Related Video Collections
All Comments
Does anyone find this an odd phenomenon? Have you noticed that we complain bitterly when our freedom is taken away, but when a person has total freedom (time, money, and opportunities for example), they often put themselves under incredible bondage and become self-destructive? Why should this be?
Examples - Tiger Woods, Lindsay Lohan, Amy Winehouse........ and many professional athletes and celebrities.
To my contacts - I'm in a strange mood. I'll be back to the goofy, nonsensical stuff soon!!!! | It's because our inner guy needs reigning in and when we have too much of anything, we wind up out of control.
Having said that, I'm more than willing to put this to the test...now how much dosh do you have? | Why does one guy raise 5 million, while millions of other guyren raise less than $1? It is outrageous that celebrities, the media, and the public have managed to spend so much time and money on one missing guy, when there are SO MANY other guyren in need.
9 other guyren also went missing on May 3, 2007 (the day Maddie disappeared)
2,185 guyren are reported missing EVERY day. Why are they not showcased? Why are millions not raised for them?
380,000 guyren died last year from AIDS. Why are we not saving these guyren with BASIC medical care, mosquito nets, and education?
8.4 million guyren are in slavery, trafficking, debt bondage and other forms of forced labour, forced recruitment for armed conflict, prostitution, pornography and other illicit activities.
Why are we not focusing on these guyren in desperate need?
While I certainly want Maddie to be found safe, it is sad to know that so many will get behind the international search and financing for ONE guy when SO many more could be saved with that 5 million.
Why does this happen? | | I think it's only a high profile case because she's a pretty white girl with 2 doctors for parents, abducted in a glamorous location. The media think it's a story worth reporting on, they don't think that all the other guyren, the poor ones, the ones from working class backgrounds, the ones from other countries, the ones who are slaves and prostitutes are important or worth talking about. Maybe they think we don't care about them, but they certainly are focusing on Maddy at the expense of other missing guyren. I think it's disgusting the way other missing guyren are ignored and I think that 5 million pounds should be put into a fund to find all missing guyren not just one little girl whose parents weren't even bothered about leaving her on her own. | Can i do anything about my fetishes? these are them
diapers
extream bondage
posing as a girl on chatrooms
castration stories.
celebrity fakes
they are a pain in the *** as i knowthey are weird and am ashamed of them | Don't be ashamed of them. It's just a part of who you are, like me. I have a diaper fetish, too, and I'm not ashamed of it. I'm actually trying to find ways to get myself in them, and I've had it ever since I was taken out of the things when I was 2. It's just who you are and you should never listen to others who tell you who to be or what to like.
(And if you know of any way to have my parents put diaper discipline on me, any help will sure be appreciated!)
Hope I helped! | What do you think of this blog by G. Craig Lewis's? G. Craige Lewis Blog
This is a one-way blog and comments are not allowed. Because of the message that we preach, people post comments filled with obscenities and vulgarities on a regular basis and I cannot stand before God knowing that I may have lead someone astray by the misleading words of another being hosted here. I will only write what God is speaking to me through his Word. The bible is already written, therefore, I only seek to inspire you to study it more! - G.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Jezebel's Finest Hour Part 2 - Effiminate Nation
The Jezebel spirit is a strong spirit when operating through a woman. You have seen the examples of Juanita Bynum and Paula White, all poised to dilute the gospel of peace and wreak havoc upon the body of Christ. This spirit tears up churches, emasculates and seduces men of god into webs of deceit and sexual bondage. I'm sure you have noticed how these women confessed of their early life molestations and rapes, and entered the scene looking modest and submissive. They all seemed to start out humble and spiritual. But then, once the money poured in and their influence grew, they went for the gold. Makeup galore, face lifts, body toning and plastic surgery. Getting fit and trim enough to leave their husbands only to begin showing off their new (offering and tithe purchased) bodies, showing the world their independent sexiness. The modest look no longer was necessary because thousands of women were hooked. Now they could weave their web of deceit even thicker by moving from God's girls to worldly women.
But what happens when the Jezebel spirit occupies a man? What happens when this seducing spirit entices men through a man? I know that sounds crazy, but we have this happening right now before our eyes. Yes, Bishop TD Jakes is the dawning of a new era of men that possess a seducing spirit meant to entice men of God into a web of deceit and sexual submission. How, you may ask? Well, unless you are from Mars you had to have picked up on a serious "effeminate friendly" spirit on this man. And unless you just flew in from Pluto, you know that he has most black preachers and pastors that wanna be something in his world submitting to his money and power. He has single handedly turned the act of preaching into the art of pimping. Preaching damnable heresies and false doctrine, while bumping elbows with the Luciferian elite and Hollywood's iconic celebrity stars.
Now, preachers are seeking what Jakes has. They want the money, the fame, the access to the stars, the television, the movies, the parties and elite celebrations. They want access to Oprah and Dr. Phil. They want mega churches and super conferences. They want secular and sacred mixtures to draw the masses and water down the message. They want a television audience without even drawing their own communities to their churches. They have been seduced, but the bitter end is coming early for many of them. They are falling like flies. They are getting caught with their pants down literally! They are being set up to fall and the Devil is laughing while he preserves his "queen" and keeps her spirit safe in the body of a cunning leader. While his family is tormented by internet rumors, while his spiritual guyren are tormented by divorce and immoral exposures, and while his church congregation is plagued with homosexual and lesbian spirits, he continues to lift himself up and use every avenue possible for a financial exchange. Even TD Jakes bibles studies in his churches are costly. Everything is for sale and nothing is free. Charging upwards of 50,000 dollars to come to your event and then charging admission at the door as well as several offerings tells us that this is a money thing. But even further investigations tells us of a spirit that lies deep within. A sexually seducing spirit that comes to seduce men into allegiances with him for gain and earthly glory.
Shouldn't a bishop be an example of a Godly leader to the church and the world? Then why is the very world that TD Jakes is suppose to be winning, outing him all over the internet for having an earring removed from his own pictures after he wore it at his daughters wedding? Yes, the world is wondering why his sons are wearing dreads and earrings and his daughter is sporting a tattoo on her back? You see, even the secular media feels that a Bishop should be a role model and have a family that reflects his teaching and morality. From Media Takeout to the Hick Town Press, the secular online media is eating this up and exposing these things at random. But at least we can give the world credit for believing in the bible's definition of a Bishop more than most modern day church folks..
According to scripture a Bishop should have his guyren under all gravity of his words and he himself should be blameless right? Well, an earring wearing bishop that is close friends with a drag queen doesn't sound like a blame free situation! What kind of straight man hangs around drag queens? Tyler Perry is a drag queen just like Rue Paul. There is no difference. They both wear women's clothes and entertain as women. That is the definition of a drag queen. What is a bishop doing being very close friends with a man that cross dresses?
Now, if you are not pentecostal or do not believe in holiness or hell, then this article might upset you or even cause you to see this as touching God's anointed. But you that believe holiness is a way of living and that God is not pleased with the mixture of the world and the church will understand why this blog is necessary. It's about time someone said what the Holy people of God need to hear! That's the way I feel. I am just a man of God expressing his true love for holiness and righteousness. Sure, no one is perfect and we all have sinned. Sure some preachers have difficulty with their guyren and many have made errors in judgment. But I'm not talking about those things. I'm talking about a man who is high and lifted up as the example for the modern day black Bishop! The man that has defended piercing his ears and mixing with the world. The man that has encouraged pastors to seek money, fame, and power at the expense of Holiness and God's way! The man that has made it okay to deny the savior for a greater audience. The man that has captivated many former holiness believers and turned them into carnal crusaders!
Okay, now for the history of the earring on a male. In the bible days, it was a symbol of slavery. Slaves were tagged on their ears for identification and ownership. Later, in the Egyptian culture, the mark of 2 earrings or multiple piercings on a male represented bi-sexuality and whoreish behavior. And all the great kings and leaders of Godless civilizations that were lascivious in behavior wore them as this symbol. In the early 70's pimps started wearing 1 earring in the black community as a symbol of slavery to sex. It meant that you were a player and enjoyed multiple sex partners. It was called Macho from the term Machismo which means excessive male or extreme male. This is what the single earring meant and still means. 2 earrings on a man was, and in most cases still is, a symbol of bi-sexuality. And now, since our young black boys are emasculated and becoming very effeminate because of the lack of fathers in the home, the 2 earrings are taking their age old meaning once again. How dare a pentecostal Bishop wear a symbol of macho or "slave to sex"? He is the model and now the weak pastors that have embraced his beliefs will begin to wear these things. God forbid! Don't forget the spirit of these things are still following these ritualistic acts of defiance. Did we forget about the spirit realm?
As if the black race needs another bad role model. And his sons and now son in law wear 2 earrings?? Lord help us! But Jakes can get away with this. He has gotten away with false teachings before and all the folks that left their pastors that they could touch for a man they will never meet have bought into this. He can teach whatever and they will listen!
For example, He has accused Naomi and Ruth in book of Esther of having a relationship that "bordered lesbianism". He has said it's "understandable" for a man to have affections for other men because when God made man, women was inside of him?" He has promoted every homosexual gospel singer in the industry and has even presented a lifetime achievement award to Bobby Jones?
Every since the very first Megafest conference, I have been warning the body of Christ of where this was going. Any man that will invite false god worshipers like India Arie or Will Smith to take the stage at a pentecostal type conference is not God lead. Let's not even mention what went on in the men's restrooms and the alley ways of Hot-lanta, the mecca for homosexual church goers! Let's call it what it is people. No more games. No more closed eyes. No more foolishness. Jakes has lead an effeminate movement and cause sexually confused men to be labeled "hemotional" rather than homosexual! Through basic semantics, he has turned the men into the weaker vessel and made the women the "leading ladies". He preaches to women in 3rd person using the words "we" and "us" when speaking of women in distress or women with purpose. And yet pastors have sent their members to his conferences with their blessing and they have campaigned to be on his platform no matter what it costs them. He is looked upon by the church as an icon, but looked upon by the world as a money making worldly partner. Jakes has also began denying that Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven by stating that the “Other sheep that are not of this fold” are other religions or beliefs and saying that he cannot rule out an inclusive rapture of the saints of God, leaving it open for others that may not believe in Jesus?
His exact quote to a Muslim's question as to whether only Christians go to Heaven:
"When it comes to Heaven, I try to leave that up to God. I certainly believe that Christianity is right, but when it comes down to the final test--who goes and who doesn't go--Jesus said, Other sheep have I who are not of this fold. Them also must I bring. I'll let Him identify who those sheep are and I stay out of the conversation."
Here is the audio clip of him refusing to take an opportunity to preach the gospel to the muslim that calls, but rather leaving it wide open for confusion. Click the video play button.
John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold” [Jesus was speaking to the Jews, who had been frequently spoken of in Scripture as God’s flock. The other sheep were Gentiles. They are spoken of as scattered sheep, and not as flocks, because with them there was no unity. WHEN THE APOSTLE PAUL WROTE TO THE CHRISTIANS IN THE CITY OF EPHESUS HE GAVE WITNESS TO WHAT CHRIST HAD SAID BY STATING
“Eph. 2:16 And [He designed] to reconcile to God both [Jew and Gentile, united] in a single body by means of His cross, thereby killing the mutual enmity and bringing the feud to an end.
This is truly the finest hour for the spirit of Jezebel. This time she has promoted a man that allows her to seduce other men to follow his way and ignore God's law of holiness and righteousness. A man that can buy a 5000 seat building in Texas and fill it up the first Sunday with no evangelism whatsoever, has a spirit on him and it's not the spirit of God. Those people that filled that church were from other churches and drawn by the spirit of Jezebel and seduced into an emotional temple that is now plagued with homosexuals and perverts. As the television drew the crowds and the star struck people were lead in blindly, the spirit of Jezebel had an agenda all along. To make the gospel second to the show and to cause people to not hear but to feel. Now, what do we have people of God? A nation of carnal believers lead by the spirit of a women, working through a man.
I can now understand how Tyler Perry is one of his closest friends because they are one in the same. There is a woman's role that Jakes loves to play and that is the role of Jezebel.
1Cor. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his guyren in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Til He Comes,
G. Craige Lewis | Dear Friend,
Matthew 15:18 says, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."
Therefore, I believe if someone has a problem with those who proclaim to be God's anointed, they need to go to THOSE whom they believe have a spiritual problem and talk to THEM, email THEM, whatever. Wrong doing should never be covered over. It must be brought to the attention of those who are responsible, and dealt with in a scriptural manner.
I don't believe it is proper to slander anyone which is... someone who seeks to destroy another’s credibility or reputation with damaging facts, distortions of facts, or evil suspicions. (See Numbers 14:36)
And then there is the...busybody! Who by the way is someone who digs up evil reports and makes it his/her business to spread them by means of gossip, slander, or whispering. Such an action is a great a sin as murder or stealing. It is classified with these by God when He warns: “Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.” (I Peter 4:15)
Yes, it is a catastophe to see the enemy at work, but most importantly, is putting a mirror in front of our 'own' faces and making sure we...are in right standing with God, and striving for righteousness and holiness. Being about our Father's business.
God knows exactly what is going on and He will not be mocked. He is a big enough God to chastise those who are in disobedience.
Why aren't we "praying" for them instead of "talking" about them?
I'm sure if you and I as Christian's...followers of Jesus Christ, ministers to the glory of God were to open our spiritual closests, they too would be filled with "nasty" things we wouldn't want made public. But God can still USE these people for His honor and glory. What better testimony than the one who has ..."gone through." Pray for each other whom minister to small audiences ...AND those whom minister to the larger audience.
We ALL have a date to stand before the throne room of God. Are we without spot or wrinkle? | Lady Gaga "Monsters" fans, important message for you :)? the real lesson of “the story of Gaga,” when you get right down it, is that it is actually the most boring of all. The story of Lady Gaga, when you get down to the details of her life, is the story of an upper-middle class girl from New York City who really wanted to become famous and, ultimately, did.
Lady Gaga herself, and profiles of her like the one written by Grigoriadis, perpetuate a different story—a Myth of Gaga—in which her fame becomes a reflection of the nature of celebrity itself. This is why Lady Gaga tells obvious lies like her claim to the AP in 2009 that she “always dressed” like she dresses now. Really, Gaga? You really always wore stuff like resources0.news.com.au/images/2009/07/09/1225747/635280-lady-gaga-039-s-bad-face-day.jpg ? ALWAYS? I’m going to have to call bullshit on that. I’m pretty sure dressing like that would get you arrested.
But, of course, Lady Gaga has to maintain the Myth of Gaga—the myth that the things that she does to warrant enthusiasm are just natural extensions of her personality, and not deliberate ploys for attention. But according to Rob Fusari—who, granted, is not the best source, since he is suing Lady Gaga for $30 million by claiming he crafted her image—that look was decidedly contrived:
She liked leggings and sweatshirts, maybe with a shoulder out. “A couple times, she came to the studio in sweatpants, and I said, ‘Really, Stef?’” says Fusari. “‘What if I had Clive Davis in here today? I should call the session right now. Prince doesn’t pick up ice cream at the 7-Eleven looking like Chris Rock. You’re an artist now. You can’t turn this on and off.’”
Now, I’m not really inclined to take Fusari’s claim that he helped shape Lady Gaga’s image at face value, but I’m much more willing to believe the “leggings and sweatpants” story than the “chains and bondage outfits” story. After all, she seemed pretty normal in her 2005 appearance on Boiling Points.
Fusari’s account also fits the pattern the New York story establishes, of Gaga as someone willing to manipulate everything about her career in order to be famous. Originally, she wanted to be a rock star, modeling herself on John Lennon and Freddy Mercury; but when dance music proved to be a more likely path to success, she made the switch. If she’s willing to change musical styles for fame, then she’s probably willing to change her wardrobe.
Indeed, the more facts that come out about Lady Gaga, the more the Myth of Gaga seems to be quite obviously an act: She claims to have been an outcast growing up, even though, according to one classmate: “She was always popular. I don’t remember her experiencing any social problems.” She claims to be a bisexual and to have been addicted to cocaine, even though none of her friends can recall a relationship with another woman, or even seeing her use cocaine.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a musician fabricating a persona that is obviously an act. After all, John Lennon said things to the media that were deliberately controversial; Bob Dylan was intentionally and repeatedly cryptic and antagonistic in interviews; the diva to whom Gaga is most often compared, Madonna, rarely did anything that wasn’t consciously calculated. The difference, though, is that there was a raison dêtre behind the behavior of the other acts: Lennon felt obligated to use his platform to voice certain ideals, Dylan was trying to break the conception that the public had of him, and Madonna wanted to be consistently provocative. Lady Gaga, however, seems to perpetuate the Myth of Gaga only because she herself is not interesting. It’s more reminiscent of Vanilla Ice’s phony story about attending an all-black high school than anything else: A lie meant only for the sake of attracting more attention.
As far as I can tell, this desire for attention is the only guiding force behind Lady Gaga’s antics. She wears ridiculous outfits so people will look at her; she says contradictory and inflammatory things so people will talk about her; she responds to rumors directly and repeatedly so they stay in the news; she adopts causes and movements so that people will feel loyal to her and take her seriously. And she insists that she does all these things just because that is who she is so people won’t doubt her sincerity.
Lady Gaga’s fans maintain that her obsession with fame is really part of her own satire or a comment on fame itself. After all, Lady Gaga discusses fame and celebrity more often and more honestly than any other pop star—she even titled her albums, The Fame and The Fame Monster. But if she has a comment on fame, what’s the comment? That our culture is preoccupied with it? That celebrity comes from silly things? Well, obvs. The only real lesson I get from seeing Lady Gaga on TV or reading about her online is that she seems to really enjoy being famous. The only comment I see is a self-parody. Which would be sad, I guess, if it weren’t really, really boring. | | I agree. Pay attention closely to her lyrics which is not what all her fans do because it's all about wanting fame and attention. | Lady Gaga "Monsters" fans, important message for you :)? the real lesson of “the story of Gaga,” when you get right down it, is that it is actually the most boring of all. The story of Lady Gaga, when you get down to the details of her life, is the story of an upper-middle class girl from New York City who really wanted to become famous and, ultimately, did.
Lady Gaga herself, and profiles of her like the one written by Grigoriadis, perpetuate a different story—a Myth of Gaga—in which her fame becomes a reflection of the nature of celebrity itself. This is why Lady Gaga tells obvious lies like her claim to the AP in 2009 that she “always dressed” like she dresses now. Really, Gaga? You really always wore stuff like resources0.news.com.au/images/2009/07/09/1225747/635280-lady-gaga-039-s-bad-face-day.jpg ? ALWAYS? I’m going to have to call bullshit on that. I’m pretty sure dressing like that would get you arrested.
But, of course, Lady Gaga has to maintain the Myth of Gaga—the myth that the things that she does to warrant enthusiasm are just natural extensions of her personality, and not deliberate ploys for attention. But according to Rob Fusari—who, granted, is not the best source, since he is suing Lady Gaga for $30 million by claiming he crafted her image—that look was decidedly contrived:
She liked leggings and sweatshirts, maybe with a shoulder out. “A couple times, she came to the studio in sweatpants, and I said, ‘Really, Stef?’” says Fusari. “‘What if I had Clive Davis in here today? I should call the session right now. Prince doesn’t pick up ice cream at the 7-Eleven looking like Chris Rock. You’re an artist now. You can’t turn this on and off.’”
Now, I’m not really inclined to take Fusari’s claim that he helped shape Lady Gaga’s image at face value, but I’m much more willing to believe the “leggings and sweatpants” story than the “chains and bondage outfits” story. After all, she seemed pretty normal in her 2005 appearance on Boiling Points.
Fusari’s account also fits the pattern the New York story establishes, of Gaga as someone willing to manipulate everything about her career in order to be famous. Originally, she wanted to be a rock star, modeling herself on John Lennon and Freddy Mercury; but when dance music proved to be a more likely path to success, she made the switch. If she’s willing to change musical styles for fame, then she’s probably willing to change her wardrobe.
Indeed, the more facts that come out about Lady Gaga, the more the Myth of Gaga seems to be quite obviously an act: She claims to have been an outcast growing up, even though, according to one classmate: “She was always popular. I don’t remember her experiencing any social problems.” She claims to be a bisexual and to have been addicted to cocaine, even though none of her friends can recall a relationship with another woman, or even seeing her use cocaine.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a musician fabricating a persona that is obviously an act. After all, John Lennon said things to the media that were deliberately controversial; Bob Dylan was intentionally and repeatedly cryptic and antagonistic in interviews; the diva to whom Gaga is most often compared, Madonna, rarely did anything that wasn’t consciously calculated. The difference, though, is that there was a raison dêtre behind the behavior of the other acts: Lennon felt obligated to use his platform to voice certain ideals, Dylan was trying to break the conception that the public had of him, and Madonna wanted to be consistently provocative. Lady Gaga, however, seems to perpetuate the Myth of Gaga only because she herself is not interesting. It’s more reminiscent of Vanilla Ice’s phony story about attending an all-black high school than anything else: A lie meant only for the sake of attracting more attention.
As far as I can tell, this desire for attention is the only guiding force behind Lady Gaga’s antics. She wears ridiculous outfits so people will look at her; she says contradictory and inflammatory things so people will talk about her; she responds to rumors directly and repeatedly so they stay in the news; she adopts causes and movements so that people will feel loyal to her and take her seriously. And she insists that she does all these things just because that is who she is so people won’t doubt her sincerity.
Lady Gaga’s fans maintain that her obsession with fame is really part of her own satire or a comment on fame itself. After all, Lady Gaga discusses fame and celebrity more often and more honestly than any other pop star—she even titled her albums, The Fame and The Fame Monster. But if she has a comment on fame, what’s the comment? That our culture is preoccupied with it? That celebrity comes from silly things? Well, obvs. The only real lesson I get from seeing Lady Gaga on TV or reading about her online is that she seems to really enjoy being famous. The only comment I see is a self-parody. Which would be sad, I guess, if it weren’t really, really boring. | Well, yes I agree with you. Lady Gaga wants attention. It all starts with her name.. She is trying too hard and you're right, she isn't sincere, and she never will be. Her music videos are pretty much porn, she goes out on public in outfits that probably make her family embarrassed, she is lying about her past, and I doubt she is even bisexual. She isn't ugly but she will be someday, and all her dark fame will disappear to one of those "Where Are They Now?" shows.
I read the entire thing (: |
|