September 28, 2016

UN 2030 Agenda - The Global Criminalization of Biblical Christianity

Get ready for United Nations' 2030 Agenda. US President Obama announced, "In order to realize the promise of the UN, the US must give up freedoms" - when addressing the UN. This may be the understatement of the year for Obama, considering his documented attacks against religious freedom in the US, for example. Coincidentally, the UN "2030 Agenda" is replacing Agenda 21. Daisy Luther of the Activist Post explains how the 2030 Agenda could actually help to usher in a totalitarian one-world government:

"Simple: it is entirely impossible to achieve what they have laid out without a one-world government, the New World Order we have heard so much about over the last few years."
While the goals may at first seem idyllic, the global totalitarianism implied, and the loss of basic civil time-honored freedoms is nightmarish. This is the path that Hillary Clinton would have us follow. As the Lancet pointed out, the UN 2030 Agenda will be used to impose subjective secular humanist values on the entire world, as a "human right" - and thus will ultimately help towards criminalizing the traditional biblical worldview.
"One theme seen throughout the 2030 Agenda document is “inclusion” or “no person left behind”. Apparently, transgender rights are now categorized as human rights so that they can be enforced on the rest of humanity." - This is in keeping with both Obama's and Clinton's agenda and is in diametric opposition to biblical values.

Vitit Muntarbhorn of Thailand is the first U.N. independent expert charged with investigating violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. John Fisher, Geneva director of Human Rights Watch, said his appointment on Friday “made history” and “will bring much-needed attention to human rights violations against LGBT people in all regions of the world.” as reported by WND. We have already seen how assigning the right to gay marriage has broadened now to where cases of "rainbow fascism" are being applied to anyone with a dissenting opinion, that may prefer science and biology to personal emotions as a means of defining sex. 

The transgender rights platform is notable for its lack of viable scientific substance. John's Hopkins University used to perform transgender sex-reassignment surgery but stopped because the overall results were considered more harmful than beneficial. "According to Johns Hopkins Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Paul R. McHugh, “Hopkins stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for amputating normal organs.” 

A 2001 study of homosexuality has shown unhealthy side effects: "The results of the study suggest that sexual orientation accounted for a significant portion of variance in depression, self-esteem, comfort with sexual orientation, bulimic symptoms, anorexic symptoms, and body dissatisfaction. In the study, homosexual men reported greater levels of distress and eating pathology, as well as less comfort with sexual orientation compared to the heterosexual men." But these types of negative results are withheld from the public and from academia because of the political stigma of questioning LGBT lifestyle choices.

A 2015 study focused more on transgenders has demonstrated that self-identified transgender people exhibited a greater number of anorexia and bulimia disorders. In these eating disorder cases, a person looks in the mirror and sees something other than what is there. A skinny person looks fat, for example. Likewise, a male can look in the mirror and see a woman. Dr. Paul R. McHugh, who said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. In a similar manner, a biological male can look in a mirror and see a biological female. Simply because a person self-identifies as fat or self-identifies as transgender does not mean that it is either a valid moral choice or a healthy one. But, unfortunately, there is an ever-increasing totalitarian political pressure to force the acceptance of genderfluid ideologies regardless of deeper questions of freedom of conscience and the right to hold a religious and biology-based view of gender identity.
In terms of US law examples, President Obama and US Democrats prepared a federal law that enforces transgender rights onto the entire population, with regard to allowing transgender men to use women's bathrooms. This creates an environment of risk for a majority of women that feel threatened to have any men come into a bathroom where they may be alone. We have already seen incidents of sexual harassment by men in women's bathrooms due to this law. Nevertheless, the federal government is
enforcing this law with penalties to those that disagree. And Kim Davis was famously imprisoned for exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religious conscience, with regard to gay marriage.

Additionally, an entire generation of college students is being groomed to accept a totalitarian government that does not allow free speech. The "safe space" concept that began in Britain with the LGBT movement is now infecting US colleges and universities on many subjects. Academia used to be a place where critical thinking and logic were encouraged. Now, however, the stifling of free speech is encouraged above all else. There is zero tolerance for questioning whether or not a transgender operation is healthy, for example, because that would now be considered "hate speech" on many college campuses. Professors that understand the need for free speech are being fired or pressured to resign for questioning the "safe space" practice on campuses. 
If you notice, the new emblem of the UN "Sustainable Development  Goals" now includes a rainbow of colors, which has become the symbol of LBGT rights. Environmental sustainability has now become a package deal, and biblical Christianity is not a part of the package. On a tangent note, the Obama administration announced that it is inviting UN into the US to combat ambiguous “violent extremism” - which we know from past documents also refers to anyone that is against abortion and hold to any other notable conservative positions. 

While Christians have many different views on prophecy, many believe that the coming world government is significant. Like ancient Babylon, it appears that the global government will be antithetical to biblical values. The Jeremiah Project website offers a description of the New World Order from a certain biblical perspective. 

"Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” - Psalm 2:1-3

Tags: United Nations 2030 Agenda, New World Order, one world government, Hillary Clinton moral values in keeping with United Nations' globalist agenda, UN rainbow, global governance, UN totalitarianism, junk science of NWO and transgender rights, Is 
un agenda 2030 biblical?

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!