American Life League mentions article by Julio Severo

Evangelical decries “Rivers of Blood” flowing from chemical contraceptives

Evangelical pro-life activist Julio Severo has written an analysis of chemical contraceptives and the prophesies in the book of Revelation that “rivers, seas, and fountains of water will ‘become blood as of a dead man.’ As Severo points out, through the use of hormonal contraceptives, hundreds of millions of women worldwide are causing invisible ‘micro-abortions,’ the destruction of unborn human life at the earliest stage of its development”.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121811.html

American Life League: http://all.org/article.php?id=11752

Rivers of Blood: A Brazilian pro-life Evangelical writes about the contraceptive culture and prophecies in Revelation

Homosexual groups ask reforms in the children’s “rights” in Brazil

Children’s rights movement joins homosexual movement to advocate “sexual autonomy” of children, the secular State and measures to confront Christian activism in society

By Julio Severo

Radical homosexual groups joined children’s “rights” government and non-government groups in Brasília, Brazil, from May 6 to 8, 2009, to discuss and pinpoint plans to promote as human rights the “sexual rights” of children and adolescents.

The major meeting, which united the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement, was entitled “Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents in the Federal District”.

In the meeting, the following leaders took part in the discussion “Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents”:

Márcio Sanches, from the Child and Adolescent Defense Center (Cedeca DF).

Liliana Lemus, director of Associação Fomento Social Planejamento e Gestão de Projetos.

Leila Paiva, coordinator for the National Program to Confront Sexual Violence Against Children and Adolescents of the Special Human Rights Secretary of the Presidency of the Brazilian Republic (SEDH/PR), Cedeca DF.

Tony Reis, president of the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals (ABGLT).

Representatives of the National Association of Child and Adolescent Defense Centers (ANCED).

Representatives of the National Council of the Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights (CONANDA).

Jimena Grignani, secretary of the National Forum for the Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights (FNDCA).

Benedito Rodrigues, executive secretary of the National Council of the Children’s and Adolescents’ Rights (CONANDA).

The discussion entitled “A LGBT-Movement Look on the Human-Rights Violations of Children and Adolescents” was attended by the following leaders:

Alessandra Guerra, coordinator of the group Freedom of Love between Women in Ceará (LAMCE).

Beto de Jesus, Latin American and Caribbean secretary of the International Association of Gays, Lesbians and Trans.

Fernanda Benvenutty, public relations for the Paraíba Transvestite Association (Astrapa).

Excepting homosexual activists, whose mission is promotion of homosexuality, the mission of the children’s “rights” advocates in Brazil is to promote the Child and Adolescent Statute (known in Brazil as ECA: Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente), a legislation notorious for the suffering and injustices it has been provoking in Brazil.

The Brazilian society groans under the weight and threat of murderers and criminals. The society groans because of the omission and lack of serious laws. The society groans because of the partial impunity through which often laws treat adult murderers and criminals. In the case of minor criminals, the impunity is total — to the despair of the population.

Even in the Brazil of impunity, if an adult who murdered 50 individuals is caught, he may be condemned to spend a lifetime in jail. Yet, if the murderer is not over 18, ECA assures total impunity: To condemn such murderer to spend a lifetime in jail is, according to the view of those advocating — and living at the expense of — the promotion of the children’s “rights”, violation of the children’s “rights”. He will stay in a state rehab institution until adulthood. Afterward, total freedom, with no criminal history.

Where did ECA come from? Where will ECA lead Brazil to?

Even though Brazil is able to create its own evils and even though ECA is praised as one of the most progressive legislations in the world when it come to the children’s “rights”, actually Brazil was forced to create ECA. Every nation ratifying UN documents enters the obligation to be submissive to them. Since the Brazilian government signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Children’s Rights (CCR) in 1990, Brazil automatically did the commitment to produce a domestic legislation to mirror the CCR’s interests and impositions.

Under the UN monitoring, which supervises and exacts the “progresses” of the compliance of each nation to CCR, the Brazilian government has been seeking to strengthen and expand, through tutelary councils and other state agencies, the implementation of ECA.

The United States is not yet under the burden of that demand from the world government, because the US government has never ratified CCR. American Christian groups had vision and a direction sense to see in advance the risks and threats of this comprehensive and imposing UN legislation on children and families.

Under the socialist Obama, the US government wants to follow the Brazilian way, ratifying the UN Convention on the Children’s Rights and producing its own “ECA”, but Christian groups, as the Parental Rights website, are alerting American parents on the following risks,

* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

* A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

* A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

* Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

In fact, the “progression” of CCR will lead to many other aberrations. UN has for many years been an arena where radical activists use — or even produce — opportunities and breaches to promote abortion and homosexuality. Even the women’s right to a safe motherhood has been used as a door to impose the world legalization of abortion. And reproductive and sexual rights are a UN term which, besides abortion, also comprises the promotion of sexual freedom, including homosexuality.

So what could be strange in an event in Brazil where those living on the expense of the children’s “rights” ally with the homosexual movement to “improve” ECA? It is a natural progression. The Brazilian creature of the UN — ECA — will sooner or later follow all the ways of the monster that produced it.

If UN, which is the direct responsible for the creation of ECA, has recently recognized ABGLT (the largest homosexual group in Brazil, which has launched legal actions against Julio Severo), why should the Brazilian government — which is so engaged in homosexual issues and so submissive to the UN interests — ban the participation of ABGLT in a meeting of experts who live on the expense of ECA? (See more information on ABGLT here)

As the world homosexual movement, which for years is creating close ties to the children’s “rights” movement in the so called developed nations, in Brazil these ties are beginning to get strengthened.

Caio Fabio Varela, a gay activist known as a consultant for Fátima Cleide — the senator of the leftwing PT who wants to impose the anti-“homophobia” bill PLC 122 on Brazil whatever the cost —, was one of the contributors for the infamous federal program “Brazil without Homophobia”. Varela took part in the event “Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents in the Federal District” as a moderator in the discussion “A LGBT-Movement Look on the Human-Rights Violations of Children and Adolescents”.

With his consultancy, what “improvements” will ECA have? Now will ECA, which imposes the state intentions in the family realm, have a federal program “Families without Homophobia”? Will ECA officials monitor each home in search of attitudes, gestures and views contrary to the sanctified homosexual human right?

Message to parents: prohibited to protect children from homosexuality

Instead of dedicating itself to the basic function of punishing criminals and discouraging crimes, the State now begins a partnership with the movement that promotes homosexuality — an anti-natural sexual behavior responsible for many sex abuses against boys.

Instead of protecting boys from the homosexual threat, the State will do the wishes of the homosexual movement, working to classify as “human-rights violation” all attempt by parents to protect their small children or adolescents from homosexual influences.

Now, will children be indoctrinated and conditioned in the public schools not only to denunciate parents for physical discipline, but also for working hard to deliver their children from all kind of trend that might lead to homosexuality? Will a father or mother who does not allow a child to follow the “natural course” of homosexuality feel the weight of ECA, being classified as “violator of human rights of children and adolescents”?

The Brazilian event produced the “Carta de Brasília” (Brasília Charter), a document supported by government leaders demanding “improvements” in the child laws. Here is the complete document:

Brasília Charter: a serpent behind the children’s “rights movement

The Child and Adolescent Rights Defense Centers (ANCED-affiliated), the organizations advocating child and adolescent rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transvestite and transsexual organizations that attended the Human Rights and Sexual Diversity of Adolescents conference, held in Brasília, Brazil, from May 6-7, 2009, to discuss and indicate guidelines to promote, advocate and guarantee sexual rights as human rights of children and adolescents declare that:

The full affirmation of children and adolescents as individuals having rights includes the acknowledgement that the exercise of their sexuality is a fundamental right. For the affirmation of the sexual rights is essential to assure information, free speech and to respect the autonomy and responsibility of children and adolescents in the development and exercise of their sexuality, free from any kind of prejudice, shame, omission or violence.

The agencies committed to assure the sexual rights of children and adolescents should have as principles of their operations: the necessary affirmation of a secular State and measures to confront religious fundamentalisms; the rupture from stances reproducing gender hierarchies; guarantee of the children’s and adolescents’ right to the free expression of their sexual orientation and gender identity, respecting their status as developing beings.

To implement the sexual rights of children and adolescents is necessary to develop intersectorial projects, programs and policies committed to:

The effective participation of children and adolescents in the building of political-pedagogical proposals to promote, advocate and guarantee their sexual rights;

Guaranteed access to information on sex, in connection to a human-rights education, in an emancipating and inclusive perspective;

Affirmation of the guarantee of sexual rights of children and adolescents, as an effective measure to confront sex abuse and exploitation;

Acknowledgement and affirmation of the sexual diversity;

Affirmation of every kind of violence, discrimination, prejudice, shame and embarrassment because of sexual orientation and gender identity as a violation of the human rights of children and adolescents.

Aware of the necessary change in ideas and practices for the affirmation of the sexual rights as human rights of children and adolescents, we understand that it is essentially important to promote spaces for the development and discussion involving all the agencies engaged in the guarantee of the children’s and adolescents’ rights, and activists from the feminist and LBGT movements; and the inclusion of the subject of the sexual rights of children and adolescents in conferences and meetings of the children’s and adolescents’ rights movement.

Dr. Alberto Thieme questions the involvement of the homosexual movement in the “defense” of the children’s “rights”

The “Brasília Charter”, filled with subtleties and wiles, has the slyness of a venomous serpent. I had access to the papers about this event through Dr. Alberto Thieme, who worked hardly to discover this meeting where leaders from ECA and from the homosexual movement slept in the same bed covered on the children’s “rights”. Following are the relevant questions by Dr. Thieme:

1. Most homosexuals do not have the experience of having children or how to rear them. How can they give their view about guidelines on how to educate sexually children and adolescents?

2. Why did not the individuals in charge of this event invite teachers and directors of charities caring for many children (as the charity I founded and which today shelters more than 1,000 children)?

3. Why homosexuals involved in the sexual education of children? Is its purpose to decriminalize pedophiles and pederasts to increase homosexual groups? Many boys sexually abused by an adult male eventually believe that they are homosexual. Is it the supremacy of the strong ones over defenseless children and adolescents?

4. Why is the Lula administration directing its policies lately only to homosexuals, giving them huge privileges? Why do leaders of the largest gay groups have special access to the president?

5. Does President Lula want to destroy the institution of family?

6. In his ambition to stay in power and implant socialism or communism in Brazil, is President Lula weakening and destroying Brazilian institutions to exterminate resistance?

Julio Severo answers the “Brasília Charter” challenges

The “Brasília Charter” (BC) is an affront to the Brazilian family and the Christian majority in Brazil. Therefore let us see the most important points of the affront:

BC says, “Guaranteed access to information on sex, in connection to a human-rights education, in an emancipating and inclusive perspective”.

Answer from Julio Severo: Do children need “sexual emancipation”? Not mentioning that the socially-constructed term “inclusivity” has everything to do with the acceptance of anti-natural social inventions. Then will the emancipation of children be compulsory for them to be free to live such sexual inventions?

BC says, it is “necessary affirmation of a secular State”.

Answer from Julio Severo: I understand very well the intentions of this partnership. Without moral and Christian values, the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement are free to control children. If the secular State is a State without God and without Christian values, certainly Hitler and Stalin — who were hostile to the natural family and controlled every decision on children — are the most important defenders and “heroes” of the secular State.

BC says, “Measures” are necessary “to confront religious fundamentalisms”.

Answer from Julio Severo: The partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement wants now policies to confront religious “fundamentalisms’. Check now if you will be in the state and homosexual list of “threat” to children:

Are you against the sexual autonomy of children? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.

Are you against homosexual “marriage”? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.

Do you think that homosexuality is not normal? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.

Are you against abortion? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.

Are you against the “sexual rights” and “reproductive rights” that the UN, the secular State and homosexual groups are advocating for children? So you are a religious fundamentalist bigot that should be stopped by the secular State and its allies.

Because of the moral perversion of the modern society — where the light is darkness and darkness is light —, homosexual activists will no longer be seen as threats to children. Rather, this place will be occupied by loving fathers and mothers committing the PC crime of protecting their children against the actual threats from the children’s “rights” movement and the homosexual movement.

BC says, it is necessary “the rupture from stances reproducing gender hierarchies”.

Answer from Julio Severo: The partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement asks for the extinction of the distinction between men and women. They want the extermination of the sexual differences so that the doors may be opened for the feminilization of men and the masculinization of women, building in this way new standards and eliminating the natural standard, such as children being reared by a father and a mother. The new standard will impose the acknowledgment and the legal acceptance as “family” of two lesbian women or two homosexual men “bringing up” children. This new standard may yet produce invented “families” with four or more homosexual men or lesbian women rearing children, and a dramatic increase in the acceptance of the patently pedophilic idea that children are entitled to “autonomy”. The doors are already being opened by the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement.

BC says, it is necessary “the guarantee of the children’s and adolescents’ right to the free expression of their sexual orientation and gender identity, respecting their status as developing beings”.

Answer from Julio Severo: While the State is reducing the rights of natural parents to direct their own children, the partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement demands for children and adolescents the right to free sexual expression. Is a child being influenced by homosexual factors? The State will prohibit parents from interfering and it will give full freedom for homosexual groups to interfere, with the complicity of those living on the expense of ECA.

The State is weakening the rights of parents over their children and strengthening groups that advocate the “rights”, the “autonomy”, the “emancipation” and the “free sexual expression” of children. In turn, those groups strongly defend the “secular” State as a way to separate the State from values damaging the expansion of the children’s “rights”.

The dark, final result will be families with small or no authority over children that, instead of close to the interests and orientations from their families, will be close to the interests and orientations from the State and homosexual groups. While families will have increasingly fewer rights to direct their children, the State and even homosexual groups allied to the State will have increasingly more rights to control the children from natural families.

What to do to avoid the “religious fundamentalist” label?

If you think it is pointless to oppose the partnership between the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement and if you do not want to be put in their black list, you may choose the following positions:

You may say that the Lula administration, the Obama administration and the UN world governance have a real interest in the well-being of children and families.

You may say that every man committing homosexual acts is entitled to a homosexual “marriage”.

You may say that every child is entitled to “autonomy” and sexual and reproductive rights.

You may say that ECA is wonderful and that its advocates are wonderful.

Doing what they want, you will receive the cheers, not the condemnation, from the homosexual movement and the children’s “rights” movement.

After all, what do they want?

The final discussions of the event that produced the “Brasília Charter” were “Has the most Important Brazilian Legislation [ECA] Guaranteed the Autonomy of the Sexual Rights of Adolescents?” and “Discussion on the Subject: Sexual Rights of Children and Adolescents: How to recognize them and guarantee them?”

In the UN conception, sexual rights (or reproductive rights) involve the right to contraception, the right to a free sexual life (with or without marriage) and the right to abortion, because the largest organizations offering family-planning services to adolescents also offer abortion “services”. Those organizations advise UN.

Doubtless, it is impossible to implement policies guaranteeing “sexual rights” without firstly guaranteeing autonomy. Autonomy from whom? Autonomy from the State? Autonomy from homosexual groups? Autonomy from folks that live on expense of ECA? It would be very good if children had autonomy from them.

However, what they want is basically children independent from parents and their values. Children independent from their own families — but never independent from the State. For them, a child that, because of some influence, began to head to homosexuality or another abnormality is entitled to “autonomy”. The law will guarantee the child’s sexual rights, protecting him from the “interference” of parents! Parents will be able to do nothing to help their small and adolescent children, under the risk of suffering the weight of the laws and an ECA “improved” by homosexual activists.

While the homosexual movement is conquering more access to children through the formulation of laws strengthening a State that favors homosexuality, natural families are losing their natural rights to direct the education, discipline and now the healthy sexual course of their small and adolescent children.

Parents will lose the right to teach that there are only two sexes: male and female. And gay activists will receive the right to impose their third invented “sex”. So the power of the gay activism will be greater than the parental authority.

In this ideological climate, where homosexuality — which is simply a sexual construction of a society losing its ethical, moral and natural sense — is praised as normalcy, homosexual activists are seen as perfect partners for the formulation of policies for children.

The fall of an “advocate” for the autonomy and sexual rights of children…

The result is foreseeable. In Scotland, James Rennie, a top advisor to the Executive on homosexual issues regarding children, was caught in the act as a ringleader of a pedophile ring. Rennie, who was the chief executive of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Youth Scotland, was found guilty in 2009 for his leadership in the pedophile ring and of molesting an infant beginning at three months old over a four-year period.

Who told that homosexuality has nothing to do with abuse? Many homosexuals also report sexual abuse in their boyhood. It has a very clear meaning: a homosexual adult raped an innocent boy.

The answer from the government? Deliver into the hands of homosexual activists the formulation of policies promoting and advocating the children’s sexual and human “rights”!

If such illogic and foolishness become a trend, the protection of henneries will be delivered to foxes and the protection of innocent sheep will be delivered to wolves.

What about to guarantee the “autonomy” of the sexual rights of your small and adolescent children? Foxes and wolves express their gratitude.

Jesus was not joking when he told: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves”. (Matthew 10:16 NIV)

Portuguese version of this article: Grupos homossexuais querem “melhorias” no ECA

Source: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

The great Brazilian miracle

Phenomenal resistance by a poor Christian minority in Brazil hinders the advance of several threats from the gay agenda subsidized by the Lula administration

By Julio Severo

Barack Obama, the would-be Antichrist, barely became US president and he has already been advancing anti-“homophobia” bills.

For years, Lula, the socialist president of Brazil, has been trying to advance such bills in Brazil, with the assistance of many homosexual groups that receive training and grants from powerful US organizations, but he is stumbling in difficulties because of a very small opposition. Why is Obama, in so a short time, being more successful than Lula?

The opposition to these bills in Brazil and the US is being made by conservative Christians. The difference is that, while conservative Christians in the US count on numerous well-funded pro-family groups, the Brazilian Christian mobilization looks likes a pack of people in rags. They have no resources; they have no TV stations, etc.

This does not mean that Brazil has no strong, well-funded Christian groups. The Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus (Kingdom of God Universal Church, whose Portuguese initials are IURD) has vast financial resources, radios and many TV stations, including Record, the second most important TV channel in Brazil. There are also the Reborn in Christ Church and many other denominations with TV channels. The common denominator of those powerful evangelical organizations is their support for the same administration that has been promoting abortion and homosexuality in the Brazilian society.

The small Christian mobilization in Brazil does not count on any powerful organization and additionally it has to face the Lula administration, the liberal media, progressive evangelicals and Catholics, and the omission of the vast majority of Christian leaders who prefer not to speak openly against the pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality policies of the government.

The only recourse for the active Christian minority is prayer and action.

The powerful

Before the gay-agenda threats in Brazil, where are the powerful evangelical leaders? The powerful are with the powerful. Not accidentally, the inauguration of Record News, a news channel owned by TV Record, had the attendance of the “powerful” Lula, who wanted to be together with the “powerful” Bishop Edir Macedo, the founder of the “powerful” IURD. The powerful please the powerful.

In the past Brazilian presidential elections, IURD leaders supported Lula, and in turn Lula supported its candidates too. They have been allies.

So Lula, whose administration is openly pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality and pro-socialism, is at ease with Record TV, which has been in a steady pro-abortion campaign. In his interview to the Veja magazine (the Brazilian counterpart of Time magazine), Bishop Honorilton Gonçalves, the IURD strongman responsible for Record, revealed the reason Record defends abortion.

Veja magazine: “Recently, Record assumed openly the pro-abortion position — which is compatible with the IURD view on the subject. Why to adopt such position?”

Bishop Gonçalves: “It was a direct orientation from Mr. Edir Macedo, who asked us to make the society conscious on the importance of a woman being able to determine her own destiny”.

Later, Bishop Macedo voiced his own view in the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper.

Folha de S. Paulo: “In your biography, you defend abortion. Currently, Record and Record News show a pro-abortion campaign. Why?”

Bishop Macedo: “I support the decriminalization of abortion for many reasons…”

With this same “moral” base, Macedo has recently accused that “many ‘Christians’ have treated homosexuals as lepers in the past”. When it comes to the Gospel, Christians condemn sin, but not the sinner. When it comes to their social responsibilities, they reveal to society the divine condemnation on homosexuality, and because of it they are condemned themselves by gay activists and by society as condemners of homosexuals. And now Macedo joins in the social and gay chorus, making the comparison of homosexuals and lepers, as if they were equal.

Did Macedo see “many” Christians churches expelling “many” homosexuals? Perhaps he saw “many” Christians keeping away from homosexuals openly kissing one another. Or perhaps the “many” Christians are, according to his “moral” view, the Christian mobilization against anti-“homophobia” bills…

Ultimately, are homosexuals today like the lepers in the past?

“Leprosy is an unalienable human right!”

Perhaps Macedo does not know, but lepers in the past did not have any freedom to make huge parades of “leprous pride”. They could also not kiss one another openly and lobby city councils, legislative assemblies and the Congress for bills against “leprophobia”.

There was no bill against “leprophobia” to fight “leprophobics”. There was not also any legal means to prosecute priests who said any negative word against leprosy.

Lepers had no freedom to manifest their views in radios, TVs, newspapers and magazines, by saying, “Leprosy is a human right! Leprosy is a normal lifestyle. I have the right to be a leper, because I was born this way!”

Poor modern gay activists! They also have no such rights!

Bishop Macedo is not an idiot — in a purely earthly sense. He is smart — in a purely earthly sense. He knows — or he should know — that the command for the social isolation of lepers in the Old Testament came from God, not from religious leaders. And God broke this isolation when Jesus touched lepers. God commanded the isolation, and he himself broke it to bring healing.

What is then Macedo’s motivation for his comparison of homosexuals with lepers?

Pleasing the powerful

He knows that two important issues for the Lula administration, for the social elite and for the world government are abortion and homosexuality. Whoever favors these two issues receives the favors of the Lula administration. Whoever favors these two issues receives the favors of the social elite, the Obama administration, the UN, etc.

In a time when IURD periodically faces most serious scandals, nothing better than to please the social elite to hide under the rug its “inconveniences” and escape from the dens of scandals and corruption.

Gone was the time when those who had the name of “great men of God” trusted in God to escape from the lion’s den.

Daniel escaped from the lion’s den because of his integrity before God, especially his spiritual and financial integrity. Today, the “great men of God” leave the lion’s den — dens of scandals and corruption they dig themselves through their lack of integrity — pleasing the powerful.

The approval of abortion and homosexuality pleases the powerful — including many religious powerful.

What then to do in this political, social, cultural and religious climate of hostility against the Bible positions against the sin?

The passive Christian before the advance of the evil in the society

Naive Christians have a “spiritual” answer to these challenges: They just refrain from acting and manifesting the Bible positions. Just visualize one of these Christians back in the Nazi Germany talking to another in a street, “Brother, do not rebel and do not react against the evils you see in the Nazi society. Remember: our destiny is heaven and we should not worry about earthly things. Let’s pray for Hitler, because he needs salvation. Let’s pray for Nazis, because they need salvation. Let’s pray for the persecuted Jews too. Our mission is only to pray. Nothing else”.

Nazi Germany, whose high political leaders were composed mostly of violent fascist homosexuals, was a society where euthanasia, abortion, evolutionism and other perversities were actively promoted, before the passivity of the overwhelming majority of the German Christians.

Passivity is not a call for the true citizens of the Kingdom of God. Passivity is not my call. I have been a consistent intercessor for more than 20 years. I know by experience that firstly God calls us to prayer and next to action.

Whom should Christians please?

Prayer that does not lead us to spiritual action is empty religious recitation, with no power to influence our own lives and nation.

So I am not attached to such recitation, but attached to the Powerful One through prayer and God’s Word.

Offending the powerful, who want to impose homosexual “marriage” and other homosexual insanities in the society, I speak what God speaks on homosexuality.

Offending the powerful, who want to impose a completely anti-natural homosexual normalcy and criminalize every effort to assist people who want to leave out homosexuality, I speak that God has healing, hope and deliverance for everyone, including those in homosexuality.

How is then a poor Christian minority being able to hinder several threats from the gay agenda in Brazil?

The great Brazilian miracle is being made possible not because of the religious powerful, but because of those who, even offending the powerful, want to please only the Powerful One.

Portuguese version of this article: O grande milagre brasileiro

Source: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com

Read also:

Director of YWAM in Brazil attacks Christian activism against the anti-“homophobia” bills and homosexual “marriage”

To know more about Bishop Macedo in Portuguese, click here.

To know more about TV Record in Portuguese, click here.

Director of YWAM in Brazil attacks Christian activism against the anti-“homophobia” bills and homosexual “marriage”

Bráulia Ribeiro accuses Christian mobilization against gay agenda as “hate and prejudice crusade”

By Julio Severo

The year is 1932. Evangelical churches, highly moralist, were marked by holiness in their behavior and a major concern for an ethical and impeccable testimony. There was also a real interest in the purity of the Gospel and in sacrifices for its spread to a lost world.

To transform such interest into action is more than fair. Since the Gospel offers hope to the sinner, decades before the first anti-“homophobia” bills, churches took on the prophetic head, launching in the 1930s campaigns to fight discrimination against homosexuals.

The initiative included propaganda in trains, carts and streets, educating the astonished population — who were having a very hard time to understand what was happening — that those committing homosexual acts are normal and deserve respect…

As a direct result of those pioneering pressures from evangelical ministers in the 1930s, today homosexuals run no risk of being assaulted or murdered in prostitution and drug quarters at 2 a.m. Special police units escort homosexuals before and after their sexual encounters, guaranteeing protection and safety for their activities. Because of evangelicals, homosexual safe sex became a reality.

That odd fairy event should have been reality, according to a recent article by Bráulia Ribeiro, who suggested that efforts against “homophobia” should have been firstly launched neither by homosexual activists nor by the Lula administration, but by Christians.

Christians in the 1930s would have been astonished and frightened if they had been told that the 21-century society would be immersed in a homosexual obsession — not mentioning that they would have been shocked by the idea that they in their days should have launched campaigns for the social acceptance of homosexuals as normal individuals.

Churches know how to be pioneering in positive campaigns. Decades before the first social campaigns against smoke, many churches were delivering alerts. These alerts were treated by the secular world as fanaticism, but today this same world is treating such addiction in the same way churches treated it: as a health risk.

I believe that churches acted appropriately in the past, treating homosexuality as an abomination, a serious sin that should be shunned, but the declarations of Bráulia Ribeiro inspire doubts and confusion, because she did not know how to make the distinction between the role of the Gospel and the role of a Christian as a citizen in a society needing not only the Gospel, but fair laws to rule.

Bráulia Ribeiro speaks, Julio Severo answers

Following are the declarations of Bráulia Ribeiro, in her Portuguese article “Não quero o direito de ser homofóbica” (I do not want the right to be homophobic), published in some Brazilian leftist magazines and websites.

Bráulia Ribeiro: “It is not our role to legislate morality”.

Answer from Julio Severo: “It is not our role to legislate morality”. This is, Christians should just stay passive while the wicked legislate every kind of immorality. You can hardly hear Satan saying to evangelical ministers and politicians, “Listen, you Christians! I am legislating immorality throughout the society and I do not want you disturbing my activities. For the time being, you are free to legislate your morality only within your churches”. You can find the echo of these words among feminists, who tell, “The State is secular. You Christians cannot promote the value of life in society. Only we, who are not Christians, have the right to legislate abortion and whatever else we want. Keep away. This domain — the society — belongs to us”. The words of homosexual activists are not different, “The State is secular. Only we can do whatever we want. You Christians may legislate your morality only within your churches”. Sometimes, a Christian voice appears to give them support. Such are the voices of Bráulias.

The argument that “It is not our role to legislate morality” will be also used against Christians fighting pedophilia. In the Netherlands, which was the first nation to legitimize homosexual “marriage”, there is an official pedophile party composed by homosexual members and because of the pressures of homosexual activism the age for sexual consent has been lowered. According to Bráulia, if homosexual activists want the same “conquests” in Brazil, we cannot “legislate morality” to thwart them.

Bráulia Ribeiro: “God did not assume that because there is an ideal, we would be forced into it”.

Answer from Julio Severo: The ideal, for the sexuality, is marriage between a man and a woman, as Bráulia acknowledged. But, as she also acknowledged, many turn away from the ideal, making wrong choices. Those deviations include: men who prefer other men, men who prefer boys, men who rape women, men who rape girls, etc. Bráulia suggests that there should be no law to enforce the ideal. So if there cannot be just laws to enforce the ideal, does it make any sense to allow passively the imposition on the society of unjust laws protecting the deviation from the ideal?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “The Bible stresses more adultery than perversions, strongly defending family limits. We Christians do not give to adultery the same importance. We excuse, understand and even ‘defend’ adultery in the name of personal happiness and in the name of the mere hedonism that flavors our religion with the same worldly aroma”.

Answer from Julio Severo: God hates adultery, but when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, the cause was homosexuality. Additionally, we do not see pride parades of adulterers, there are no groups of adulterers throughout Brazil pressing city councils, legislative assemblies and the Brazilian Congress for the approval of bills against “adulteryphobia”, there is no federal campaign “Brazil without Adulteryphobia”, etc. Schools do not receive from the government orders to praise adultery, teaching children to see it as a natural option.

Besides, churches preaching against adultery are not threatened by lawsuits and federal prosecutors. But if you preach against homosexuality, threats will come.

The media, the schools and the government exalt much more homosexuality today than adultery. Even though churches have the responsibility to condemn both sins, we have to admit the reality of our days. Fifty years ago, churches openly condemned adultery, and did not talk about homosexuality, because homosexuality was not a societal obsession. Today, the homosexual subject is compulsory throughout the society. Cannot Christians talk about what the whole Brazil is talking about?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “In a society that lives Bible principles, the responsibility to legitimize marriages belongs to family. It is in the domain of families that the union of two young people and the formation of a new family are legitimized and strengthened. We see marriages in the Bible, but no marriage established or legitimized by the church or by the State”.

Answer from Julio Severo: I fully agree with Bráulia.

Bráulia Ribeiro: “If the State sees fit to legitimize homosexual union and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

Answer from Julio Severo: She could also have told,

“If the State sees fit to legitimize abortion and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

“If the State sees fit to legitimize infanticide and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

“If the State sees fit to legitimize pedophilia and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

If Bráulia had been in Nazi Germany, her argument would have been,

“If the State sees fit to legitimize persecution to Jews and the population of the nation agrees, as Christians we can do nothing”.

Hitler was democratically elected, and most of the German population supported him. He introduced many wicked laws in the predominantly and nominally Christian Germany. The Christian majority, as Bráulia, thought, “As Christians we can do nothing”.

Yet, two Christians did not think as she does. Evangelical Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Catholic Claus von Stauffenberg were members of small groups that wanted to eliminate Hitler. Today they are famous and admired, but in their own time they suffered the contempt from the government of their own country and the contempt from the most German Christians.

By sheer coincidence, the man that Stauffenberg wanted to eliminate was homosexual. In fact, the highest Nazi German leaders were violent fascist homosexuals.

If Christians are supposed to do nothing when the State sees fit to legitimize evil and the population of the nation agrees, why then did Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer do?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “To mix God and State was a mistake in the time of Constantine and it is a mistake today”.

Answer from Julio Severo: Secularists and the Lula administration are certainly saying “Amen” to the declaration of Bráulia. All that humanists, socialists, gay activists, feminists and anthropologists want is a society where laws and politicians “do not mix God and State”.

The mistake of Constantine was not to mix God and State. His mistake was to force the conversion to Christianity of all inhabitants in the Roman Empire.

To mix God and State produces successful results. King David did it, and the result was success. Early America did it, and the result was success.

In fact, Romans 13 clearly instructs that politic officials have the calling to serve God, to be ministers of God. How to serve God as a politician when socialists and now even Bráulias demand separation between God and State?

What about, Mrs. Bráulia, to demand separation between State and gay agenda, feminist agenda, abortion agenda and Indian infanticide agenda?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “A fair State, which reflects God’s values, will defend for each individual the right to his personal choices, providing such choices do not infringe on the other’s right”.

Answer from Julio Severo: The reality that most homosexuals suffered sexual violence from a male adult in their childhood demonstrates that someone made a choice that hurt a boy. How can Bráulia use the right to choice considering such brutal reality? She wants everybody to see the brutality of the Indian infanticide. What about other brutalities? Don’t they count?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “Many evangelicals have been expectantly waiting a kind of Christian sharia, where Christian morality would be enforced by the State. This unjust and absurd sharia would not change the heart of men…”

Answer from Julio Severo: The Christian mobilization against the gay agenda has been shy, because each Christian step is ruthlessly attacked by the media. And now, joining the chorus of such attackers, Bráulia raises the absurd charge of a Christian sharia, while the Brazilian society is being engulfed by a real socialist sharia and is about to suffer a homosexual sharia.

Laws are not made to change the hearts of people. No law against murders and rapes changes the hearts of people. Laws serve only to control harmful behaviors. If we cannot create laws because they do not convert, then are laws against murders and rapes useless because they have never converted anyone?

Bráulia Ribeiro: “We have the Christian obligation to fight homophobia… The anti-homophobia voice should have been heard firstly from our mouths… If we had led this fight probably we would not have to live today the discomfort of the imposition of the homosexual agenda as we are living. We would have joined them for Christ’s sake, and not raised us against them in a hate and discrimination crusade…”

Answer from Julio Severo: Are public schools indoctrinating children in homosexuality? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

Before, during and after Christianity, boys were abused by homosexuals? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

Homosexual activist groups are distorting statistics of homosexual crimes to advance special laws to protect homosexuality? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

Are Christians faithful to God and to the Bible and good-will people under the threat of being jailed if they criticize the homosexual behavior? The blame, according to Bráulia, is on the Christian churches, which were not pioneering in the fight against homophobia.

I have frequently heard homosexual activists accusing Christians of “hate and prejudice”, only because Christians do not accept the gay dictatorship. You have an obligation to accept this dictatorship. If not, you are automatically labeled a “hate and prejudice”-filled bigot.

In fact, FUNAI — the Brazilian government agency that directs and controls Indian affairs — sees only “hate and prejudice” in the YWAM’s efforts to save Indian children. At last, Bráulia found a way to revenge what YWAM has been suffering.

The difference between poor Julio Severo and wealthy YWAM

The secular world has a very clear vision on the role of Christians in the society:

Abortion: Christians should respect abortion as a women’s human right, because the State is secular and what must prevail is the secular State’s will.

Indian infanticide: Christians should respect Indian culture. Child-killing is part of the Indian culture and it is rejected only by Indians influenced and tainted by the Christian “culture”.

Speaking on Indian infanticide, Bráulia has a view on this issue. As the director of YWAM in Brazil, Bráulia complains that YWAM is victim of persecutions and false charges.

Federal prosecutors in Brazil and the Lula administration classify as crimes the YWAM actions to save Indian children from murders.

Similarly, federal prosecutors in Brazil and the Lula administration classify as a crime my fight against the gay agenda.

Do you know the difference? I give all my support to the hard mission of YWAM. I give it wholeheartedly. In fact, the YWAM video exposing the killing of Indian children was posted in my blog, where more than sixty thousand Brazilians have watched. I have fought in many other necessary battle-fronts. I am involved in the direct fight against abortion for more than 20 years, as witnessed by my friends for more than two decades Congressman Talmir Rodrigues and Dr. Humberto L. Vieira, the director of Associação Nacional Pró-Vida e Pró-Família (National Pro-Life and Pro-Family Association).

By God’s Grace, YWAM has the support from powerful national and international Christian institutions in its honorable fight against Indian infanticide.

Yet, in my fight against the gay agenda, I receive discouragement, charges and threats.

There is an abyssal difference between Bráulia and someone like me, who fight the gay agenda — and fight also Indian infanticide. Bráulia has the privilege to be the director of an institution of huge financial power and she has no hard time to get access to a good accommodation in any place in the world, because YWAM is present in many nations.

In my fight against the gay agenda in Brazil, I do not have the support from any group as powerful as YWAM. I am wandering among the nations, without an adequate place where to stay, because I have the support from no group that is present in many nations. Differently from Bráulia, who lives by and from YWAM, I can live only by faith. Nothing else.

Institutional interests versus spiritual interests

By embracing an schizophrenic stand minimizing the gravity of the homosexual agenda, of the sexual sacrifice of boys and the value of the efforts of Christians fighting this threat, and respecting exclusively conveniences and particular interests, Bráulia behaves as an institutional Christian, as an institutional individual, who in everything takes into consideration the interests of the institution which he works for, sacrificing everything else.

It is not wrong to work for an institution. I know YWAM since 1984, and I had many national and international contacts with people from YWAM. I read the biography of Loren Cunningham, founder of YWAM in the US, and I liked very much. I praised and I praise God for his life. Even so, I admit that over the time religious institutions become corrupted. They become slowly corrupted until to reach the stature of a futility and imbecility far from their own foundation. Harvard University, founded centuries ago to form evangelical ministers, is an excellent example. It became so corrupted that today it effectively forms anti-Christian activists. YWAM owns major institutions, including a great university in Hawaii, and such human greatness requires caution to avoid the first steps into futility and imbecility.

Throughout the history, the biggest resistance to the Holy Spirit moves came from institutional Christians, that is, Christians connected to institutions that, even though founded on Christian principles, got hardened in a closed vision, resisting God’s actions.

I do not think that churches should have moved beforehand, decades ago, to fight the prejudice against the murder of Indian children or against homosexuality or against abortion.

Indian infanticide worries me, because it involves the sacrifice of children. Abortion worries me, because it involves the sacrifice of children. The advance of the gay agenda worries me, because it involves the sexual sacrifice of boys. The absolute majority of homosexuals suffered experiences of sex abuse. And while society is pressed by gay militants to give special attention to rare cases of murdered homosexuals — many of them involving sexual affairs as cause or even high risk behaviors of homosexuals that walk through insecure drug and prostitution quarters at 2 a.m. — thousands of boys are raped and even murdered, and society and Bráulias do not remember that children deserve protection against an admittedly-threatening sexual behavior

Bráulia Ribeiro and the leftist chorus

The call from Bráulia “We have the Christian obligation to fight homophobia… The anti-homophobia voice should have been heard firstly from our mouth…” has been echoing throughout the Christian left. Not by coincidence, her article was published in the Eclésia magazine, a direct successor of the overtly leftist Vinde magazine, founded by Caio Fábio, who was the responsible for the approximation of evangelical leaders to Lula many years ago. This Brazilian magazine, which was busy indoctrinating the Brazilian public with a leftist vision, never spared efforts to neutralize Christian actions not complying with the Theology of Liberation dictates.

Her article was also published in the FENASP website, founded by Bishop Robson Rodovalho, a socialist politician who openly supported Lula in the last two presidential elections in Brazil.

Not by coincidence also, Bráulia is a regular contributor for Ultimato, a leftist evangelical magazine, and she has a book published by the Ultimato publishing house. The ideological extremism of Ultimato would never have allowed so a strong involvement or bond if Bráulia did not have in major points the same interests. Bráulia’s voice in the “homophobia” issue is the voice of the world Christian left.

Socialism — whether evangelical or anti-Christian — does two things: promotes the advance of their ideology and demotes all authentic Christian vision and mobilization not conforming to the will of Karl Marx.

While Muslims, socialists and gay activists impose a sharia, Bráulia Ribeiro attacks Christian activism

When a Christian tries to help protect Indian children from murders, secularist priests appear with charges that we are imposing a Christian culture, etc. They label us Nazi, etc. Perhaps the only term they did not use still is that we want to impose a Christian sharia — a Muslim term Bráulia used against Christians fighting the gay agenda. Her term will serve greatly in the repertory of those attacking all kind of Christian mobilization in the society.

If the winds of institutional interests or objectives were blowing in the opposed direction, Bráulia could possibly have behaved in an inverse way, giving preference to the homosexual subject and to the sexual sacrifice of boys, and making Christians opposed to Indian infanticide equal to Muslims wanting to impose a sharia.

For her own interest, Bráulia did not use the term sharia in the issue of Indian infanticide, even though the YWAM enemies are essentially saying that YWAM is imposing a sharia on the “Indian culture”. What is Bráulia going to do to appease the wrath from the YWAM enemies? “Hey, you secularists, anthropologists and Lula administration! I also want to show that I am allied to you in some points. I am going to do it to gain your sympathy and friendship! Are you opposed to homophobia? Me too! What about now? Can we be friends now? I am being kindly to you in the homophobia issue. Now be kindly to me in the Indian infanticide issue”.

Even as YWAM is treated by its enemies, so Bráulia treated the Christian opposition to the gay agenda — perhaps as a compromise and bargain.

But why to be in friendship with the world only halfheartedly? Why to be hard in one issue and soft in another? Why to be lukewarm to please everybody?

She makes compromises even in music, embracing the practice of singing secular songs in the YWAM evangelical meetings. If the objective is to please, to make compromises is a must.

Real Christian activism should fight every wicked agenda

Because of the video “Hakani” of YWAM on Indian infanticide and because of my friend Dr. Damares Alves, I got involved in the fight against murders of Indian children. I had the privilege to know personally Hakani, Bráulia Ribeiro and Dr. Wilson Bonfim, who fight Indian infanticide. The first time she saw me, the girl Hakani said to her mother Márcia, “See Jesus Christ there, mommy!” The only reason I do not fight in a more intensive way is because, thank God, there are many groups and Christians engaged in this fight.

In the homosexual issue, when I began my awareness campaign years ago through my book O Movimento Homossexual (The Homosexual Movement), published by the Brazilian branch of Bethany House Publishers, the absolute majority of Christians were frightened to confront the gay agenda. Today, not much, but disinformation, timidity and even fear still persist. The reason is simple: To fight the gay agenda is so risky as to fight Indian infanticide, because the liberal and leftist media gives no value to those battling in these two fronts. My mission is to keep my awareness campaign.

The Indian infanticide issue does not affect the whole Brazil, but only the Indian tribes. Yet, the homosexual issue affects Brazil from North to South. It affects poor and rich. It affects atheists and Christians. Rich and poor homosexuals, born into Christian or atheist homes, confess experiences of abuse. Men raping boys is not a reality restricted to tribes. It is a reality present throughout the Brazilian society. So my fight is to help Brazil to avoid the destiny of Sodom and Gomorrah.

However, our fight against the gay agenda, the abortion agenda and the socialist and secularist agenda protecting and covering Indian infanticide requires union, because a “household divided against itself will not last”. And this household has been very divided, with Christian leaders who do not denounce the gay agenda and the pro-homosexuality campaigns by the federal government because they themselves have alliances with the Lula administration. And now why is YWAM in Brazil joining the anti-“homophobia” chorus? Does YWAM in Brazil want to alleviate the burden of its uncomfortable “cultural” situation before the Lula administration?

“I do not want the right to be against evil in the society”

“I do not want the right to be homophobic” is nothing else than a big appeal directed to the cultural forces today hostilizing YWAM in Brazil because of the movie “Hakani”. “Homophobic” is a politically-charged adjective whose meaning is: an individual that hates homosexuals.

For the homosexual activists, every minister preaching against homosexuality is “homophobic”.

For the homosexual activists, every parent protecting their children from homosexuality is “homophobic”.

For the homosexual activists, every citizen fighting the gay agenda is “homophobic”.

For the homosexual activists, every former homosexual sharing that homosexuality can be left is “homophobic”.

“Homophobic” is an adjective used usually by the cultural forces that hostilize the Christian opposition to the gay agenda. In her wish to appease those forces that also hate YWAM, Bráulia has debased herself by using the same term of hate they use to throw Christian to the lions.

How to leave the lion’s den without throwing other Christians into there?

Daniel was saved from the lion’s den because he trusted God. But some Christians today want to leave the lion’s den by throwing other Christians into there.

“I do not want the right to be homophobic” is a title that pleases secularists and the Lula administration. But if Bráulia wants to keep pleasing, she will need to write also “I do not want the right to be against the Indian culture”, because whatever she or I try to explain, all that secularists and the Lula administration are able to see in the Indian infanticide is “Indian culture”. Nothing else.

If to receive the support and sympathy from the media, we who fight the gay agenda have to throw into the lion’s den our brothers and sisters who fight Indian infanticide, this is a cost I do not want to pay.

It is a pity that in her praiseworthy fight against Indian infanticide, Bráulia has chosen to pay such cost, with the heads of those sacrificially fighting the gay agenda.

Source: http://www.lastdayswatchman.blogspot.com