had anything to do with the decision to change, remarking: “The motto of the Australian Army Chaplains is being changed to better reflect the diversity of religion throughout the Australian Army… The new wording on the Australian Army Chaplaincy badge is under consideration and no decision has been made at this time”.
Bernard Gaynor, a former Australian army major who had his commission stripped for his political views is now standing as a political candidate in next year’s election. He said political correctness in the army was clear to see, and the appointment of an Imam to the military faith board was a strong example. He said of the change: Incredibly, army chaplains themselves are thought to have been pushing for the change. Ironically it is often protestant churchmen who work hardest to accommodate Muslim sentiment — as reported by Breitbart London last month the lesbian Bishop of Stockholm also demanded changes made to not offend Muslim guests.
Bishop Eva Brunne asked for crosses to be removed from one Stockholm church and have the direction to Mecca marked for easy setting out of prayer mats. To do any less would be “stingy towards people of other faiths”, she said.
“The government must stop the political correctness. It must dismiss the Defence Imam for his views. And it must
Lucifer's goal is to remove any and all traces of God.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
If they (the people wearing the badges) comfort other religions, I actually agree with removing it from the general badge that all members of that division/corps wear, but only as long as they are allowed to wear a secondary emblem that does show their individual faith.
That way it could be a way of saying "We support all faiths. I, personally, am this faith"
Because what you are saying, is that a minister or Chaplin of a specific faith should wear the garb of his faith.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
No. I'm saying that in a military of a diverse country, where all faiths are welcome or allowed, there should be no regimental or divisional icon that's singular to one religion. Let the individuals have personal icons (A Cross, A Star of David, A Crescent, etc.) as part of their personal uniform.
Unless I am misinformed, the Pope is not a member of any military, multi-faith or otherwise.
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Question: "Does the Bible prophesy a one-world government and a one-world currency in the end times?"
Answer: The Bible does not use the phrase “one-world government” or “one-world currency” in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days.
In his apocalyptic vision in the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John sees the “beast,” also called the Antichrist, rising out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1). Combining this vision with Daniel’s similar one (Daniel 7:16-24), we can conclude that some sort of world system will be inaugurated by the beast, the most powerful “horn,” who will defeat the other nine and will begin to wage war against Christians. The ten-nation confederacy is also seen in Daniel’s image of the statue inDaniel 2:41-42, where he pictures the final world government consisting of ten entities represented by the ten toes of the statue. Whoever the ten are and however they come to power, Scripture is clear that the beast will either destroy them or reduce their power to nothing more than figureheads. In the end, they will do his bidding.
John goes on to describe the ruler of this vast empire as having power and great authority, given to him by Satan himself (Revelation 13:2), being followed by and receiving worship from “all the world” (13:3-4), and having authority over “every tribe, people, language and nation” (13:7). From this description, it is logical to assume that this person is the leader of a one-world government which is recognized as sovereign over all other governments. It’s hard to imagine how such diverse systems of government as are in power today would willingly subjugate themselves to a single ruler, and there are many theories on the subject. A logical conclusion is that the disasters and plagues described in Revelation as the seal and trumpet judgments (chapters 6-11) will be so devastating and create such a monumental global crisis that people will embrace anything and anyone who promises to give them relief.
Once entrenched in power, the beast (Antichrist) and the power behind him (Satan) will move to establish absolute control over all peoples of the earth to accomplish their true end, the worship Satan has been seeking ever since being thrown out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12-14). One way they will accomplish this is by controlling all commerce, and this is where the idea of a one-world currency comes in. Revelation 13:16-17 describes some sort of satanic mark which will be required in order to buy and sell. This means anyone who refuses the mark will be unable to buy food, clothing or other necessities of life. No doubt the vast majority of people in the world will succumb to the mark simply to survive. Again, verse 16 makes it clear that this will be a universal system of control where everyone, rich and poor, great and small, will bear the mark on their hand or forehead. There is a great deal of speculation as to how exactly this mark will be affixed, but the technologies that are available right now could accomplish it very easily.
Those who are left behind after the Raptureof the Church will be faced with an excruciating choice—accept the mark of the beast in order to survive or face starvation and horrific persecution by the Antichrist and his followers. But those who come to Christ during this time, those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Revelation 13:8), will choose to endure, even to martyrdom.
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
I think the p.c. is getting ridiculous. I wouldn't be offended with a Hindu Priest, a Buddist monk or a imman was helping me. I may not share what they believe but I'm strong enough in my faith and mature enough to not be offended.
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
Um, i think Jesus said preach the Gospel and convert them. How's that?
And if that doesn't work?
Jesus valued inclusion, as seen in the parable of the good Samaritan.
"Portraying a Samaritan in a positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus's audience.[2] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are inverted.[2]"
Um, i think Jesus said preach the Gospel and convert them. How's that?
And if that doesn't work?
Jesus valued inclusion, as seen in the parable of the good Samaritan.
"Portraying a Samaritan in a positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus's audience.[2] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are inverted.[2]"
flan
What are you talking about? In NO WAY did Jesus ever endorse any other religion, atheism or "accept" that. Wow. I guess those parts of the Bible you choose to ignore. Sorry, but you don't get to make Jesus or the Bible in your own image.
Um, i think Jesus said preach the Gospel and convert them. How's that?
And if that doesn't work?
Jesus valued inclusion, as seen in the parable of the good Samaritan.
"Portraying a Samaritan in a positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus's audience.[2] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are inverted.[2]"
flan
What are you talking about? In NO WAY did Jesus ever endorse any other religion, atheism or "accept" that. Wow. I guess those parts of the Bible you choose to ignore. Sorry, but you don't get to make Jesus or the Bible in your own image.
I didn't say he endorsed any other religion. But, in THIS parable, a priest and a Levite passed by the man who needed help.
The ones who can't coexist are the ones blowing people up. Paris, Boston, etc...
- huskerbb
_____________________________
While I will agree that those people don't want to coexist either, there are many of us who are Christian that don't want to coexist either. The Christians that don't want to coexist may not be bombing places and killing people, but trying to force people that believe differently than we do to follow our beliefs and customs is just as much failing to coexist, only without the death and destruction.
The thing is, and what so many have forgotten, we are not to coexist.
God said we have been set apart. We are a light in the darkness.
Being Set Apart
Romans 12:2ESV / 464 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, ...
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ...
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
The Bible is full of verses instructing believers to not conform. To not become tangled up in such.
It isn't about being better than anyone.
It's about being the example.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
The Bible is full of verses instructing believers to not conform. To not become tangled up in such.
It isn't about being better than anyone.
It's about being the example.
You don't have to conform to coexist.
If a Buddhist family moves in next door, are you going to ignore them? Try to convert them? Be hostile to them?
Or are you going to try to be friendly and get along with them?
Yes. But getting along and tolerance and acceptance does not mean that you have to rubber stamp and agree with everything another person says or does. They don't agree with everything you are doing and vice versa.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
The ones who can't coexist are the ones blowing people up. Paris, Boston, etc... - huskerbb
_____________________________
While I will agree that those people don't want to coexist either, there are many of us who are Christian that don't want to coexist either. The Christians that don't want to coexist may not be bombing places and killing people, but trying to force people that believe differently than we do to follow our beliefs and customs is just as much failing to coexist, only without the death and destruction.
Christians aren't even doing that. They just want to not have to follow others' beliefs.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
No. It's watering down religion.
It's attempting to put false religion on a level field with following Christ.
It's saying they are all the same.
And they most certainly are not.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
Fine , then tell Islam to stop whacking off heads and bombing and stop pretending it is a "religion of peace" when it clearly isn't.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
Fine , then tell Islam to stop whacking off heads and bombing and stop pretending it is a "religion of peace" when it clearly isn't.
Why don't you?
Co-existing does not mean approval (imho), it just means not hating or fearing those who are different from you.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
Fine , then tell Islam to stop whacking off heads and bombing and stop pretending it is a "religion of peace" when it clearly isn't.
Why don't you?
Co-existing does not mean approval (imho), it just means not hating or fearing those who are different from you.
flan
I'd say it's wise to fear those who might set off a bomb in a venue you might go to. I don't think a little hate for them is necessarily a bad thing, either.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
Fine , then tell Islam to stop whacking off heads and bombing and stop pretending it is a "religion of peace" when it clearly isn't.
Why don't you?
Co-existing does not mean approval (imho), it just means not hating or fearing those who are different from you.
flan
I'd say it's wise to fear those who might set off a bomb in a venue you might go to. I don't think a little hate for them is necessarily a bad thing, either.
Agreed, but what about the rest of the non-Christian religions?
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
Fine , then tell Islam to stop whacking off heads and bombing and stop pretending it is a "religion of peace" when it clearly isn't.
Why don't you?
Co-existing does not mean approval (imho), it just means not hating or fearing those who are different from you.
flan
I'd say it's wise to fear those who might set off a bomb in a venue you might go to. I don't think a little hate for them is necessarily a bad thing, either.
Agreed, but what about the rest of the non-Christian religions?
flan
I don't think anyone is really having much of a problem with those in Western society.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
It's spreading false religion. Trying to put Christianity on par with other religions as if religion and truth is just some cafeteria choice like picking a hamburger instead of a hot dog, lol.
What?
That makes no sense.
It is telling the religions to live in peace with one another, you know, not whack heads off and bomb stuff.
Fine , then tell Islam to stop whacking off heads and bombing and stop pretending it is a "religion of peace" when it clearly isn't.
Why don't you?
Co-existing does not mean approval (imho), it just means not hating or fearing those who are different from you.
flan
I'd say it's wise to fear those who might set off a bomb in a venue you might go to. I don't think a little hate for them is necessarily a bad thing, either.
Agreed, but what about the rest of the non-Christian religions?
flan
I don't think Christians "hate" others but if that is your narrative, so be it. The ones who seem to talk about Hate an awful lot are liberals, who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a "hater". But, so what if someone "hates" another person? So what? Nobody has to like anyone. One can "hate" whomever they choose to hate. What they can't do is break the law and harm others.