fredag 19. juli 2019

No. 1447: Even a 4-year-old had not gone on "Pastor" and narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's lies that he has been molested by my writings, as he is Norway's worst "slugger" in the public space and does not succumb at all to anything!

No. 1447:
Even a 4-year-old had not gone on "Pastor" and narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's lies that he has been molested by my writings, as he is Norway's worst "slugger" in the public space and does not succumb at all to anything!

Picture of Jan Aage Torp in together with Aina Lanton, his former nanny.
May hope that the Oslo police realize the great roaring that they have been fooled by Torp. Now we have reviewed him and his with companions with Reference number 14850575 on the review.




Efes. 4. 25 Therefore, lay the lie and speak truth, everyone with his neighbor, because we are each other's limbs! 26 If ye be angry, sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath;

Jan Aage Torp believes that he has been harassed by me.
Torp thinks I write in a dark side of the internet.
There are many things to comment on when it comes up again with more reviews, and the time was "slightly" set back.

But there is no one nearby who has ravaged and beaten so in public space like Jan Aage Torp. He writes this in an article here:

https://janaagetorp1.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/min-mediastrategi/

“In the 1990s, I became a member of mainstream media in Norway, especially national debates and news programs on TV. It was often "Pastor Torp against the smoke".

Jan Aage Torp was and is probably Norway's "largest" slugger in the public space.

Of course, such a man is not harassed about being called for such things without further ado. It was my preaching against remarriage that was the real cause of his fictitious and lying behavior towards Manglerud police officers who were willingly fooled.

When Torp said jump, they jumped. When Torp said, they sat down like some obedient dogs.
This is the police in Norway, here it came to a manipulator and psychopath Jan Aage Torp and they were willingly seduced. Unfortunately, this shows the low level of the Oslo police, where a narreale and adulterer led them right where he wanted them. Talk about being deceived and deceived.
There, Jan Aage Torp hated me for pointing out that he had deceived a Serber for 1.4 million who got right into the account. And that he lived in adultery for God's word to marry again.

Then there was a lawsuit and he popped up numbers and most, and here was an equally willing to jump, sit and give labs like the Oslo police. The whole judiciary was as bewitched and enthralled by Jan Aage Torp's lies, manipulation and distortion of the truth.
Here was the narcissist in action, but an obedient police and the Norwegian judicial system. Convinced that this could never have happened in any country other than Norway, even a 4 year old had not gone on "Pastor" and narreapostel Jan Aage Torp's lies that he has been molested by my writings, as he is Norway's worst "slugger" in the public space and does not mind at all!

Final Comment:

Then came Torodd Fuglesteg with a new review that made the case between me and Jan Aage Torp flare up again.
Of course, I opposed the bird trail, it is the trio Torp, Fuglesteg and the man with the psynonym name Ansgar Braut who are the real crooks here.
I am called for terrorist and Anders Behring Breivik's twin soul and thousands of other things by this trio. It tells us all that I am, not those who have been harassed. In other words. The Oslo police and the courts have been tricked around by Jan Aage Torp.

lørdag 13. juli 2019

No. 1446: What is it that narreapostel Jan Aage Torp has done about criminal matters? And as he should, and hopefully, be charged, convicted and punished?

No. 1446:
What is it that narreapostel Jan Aage Torp has done about criminal matters? And as he should, and hopefully, be charged, convicted and punished?


Picture of Aina Lanton and Jan Aage Torp, who in God's word live in an invalid marriage when Jan Aage Torp has been married before.




Got this question on the Heavenly Blog:

You can't really believe the police should aim and judge Torp for defending himself from attacks from YOU? You are not well preserved.

I answered:

You are writing:

You can't really believe the police should aim and judge Torp for defending himself from attacks from YOU? You are not well preserved.

Do you see so little? You need to be "in need of nuts"?
Jan Aage Torp hated me because I preached against his remarriage.
What did he do then?
He did not report me for what he hated me for, but for having written that he was leper and lived in adultery etc.
This is, first of all, a fictitious review and a breach of freedom of speech and expression!
This goes to glorious victory in the name of Jesus!
(quote end.)

This I want to bring forth is nothing but facts in the case.

What happened? What happened was that I had 2 blogs, an English and a Norwegian. The Norwegian is the heavenly blog, and the English Heavenly blog.

Pastor Jan Aage Torp was mentioned on both of these blogs as a person who had chosen to break with the word of God and Jesus' command to marry after a break. As well, he continued with his ministry and was thus a role model misleading with his life.
There was also another thing that came through what was written on these 2 blogs. It was that Torp had seduced a newcomer and a person whom Torp mentions as ill to sell his apartment and donated all the money straight into Jan Aage Torp's account. This was a considerable sum of nearly 1.5 million.

Jan Aage Tor then found running a game and having removed what had been written about him. He invited me out to the cafe and then tried to roll around his finger without success.

What does Jan Aage Torp do then? He goes straight to the police, leaves and deceives them into thinking that I had written hate speech against Torp. And what they came up with were just some ridiculous statements completely, completely beyond.
That I had called Jan Aage Torp for whore, leper and narcissistic.
First of all, this is true, and secondly, this is miles past the freedom of faith and expression to write about another person and human being. Not least here a public person who profiles himself to the limit!

Then there will be a meeting of the Conflict Council if possible to threaten and push me to get rid of everything about him. Something I obviously will not accept. Then the police had promised me that we would be summoned to meet, talk to each other and the case should be put to death. Monica Lillebakken said this directly to me, but she lied as the police have done in this case many times, just as narreapostel Jan Aage Torp did in the district court.
The trial in Oslo District Court becomes a big farce. They have nothing on me at all, and what is "worst" is without doubt what Torp has called me for about Anders Behring Breivik that I am his twin soul, successor and follower.

This also points to my lawyer Brynjar Meling, that being compared to Anders Behring Breivik is far worse than being called a narcissist, leper and adulterer.

The court "finds" anyway to judge me for circumstances that never stood in the charge or that were in the discussion during the trial. The judgment then sounds to have "written too much". This is the legal word of the times, to be convicted of something that one is neither charged nor has been discussed during the trial in Oslo District Court. This also points to my lawyer Brynjar Meling under the petition for Borgarting Lagmannsrett.

Look here:

The actual side of the case

The facts are largely not disputed, however, so Christensen points out that he has not repeated the terms to such an extent as stated by the offender. It appears in his explanation for the district court that it is the counterpart of the victim to Torp, and people who speak Torp's case that things have been repeated and generated.
It is not disputed that Christensen comes with the statements made in the indictment. Nor is it disputed that this has been going on over time. The details of the period and scope are irrelevant to the legal. The District Court has uncritically added Torp's explanation on this point and placed decisive emphasis on this in his guilt assessment. The correct thing about Christensen is that he has mentioned the relevant conditions considerably fewer times, and essentially this has come as a response to articles that hit Christensen.

Generally about the statements
It is pointed out that the terms used are normative and based on Christensen's perception of rendered. It is emphasized that the terms live in words, "whore" and "whore" are expressions used in Bible translations, as it was reviewed for the district court with specific bible references.
It is pointed out that the term "leper" is also a biblical expression pressures that are meant to be unclean and thus to be hit by society.

The reason for the conflict

It is also pointed out that an element that Christensen "went to" attack "on Torp is a relationship Torp acknowledged in court, where a young person, whom Christensen perceives as" an easy prey "should have given Torp everything he owned and had in the form of selling his house, and by this render a money gift consisting of nearly 1.5 million. These were funds that Torp accepted and used in his Christian, evangelical activities.

Christensen is aware that he does not find Torp's way of life in line with his interpretation of the Bible. He then believes that Torp lives by a form of double standard, where life and doctrine do not match.

Lack of the District Court's judgment

It may be mentioned in connection with the preceding paragraph that a deficiency in the district court's judgment is that the court has not sufficiently emphasized that Torp is a public person, and thus must have a higher tolerance for what he should accept of attacks on his activity .

Furthermore, the court has not given enough emphasis to Torp acknowledging in court that he has called Christensen for "Anders Behring Breivik sympathizer" on a few occasions, and has called him demon, light guide, rumor spreader, etc.. Based on the principle of provocation of retort, this in itself is a circumstance that should be dismissed. The victims' contributions to the debate have not in any way contributed to curbing the level of conflict in the debate, so that in any case there are statements that help raise what Torp must endure by attacks.

Application of the law appeal.

However, it is stated as the central issue - and the principal at the appeal - relates to the application of the Penal Code of 1902 § 390 a. It is stated that applying this to blog posts, regardless of how extensive a blog activity is - in reality means that the provision is made subject for an expanding interpretation.

It is certain that, in the area of ​​freedom of expression, one has to interpret a penal clause restrictively, if the provision conflicts with the convention obligations. In this case, size is coming. § 390 a in conflict with freedom of expression. In addition to being protected by the constitution, more specifically in Grl. Section 100, it is conventionally established in ECHR Art. 10 and SP Art 18 and 19.

In its decision, the District Court takes the right starting point by stating that the provision affects it as "by frightening or troublesome behavior or other ruthless behavior that violates another's peace".

The District Court is using the preparatory works incorrectly. Proposition 41 (1954-55) pp. 20-55 is in itself a legal argument that argues for acquittal with a conviction. Reference is made to the statements mentioned earlier, in conjunction with the fact that the preparatory works say "the decision must be made concrete and circumstances such as time, place and the individual's circumstances will have an impact on the assessment". Furthermore, it appears in the preparatory work that "under the term" troublesome behavior ", for example, harassed telephone calls.

It is a key element in both the preparatory and relevant case law, that it points to activities that are directed directly at a person; that is, calling, sending messages, or seeking out people or its neighborhood. This has not been done by Jan Kåre Christensen.

As it appears from Rt. 2014 p. 669 sections 17-18 are the "integrity of the mind" protected by the provision and "only serious offenses being hit". The court discusses on page 5-6 defense's claims that blog posts are not affected because it is not directed directly against Torp. The court nevertheless arrives at p. 6 that the posts have been published on the internet and that this does not preclude the application of section 390 a. strl. § 390 a) and thus already on this point violates the principle of clarity in ECHR art 7 and the principle of legality in grl. § 96.

It becomes more difficult when the District Court finds support for its view in intelligence practice. Neither the Oslo District Court ruling in 2013-111-859, RG 208-1499, nor THEDM 2004-3964 can be taken to income for the use of money. § 390a on blog posts. It is in both these decisions that talk about actions that are more directly directed towards people.

When the court also emphasizes that the blog posts are open to anyone and indexed so that they get hit on Torps man on search engines like Google, it shows just that one is out of private. It is not that one can interpret that the person who then "hit" can consider having received the message when it has come to his knowledge - since the accused's activity has such scope and intensity as in Torp and Christensen's case.

Here, the court does not merely carry out a broader interpretation of the penal clause but they also "stretch" the fact, which may be an equally strict violation of the principle of legality. The court uses RG 2008 p. 1499 as the basis for its position, without discussing or in any way stating why this is relevant Max. From this it is pointed out that in RG 2008 p. 1499 the convicted person had hung up one hundred posters in the perpetrated community, where the victim was named and given information that he was convicted. The fact in that case is thus - contrary to our case - that the convicted person has approached the offended local community and hung him out in public posts. This is something other than posting this openly in a blog.

Here it can be mentioned that the court has ignored the fact that Torp's own activities have contributed to spreading the information. It can be pointed out that the first person who referred to the Oslo District Court's judgment against Christensen was Torp in his blog. It shows that there is no privacy Torp is committed to protecting by notifying Christensen, but he does this as part of their "fight". It is stated here that the judiciary must be cautious about being used. It is therefore, in isolation, correct when the police have dropped Christensen's reviews against Torp, but it is therefore wrong to maintain the other way.

The court also brings in issues related to Torp's spouse. As pointed out by the defendant in the district court, Torp's spouse's privacy might have had a greater protection requirement than Torp himself. Torp's spouse is not a public person, it's Torp. However, this is outside the presentation.

Relationship to the freedom of expression in Grl. § 100 and ECHR Art. 10, SP Art 18 and 19 are also not properly assessed by Oslo District Court. The District Court refers to LB - 2015 - 24004 where it is stated that "it is indeed clear that utterances that, in isolation, are not punishable, can be affected by the Penal Code 390 a. The premise is that they occur in a number and at times that make it especially troublesome to the recipient ".

This once again shows that the starting point is wrong. When the Borgarting Court of Appeal in that case points out the number and times of making it "particularly troublesome", it once again shows that the basic premise is that the inquiries must be directed directly towards a person. Reference to Rt. 2010 p. 845 in the relevant law court case shows that this is a direct contact. In Rt. 2010 p. 845 we are faced with a case where the head of the Immigration Appeals Board repeatedly sent SMSes with offensive and threatening content.

More about the legal

It follows from size. § 1, 2nd paragraph, that criminal law applies with the limitations that ensue from agreement with foreign state or otherwise by international law. Christensen therefore has protection of both EMC Art 10 and SP Art 18 and 19.

His statements are also protected by Section 100 of the Constitution. 1976 p.1. The provisions of the Constitution that regulate the individual's personal freedom must have a significant impact.

It is stated that the District Court's interpretation of the statements implies that the verdict results in violation of the principle of legality, the principle of clarity and that the judgment result violates Jan Kåre Christensen's freedom of religion and speech.

In several decisions, the Human Rights Court has emphasized that freedom of expression is one of the absolutely fundamental elements of the foundation of a democratic society. It is emphasized that this freedom includes not only the right to make statements which are positively received or considered harmless, possibly insignificant, but also statements that appear offensive, shocking or disturbing.
In Oslo's district court's decision, the strict requirements for justification for limitation of freedom of expression have not been met. Although it is only a fine, it is not proportionate between the procedure and its purpose.
According to EMD practice, exemptions from the freedom of expression must be subject to a restrictive interpretation, cf. A key element of the necessity assessment is whether there is an urgent social need for the intervention - "pressing social need". Reference is made to the so-called "Spycatcher" judgments, Serie A No 216, paragraph 60 of the judgment, and 217, paragraph 50 of the judgment.
In Christensen's case, this must be considered against the fact that all the condemned statements are his view of theological questions, or provocations made against either him or his faith.
When the Supreme Court's majority in the Judgment Rt. 1997 s 1821, finds that the statements are not protected by the freedom of expression, this is eg. based on the following:
"I cannot see that the right to form a political party can deduce that groupings that do so, and place their positions in the form of a party program, should be free to agitate for any view, no matter what intervention it may have on others people."
For Christensen - who tuffs his right to make the statements, protected by both religious freedom and freedom of speech, this becomes different. He advocates a vision that - if it is rare now - has been standing for centuries and does not indicate that "he casts his stand on the form of a religion."
It is also stated that the statements have come as part of a public debate. A debate like the one in which the statements hit has also participated, and reciprocated. Such a debate is protected by the freedom of expression pursuant to section 100 of the Constitution which weighs very heavily. Allowing the expressions of a party and depriving the person affected by the utterances, the right to object will in itself conflict with the freedom of expression
If section 390a is to be used in this case, this can only be done by an expanding interpretation, by the law - something that is excluded, cf. the principle of legality in the Constitution § 96.
It is clear from case law that the interpretation must not only be based on how the general audience will perceive the statements, cf. the plenary ruling in Rt-1997-1821 (Kjuus). But man
"Must also see the statements in light of the context in which they have come".

Here it is shown that the statements are normative, emerged in a blog word shift between people who share faith, and with references to the viewer's perception of a common belief.

About interpretation of the statements says Eggen Lov and Rett 1998 s 263:

"For the public, the application of justice is as unpredictable whether one" relieves "the conditions of punishment or whether one interprets the statements freely so that they are in line with these terms. One of the main reasons behind the principle of legality in Norwegian law, and at least the legal requirement for the ECHR, is to ensure predictability in the legal application.

He continues later on the same page:

"When the principle of legality puts pressure on how far in contextual interpretation of the Criminal Code it is acceptable to go, it would be inconsistent if the courts were to be completely free in contextual interpretation of speeches"

The considerations of both the principle of legality and freedom of expression indicate that there are clear limitations on how far one can go in interpreting a meaning content and circumstances in the statements that are not directly stated or acknowledged.

For reasons of legal certainty, in particular the consideration of predictability, is emphasized in Rt. 2002 p. 1618. the consideration for freedom of expression implies
"That no one should be able to risk criminal liability by saying statements are given a meaningful content that is not explicitly stated nor can it be deduced from the context with reasonable certainty"
It is also shown here to Eggen, Law and Law 1998 p.

"A free interpretation, besides less predictable legal application, also means greater opportunity for censorship by the court's side of utterances they dislike, perhaps for reasons other than those behind the criminal offense"

Interpreted as religious utterances and interpretations of the Bible's view of remarriage, utterances cannot be judged. When the district court disregards the interpretation alternative, the statement is "pushed" outside the core area in section 100 of the Constitution on freedom of expression.

Rt 2002 p. 1618 The Bootboys judgment is thus relevant. ”Bootboys” was a neo-Nazi fighting organization, which one Saturday morning at the square in Askim presented an appeal with support to Hitler on the occasion of Rudolf Hess's 100th day.

"Every day, immigrants rob people, rape and kill Norwegians, every day our people and land are looted and destroyed by the Jews, who suck our land empty for riches and replace it with immorality and unseen thoughts." The appeal ended with "Sieg Heil- and Hitler greetings. "

Bootboys' leader Terje Sjølie was acquitted. The statements were found to be derived from a political program rather than being concrete threats. Several of the attendees were dressed in Finnish hats, and the demonstration was of a militaristic battle fascist nature. The statements fell in front of immigrants who did their errands in Askim. Christensen's statements come in response to actions that he believes are contrary to God's word. The statements fall into Blog where most of the statements are answers to indictments by persons whom Christensen perceives as the mouthpiece of Torp. Sjøli's statements fell unprovoked against innocent people.

clarity requirement

Whether one extends the wording of the law, or the meaning of the statement, one violates the clarity requirement and the principle of legality. The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on 02.08.2012, where the clarity principle is discussed:

The clarity requirement has been expressed in several decisions by the Supreme Court, including in the ruling in Rt-2011-469, where the question was whether the provision in section 219 of the Penal Code also applied in relation to former cohabitants, even though the law text only concerned former spouses. Section 9 states:

'Such an extension of the criminal liability, compared to what follows from the wording of § 219, must have legal basis.

I refer to Section 96 of the Constitution and to article 7 of the ECHR, cf. Rt-2009-780 section 21. Criminal law, or other real reasons that may speak to equate former cohabitants with former spouses, is not sufficient. '

Then comes something that is central to the Christensen case, which is not sufficiently emphasized by the district court

The Court of Appeal will, for its part, note that the requirement for clear statutory authority for criminal liability will not least be of importance in cases where the criminal code imposes a restriction on the freedom of expression

Under Section 18, the Supreme Court comes with its view.

As the Court of Appeal points out, the point of departure in the assessment must be the requirement for clear authority that applies in criminal cases, cf. ECHR Article 7. Reference is made to Rt-2011-469 section 9, which is cited in the Court of Appeal's ruling.

This is elaborated on in Rt-2012-313 section 29, where it is called:

"No matter what the legislator intended, it is not decisive when a legislature's intention has not been clearly stated in the law. I refer to the statutory requirement in section 96 of the Constitution and in article 7 of the ECHR, as this is understood, inter alia, in Rt-2011-469. Of particular interest are paragraphs 9 and 12 of the judgment, which emphasize that the offense must follow the law and that the lack of support in wording is not remedied by the fact that the relationship is clearly punishable and that the legislature undoubtedly wanted to hit it. "

In the alternative - restrictive interpretation of the provisions

In the alternative, it is stated that if the Court of Appeal were to find that the statements violate privacy, following a general interpretation of the statutory provisions in size. § 390 a, and that the district court has not extended the interpretation of the statements in a manner that comes into conflict with ECHR art 7 and Grl. Section 96, then it follows from size. § 1, subsection 2, that the consideration of Christensen's rights - and our obligations - according to the ECHR and SP regarding the safeguarding of the individual's freedom of religion and expression, means that size. § 390 a) in cases where religious and free speech is violated, must be interpreted restrictively.
(quote end.)

Final Comment:

https://janaagetorp1.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/min-mediastrategi/

Jan Aage Torp writes:

Great effect

My media strategy has great effect.

The sum of social media, various web pages, TV Vision Norway, international media coverage, and more, means that we reach out with the message to the Norwegian people as well as to the people, Christian tops and decision-makers throughout Europe and in "The Global Village"
(quote end.)

Here we see that Torp prides itself on having fooled the media in Norway, the police and the courts. He prides himself on his own excellence!
Torp writes that his "strategy has great effect."

He rounded off the police at Manglerud, he circulated the Oslo District Court and most of it otherwise.

What did Torp hate me for? That I pointed out that he was disqualified as a preacher of living adultery with being married as a believer while still living his first and right wife.

Everything else that Torp has brought to "square" to get me convicted is fabricated when the case between us two is solely about this topic, divorce and remarriage, nothing else!

mandag 8. juli 2019

No. 1445: My answer to the review, which is fortunately left by Jan Aage Torp's poodle and the loath to Torodd Bird Bird!

No. 1445:
My answer to the review, which is fortunately left by Jan Aage Torp's poodle and the loath to Torodd Bird Bird!


Picture of Ansgar Braut (Arnt Arnesen from Stavanger), who has operated next to Torodd Fuglesteg against me and my family at the roughest.
Where I do not want to reproduce everything they have written, not least on Searchlight and the fake Smyrna blog. https://smyrnamenighet.wordpress.com/




This they write in Searchlight, which I answer here in this article.
Where I write Searchlight first and my answer afterwards.

Searchlight:


On Thursday, a letter appeared from the Oslo Politics Chamber to blogger Jan Kåre Christensen. The Evangelist and Bible Teacher are, as is known, condemned to have harassed and incarcerated pastor Jan-Aage Torp because he is divorced and married again, was mildly surprised by the writing that told him he had been notified and the case closed. In connection with the much-discussed case about Torp and Christensen, a relatively tough verbal exchange between Christensen and readers who responded to Christensen's opinions was exchanged. One of those who was involved in the discussion with Christensen was Torodd Fuglesteg, who in retrospect has been stamped on Christensen's blogs "as Norway's worst nettroll." Christensen has even well so far that he has repeatedly claimed that Bird's Nest wants him dead and buried. Birdcutters in April were tired of finding their name and picture featured on Christensen's blogs with these statements published in public, and then went to the step of police notifying blogger Jan Kåre Christensen for cybercrime. A notification that has been dropped by the police due to lack of capacity. However, Fuglesteg refuses to accept the cancellation and now considers complaining to the public prosecutor and demanding that the Oslo police be ordered to investigate the harassment against him.

Answer:
I have never claimed this in such a way as described here by Kjell Andersen. But that Torodd Fuglesteg uttered goals with the feud between me and the evil trinity (Ansgar Braut, Torodd Fuglesteg and Jan Aage Torp have been that I shall either be hanged or hang myself, which TF has written repeatedly).
Torodd wrote this:
"The purpose of these records is to give JKC enough rope to dangle in. Thus, the mission is complete."

Look here:
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/2017/12/nr-107-torodd-fuglesteg-sender-mailer.html

I am not convicted, but have been given a copy that the court has confirmed. And it wasn't for the harassment, but a form of persecution when I had written "too much" about Torp. This claim and the judgment I disputed in Borgarting Court of Appeal. Fortunately, I picked it up so that judge Øystein Hermansen was revealed as a liar because when he wrote the verdict he claimed that no one disputed the number that was the basis of the judgment against me from Oslo District Court.

Searchlight:

I have been told that my police report by Jan Kåre Christensen on April 29 has been dropped due to lack of capacity at the police.
The review was made after Jan Kåre Christensen has for a long time harassed me on his blog with claims that I want him to be killed and that is Norway's largest and worst online control.

Both of these claims by Jan Kåre Christensen are pure lies. Something he knows very well though. Despite knowing this, he continues in his blog to perform these lies. I myself have a clean record and I actively contribute to spreading joy as well as I can through the Internet and elsewhere. Something that is facts based on the websites I run and the websites I contribute. It is the fact that I do not engage in trolling and cyberbullying.
Jan Kåre Christensen is one of Norway's very few, a handful, sentenced online troll who have the habit of harassing everyone who comes his way (unless they are convicted of sexual abuse or associated with such pitiful behavior). It is his neighbors and the Christian leaders who have tried to be objective, friendly with him. It is fact that Jan Kåre Christensen has not contributed anything to the Internet and to his neighborhood. His only contribution is harassment and terror.

Answer:

One thing no one can say about me is that I'm doing terror. Never visited a single person, much less driven by terror.

Searchlight:

Blogger Jan Kåre Christensen received a message from the police on Thursday that a reported case against him was dropped due to lack of capacity. This decision can be made by the public prosecutor.

Answer:

So nice, the big hooder here is above all Torodd Birdies himself.
Enter here and search for Torodd Birdcage, you find quite a lot:
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/

Searchlight:

Despite the verdict against him as the review from Jan-Aage Torp entailed, this proven internet troll Jan Kåre Christensen has continued as before with an activity that is criminal. As a law-abiding citizen, I do not want to put on the lies that he has spread about me, and that I want the legal community to again mark Jan Kåre Christensen that his activities are not acceptable. The police have left valgae to see the other way and let this convicted nettroll Jan Kåre Christensen continue as before. That's okay. But then, as law-abiding citizens, one has to ask themselves what kind of protection one has against an uninhibited criminal web control such as Jan Kåre Christensen, who totally lacks any moral and ethical standards. I conclude that law-abiding citizens do not have protection against terror and harassment from such criminal individuals.

Answer:

The description that Torodd Fuglesteg here gives to himself and to me is to change us. I am the law-abiding and run a serious blog and website. Whilst bird-pecking is engaged in harassment and satire that is evil on the fake Smyrna blog.

Searchlight:

More than that, it is not to say about this matter on my part, even though the proven criminal web control Jan Kåre Christensen will probably continue to spread his lies. His life is nothing but harassment and terrorism. Something I take note of. Sad, but this is the life of this web controller. So we who, in poor capacity, live in joy over life, continue to spread joy and knowledge to our fellow human beings and our society.

Answer:

When repeatedly saying I am engaged in terrorism, then one quickly realizes that such people cannot be taken seriously.
Then everything but also writing must be taken with a "pinch" of salt. Such a thing as being online and everything else. I am anything but web control, when I write with open profile and anyone who can contact me.
But Torodd himself, is exactly the net control he himself describes me as.
Searchlight:

Facts speak for themselves, writes Fuglesteg in an utterance after it became clear that Oslo police station has dropped his review. However, the State Attorney risks getting the deposited case on the table, if Fuglesteg and his lawyer choose to appeal the decision. Christensen, on his own, writes on his own blog that "Torodd Bird Bird only follows his" teaching father "who, according to Christensen, is Jan-Aage Torp who is also awarded the title" The Origin of Evil. "- A title which according to Scripture is reserved for the devil himself.

Answer:

That I compare Torp with the Devil is not badly observed. When I consider that Jan Aage Torp is the origin of all this misery that has spread between me and Jan Aage Torp and his poodles and lackies over the past 5 years. Bird climbing is just like a "demon" to count!
Well, those people who ravage, hold on and actually do net terror and have managed to stir up both the police and the courts against me and the heavenly blog. That there are dark forces behind, it is safe and certain.

From my blog I take the latest that I am accused of having reviewed the website Searchlight and Kjell Andersen. As far as I can remember and know per. today without saying with 100% certainty I have only mentioned Searchlight and Kjell Andersen.
I believe that Randi Ingwersen reported Searchlight and Kjell Andersen when he allowed eg. Ansgar Braut (Arnt Arnesen from Stavanger), Torodd Fuglesteg and Jan Aage Torp write freely what they believed and thought that was nothing but bullying and harassment!

Final Comment:

This writes Kjell Andersen referred to Torodd Fuglesteg's statements:
"A review that has been dropped by police due to lack of capacity. However, Fuglesteg refuses to accept the cancellation and now considers complaining to the public prosecutor and demanding that the Oslo police be ordered to investigate the harassment against him. "

This is the very last thing I fear, since tomorrow I will come up with a counter-notification against Torodd Fuglesteg.
Want to see what they say in Greenland police station when they have holiday resort at Manglerud police station which is the police closest and best in terms of where we live.
Pray for us, me and my family who have been subjected to this untimely and evil pressure from those people who are only engaged in a purity game where they really want to kill my preaching of the word of God. Not least my preaching of the marriage that Jan Aage Torp hates me for having pointed out in the word of God, he has no right to enter into a new marriage as long as his first and then right wife lives!

Related links:
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2019/07/no-1442-another-new-police-review-closed.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2019/07/no-1444-article-from-spotlight-that.html
http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2019/07/no-1443-it-was-torodd-fuglesteg-who.html
http://justismord.janchristensen.net/

lørdag 6. juli 2019

No. 1444: Article from Spotlight that sheds new light on the rude and nasty person this "right hand" of Jan Aage Torp is!

No. 1444:
Article from Spotlight that sheds new light on the rude and nasty person this "right hand" of Jan Aage Torp is!


We are probably talking about Norway's largest and worst online control. Will answer in the next article that I will probably post on Monday when I work this weekend.

Picture of Torodd Fuglesteg.






Article from Sokelys.


https://www.sokelys.com/?p=25509#more-25509

Blogger Christensen reviewed again - police dismiss the case with the victim will appeal to the public prosecutor!

On Thursday, a letter from the Oslo Politics Chamber appeared to blogger Jan Kåre Christensen, who was previously convicted of harassing and hating pastor Jan Aage Torp for several years because this is divorced and married again. In connection with the much-discussed case, a relatively tough verbal exchange between Christensen and readers who reacted to Christensen's repeated writings was exchanged.

One of those who was involved in the wording with Christensen was Torodd Fuglesteg, who in retrospect has been stamped on Christensen's blogs with claims that he is Norway's largest online control and that he wants Christensen dead. In April, Torodd Fuglesteg got tired of finding his name and picture with these statements published in public, and then went to the step of police notifying blogger Jan Kåre Christensen for webjikan. A notification that has been dropped by the police due to lack of capacity. However, Fuglesteg refuses to accept the cancellation and now considers complaining to the state lawyer and requires that the Oslo police be ordered to investigate the notification.

I have been told that my police report by Jan Kåre Christensen on April 29 has been dropped due to lack of capacity at the police.

The review was made after Jan Kåre Christensen has for a long time harassed me on his blog with claims that I want him to be killed and that is Norway's biggest and worst nettroll.

Both of these claims by Jan Kåre Christensen are pure lies. Something he knows very well though. Despite knowing this, he continues in his blog to perform these lies. I myself have a clean record and I actively contribute to spreading joy as well as I can through the Internet and elsewhere. Something that is facts based on the websites I run and the websites I contribute. It is the fact that I do not engage in trolling and cyberbullying.

Jan Kåre Christensen is one of Norway's very few, a handful, sentenced online troll who have the habit of harassing everyone who comes his way (unless they are convicted of sexual abuse or associated with such pitiful behavior). It is his neighbors and the Christian leaders who have tried to be objective, friendly with him. It is fact that Jan Kåre Christensen has not contributed anything to the Internet and to his neighborhood. His only contribution is harassment and terror.

Despite the verdict against him as the review from Jan-Aage Torp entailed, this proven internet troll Jan Kåre Christensen has continued as before with an activity that is criminal. As a law-abiding citizen, I do not want to put on the lies that he has spread about me, and that I want the legal community to again mark Jan Kåre Christensen that his activities are not acceptable.

The police have again chosen to look the other way and let this convicted net controller Jan Kåre Christensen continue as before. That's okay. But then, as law-abiding citizens, one has to ask themselves what kind of protection one has against an uninhibited criminal web control such as Jan Kåre Christensen, who totally lacks any moral and ethical standards. I conclude that law-abiding citizens do not have protection against terror and harassment from such criminal individuals.

More than that, it is not to say about this matter on my part, even though the proven criminal web control Jan Kåre Christensen will probably continue to spread his lies. His life is nothing but harassment and terrorism. Something I take note of. Sad, but this is the life of this web controller. So we who, in poor capacity, live in joy over life, continue to spread joy and knowledge to our fellow human beings and our society.

Facts speak for themselves, writes Fuglesteg in an utterance after it became clear that Oslo police station has dropped his review. However, the State Attorney risks getting the deposited case on the table, if Fuglesteg and his lawyer choose to appeal the detention bill.

fredag 5. juli 2019

No. 1443: It was Torodd Fuglesteg who reported me with a fictitious review, the same as his "teaching father" Jan Aage Torp did when they got these charged, convicted and punished for false charges?

No. 1443:
It was Torodd Fuglesteg who reported me with a fictitious review, the same as his "teaching father" Jan Aage Torp did when they got these charged, convicted and punished for false charges?


 http://justismord.janchristensen.net/



Numbers 32: 23 But if ye do not, ye shall sin against the LORD, and ye shall know that your sin shall find you.

Jan Aage Torp hated me and my preaching when I preach what the word of God says about marriage. It is that as Christians, only death gives rise to remarriage.
Now this is coming back. Look here, an old article, the scripture says, "Sin shall find you!"

Why it's a fictitious review and false accusations that Jan Aage Torp has welcomed me with!

Picture of Jan Aage Torp, who is the evil of origin. Jesus says it himself:

Joh. e. 8. 44 You have the devil's father, and you will make your father's lusts; he was a murderer from the beginning and is not in the truth; for truth is not in him. When he speaks lies, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of lies.




Who is behind such things as this? It should not be so difficult, the devil does not stand in truth and those who can be used for such things have the wrong connections.
Have been challenged with this by justifying why it is a fictitious review and false accusations that Jan Aage Torp has welcomed me!

Section 168 of the Penal Code states:


"Anyone who, by false accusation, notification or explanation to the court, the court or other public authority, or by misrepresentation or deletion of evidence or the provision of false evidence or against any other evidence, seeks to impose another charge or conviction on a criminal offense or who is contributing to it is punished if a crime is committed, with a prison sentence of 6 months up to 8 years and, if a misdemeanor is acted, with imprisonment for up to 4 years. "

This is what Jan Aage Torp has done. He hated my preaching of remarriage, especially that I was so "popular" with Google. Then he would sort out this relationship by getting a verdict against me and the Heavenly blog, something he himself has repeated several times both in Our Country and in Searchlight. Notice the wording here that fits 100% to JAT: "The one who, by false accusation, notifies, the prosecution against better knowing in another way seeks to impose another charge or falsification for a criminal offense".

He has himself said that he has charged another charge etc. This just proves one thing we face a criminal crook!

Here I have a lot to say, but since I have written more than enough about Torp and the case, I stop here. This time it only gets this, that I have hereby proved what Torp has done. And you can read here yourself what he uttered to Vårt Land which only proves that here we have to do someone who has said himself that he has a different charge etc. It is me it!

The first thing Torp did was to account for both our Land and Searchlight that his goal was to get a legally enforceable judgment to go to Google to delete me from the search engines. So the case itself is not based on Torp's alleged harassment where he surpasses both me and the vast majority in harassing.

"Pastor" Torp tries to distort the police and prosecution against me, it is false accusations that are at the bottom of everything, and Torp's own sin and sin! - "Pastor" Torp has now openly stated what his agenda is, it's twofold: Get me penalized and removed the blog. He writes and says this now and again.

Here from his own blog: I am very pleased with this. Nothing is better than if Christensen shut down his down-to-earth blogs and end up with personjikan, bullying, defamation and ecstasy - against everyone.

From VL: -

«What do you expect from Christensen, Torp? - I expect him to delete everything he has written about everyone, I'm going to go to Google and ask that they remove all this material from their search engine. But then there must be a final judgment. (quote end). "

If we also take what Torp has called me, we realize that it is all staged by a man, a liar to use Torp's own words!

Pastor Jan Aage Torp has staged it all with a fake police review to try and stop the heavenly blog behind it all!

Jan Aage Torp came with a police review of me. But it's all staged there to try to stop the heavenly blog that's behind it all! It is a sham for me not to claim that remarriage is sin for the believer!

No. 1442: Another new police Review - closed!

No. 1442:
Another new police
Review - closed!

Got a letter in from the police again, yesterday!
Then there was a police report, happened April 29 this year and the crime scene Krokstien 2 c.
This was Monday, 1 week after Easter, it's really all I know.

I rushed to the police and they said I could know all about the case if I came down on guard at the police.
Manglerud police chamber is closest to us, but they have the summer conference.
Then I was down at Greenland police station and talked to guardians.
Then I got the counter message, I had to apply for access to the case.
There is the case now, I do not know more about this matter than you who read this.
I have been reported to the police. This happened on Wednesday, April 24, this year, and the scene is Krokstien 2 c where we live.
The relationship is ruthless behavior, but who does it mind I don't mind?

The positive thing about the case being that the police for the first time reject a review of me. Unfortunately, they usually always believe in the thugs and lies to me, then it's not easy!
But here's the case at least not something they go on with without the anchor in question. What it is for, who etc. I have now requested access to, and it will be exciting to hear what this is about this time!

Still pray for me and my family, it is obviously the Evil One who is behind all that has come against me and my family in recent years.
But it is good to know that we have one with us that is stronger than he who is in the world. Therefore, we also experience victory, joy, and strength in all that comes to us in the name of Jesus!

1 Joh.b. 5. 4 For all that is born of God overcomes the world; And this is the victory that has prevailed over the world: our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


The picture of the review.




tirsdag 2. juli 2019

No. 1441: Theologian and Bible Teacher Øyvind Gaarder Andersen is completely, completely at will, in his Bible interpretation of remarriage when he believes that it is free to divorce and marry - but calls for a new wedding ritual for the married people, that will probably be needed!

No. 1441:
Theologian and Bible Teacher Øyvind Gaarder Andersen is completely, completely at will, in his Bible interpretation of remarriage when he believes that it is free to divorce and marry - but calls for a new wedding ritual for the married people, that will probably be needed!


Picture of Ludvik Karlsen and Emanuel Minos who are both dead now. But was about to open up most of what is wrong in PB today. Be it remarriage, the faith movement and most of it otherwise. Here, the "door" was set up, for the flesh, Satan and the world.
And the theological reflection group with Øyvind Gaarder Andersen continues this.

Ludvik Karlsen.




Emanuel Minos.

 



Here from the newspaper Vårt Land's interview with Øyvind Gaarder Andersen, who here thinks it is free rather than remarriage for believers, is contrary to God's word.

27.6.2019 Our Country
"It must be possible with a new start"

A guiding marriage document from the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group opens up a separate marriage ritual when one remarries after divorce.
Øyvind Gaarder Andersen is the leader of Theological Reflection Group in the Pentecostal movement. In a new document, they elaborate on their understanding of the Bible in the manner of cohabitation ethics.
- Sometimes you show more grace to a murderer than to someone who has broken the marriage on the wrong level.
https://www.vI.no/nyhet/det-ma-vere-mulig-med-en-ny-start-1.1545377 1/4 27.6.2019

It gets skewed, says Øyvind Gaarder Andersen, head of the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group.
Due to the development of society, they have seen the need to clarify their point of view in cohabitation ethics. After the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group has published a document that addresses this particular. Divorce and remarriage have been treated very carefully.
- On the one hand, we must preach the importance of marriage and that it is meant to last a lifetime. Particularly because of developments in society where people think too easily about divorce. On the other hand, there must be room for those who experience that the marriage breaks down, says Gaarder Andersen.

May allow remarriage

In the Pentecostal movement, each church is independent, but committed to a common belief that maintains that the Bible is the supreme authority for life, doctrine, ethics and morality. The fresh cohabitation document is an account of what the Pentecostal movement believes the Bible says about the subject and how the scriptures are interpreted.
The point of departure for the reflection group is that marriage is meant to be lifelong and monogamous. While some conservative Christians believe that divorce cannot be allowed to remarry, the Pentecostal Reflection Group believes that remarriage is fine if the divorce is legitimate. This applies, for example, to adultery, when someone is abandoned by the spouse or by various forms of abuse and violence.
- It is difficult to pronounce square and categorical about personal relationships. There are situations where one can be physically and mentally destroyed by living in the relationship and where it becomes irresponsible with regard to the children. It is not always easy to say where the border goes, says Gaarder Andersen.
- What if you simply lose interest in each other?
- Then one has to be encouraged to take care that love can be revived, for example by giving birth to party therapy. We will encourage to stretch as far as possible to preserve marriage.

Own wedding ritual

Even where a divorce is not legitimate according to the Bible, a new marriage should be possible, the Reflection Group believes.
- It must be possible with repentance and new start. We must emphasize the seriousness of divorce and consider what legitimate reasons for divorce are according to the Bible. But at the same time, the possibility of being married again to someone who broke out on a wrong mate is not depreciated. On the basis of sincere remorse And repentance one must be able to begin again.
The theological reflection group asks if one should have a separate marriage ritual for those who are remarried. Such a ritual can have a moment that allows for forgiveness and a new start.
- If you yourself know that mistakes are made and experience guilt because of it, it may be good to receive God's forgiveness and put it behind it. It is, however, not a draft of such a ritual, but we ask a question for consideration.

homosexuality

| The document from the Pentecostal movement is also treated as cohabitation, homosexuality and gender identity. The Reflection Group believes the Bible speaks clearly that marriage is meant for man and woman, and not for genders.
- | The question of equal-sex marriage, the Norwegian Church has two views and practices. Recently, the Norwegian Methodist Church has said that they will go in the same direction. Do you think there may be changes among Pentecostals in the future?
- When Pentecostal pastors, preachers, and leaders slowed down in November, there was full agreement on standing on the classic view of marriage. It is difficult to spa about the future, but the Pentecostal movement's beliefs say that marriage is for man and woman. If this changes, I think the resistance is so great that the Pentecostal movement is split - it is unthinkable to accept two
sight.
(quote end.)

Pentecostal movement and Øyvind Gaarder Andersen, leader of the Pentecostal movement's theological reflection group. Make a total "disc boom" here with opening up for remarriage among believers. There are at least two things they miss.
One is that they do not historically present what Christianity has been for 2000 years.
Secondly, they do not present what the word of God says, especially the New Testament with Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

This writes Atle Mork Bednarz

This is a document that will create much trouble for the Pentecostal movement in the years ahead. That it is theologians who wrote this is amazing to me - they do not have the power to relate to their own terms.

It begins with a good principle - that the Bible should be read and understood as it is written. The Bible is the supreme body for explaining how we as Christians should live and relate to what is happening in society and in the churches.

But then this is not followed up when the topic itself is to be discussed and it is subject.

Matt 19
"9 I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife for any reason other than adultery, and marry another, committeth adultery."
10 Then the disciples said to him, "Is it so between man and woman, it is better not to marry." 11 But he said, "This is something not everyone can accept, but only those who are given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they have come so from the womb, others because humans have made them eunuchs, but there are also some who have made themselves like an eunuch for heaven's sake. Let the one who can, take this to himself. ""

What is Jesus saying here? In verse 9, two different words are used which are important in the context but which are not taken into account in the document.

Jesus says that "adultery" provides the basis for revoking a marriage and thus giving it the right to marry again. If this is not the case, the person who remarries will commit "adultery".

Here it is important to go to the basic text where Jesus uses two words that mean completely different things.

In the first part, Jesus speaks of "porneia" (translated with adultery) and then uses a word that is most easily explained by the English word "fornication" which means having had a sexual relationship where neither party is married - neither with each other nor with others. .

Porneia means that two single people have sexual intercourse.

In the latter part of the verse, Jesus uses the word "morcheia" which is best explained by the English word "adultery", which means that at least one of the participants in the sexual intercourse is married, but with someone else.

This must be understood in the light of the Jewish tradition in which a woman was to be a virgin by the marriage and where the husband had the right to have the marriage annulled if the marriage night showed that the woman was not a virgin. He then had the right to go to the leaders of the area, present evidence that she was not a virgin and the marriage pact would then be considered as canceled.

The cancellation meant that it was seen that there had never been an marriage since this was entered into on erroneous premises and thus they both were free to marry others.

It will then mean in our day that if one differs for some reason other than that "fornication" has been committed, all new marriages will enter into meaning that both those who enter into marriage live in sin and thus cannot inherit The Kingdom of God.

Jesus is also in this in Mark 10
"10 When they came home again, the disciples asked him about this. 11 He said to them," Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against the first. 12 And if a woman divorces from her husband and marries another, she breaks the marriage. ""

This must therefore be the starting point for any theological interpretation of this topic.
(quote end.)

Atle Mork Bednarz, you write:
This is a document that will create much trouble for the Pentecostal movement in the years ahead. That it is theologians who wrote this is amazing to me - they do not have the power to relate to their own terms.
(quote end.)

Final Comment:

I've already written an article, this article is the other.
What amazes me is how shallow PB is in relation to this question.
In fact, through the ward 2000-year history, the doctrine of a homogeneous marriage has been extinct. That one doesn't mention this shows just how far out there is to drive. Even the story is not correct.
Can one expect then that the teachings are right? Here it is simply unbiblical doctrine, it is seductive spirits and the doctrines of demons that are based here.

torsdag 27. juni 2019

No. 1440: Cohabitation ethics - A document prepared by Theological Reflection Group in the Pentecostal movement, is unfortunately a mighty work and dangerous seductive when it opens up for remarriage before one spouse is dead!

No. 1440:
Cohabitation ethics - A document prepared by Theological Reflection Group in the Pentecostal movement, is unfortunately a mighty work and dangerous seductive when it opens up for remarriage before one spouse is dead!


Picture of the Pentecostal Movement three great spirit chiefs at the beginning of the Pentecostal revival.
Pastor A. Endersen from Denmark, Copenhagen. Pastor T. B. Barratt from England / Norway, Oslo and Pastor Levi Pethrus from Sweden Stockholm



(Here is also the link: http: //pinsebevegelsen.no /.../ Cohabitation ethics% 20 ...)

There are several things in this document that are bad.
The worst is undoubtedly the words Pastor T. B. Barratt. This is pure and delicate story fake, nothing else.

They write for example. this and then they cite Barratt.

This sight is also lifted by Barratt. In the book Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, he writes:
If one marries another woman or husband, when the spouse does not commit adultery, then one is guilty of adultery (forced divorce except). But if the wife or husband has committed adultery, and then one goes and marries, one does not commit adultery! For the good reason that the first marriage is dissolved
(Quote end.)

This is a Barratt quote. But this was not the Pentecostal proclamation in 1932 and around there when Barratt wrote that book.
He laid it before the elders council in Philadelphia, Oslo, and it was voted down.
In other words, they refused Barratt both to give it out and stand behind that preaching as they saw this as unbiblical teaching.
It was released well 25 years ago or around in consultation with his family, but then this "apostasy" message "fit".

Furthermore, they do not realize that marriage is an example of the church and Christ. If we are unfaithful and fail, does Christ fail? Never!

In other words, as "everlasting" as the relationship between Christ and the church is, the relationship between man and woman is when they are married.
Only death alone can separate them, nothing else.

Back to the storylessness - it's bad when they've been together for 5 years as they write and haven't settled into history.

In short, remarriage among believers was in fact completely excluded by the church almost 2000 years of history. Before the Reformation, the humanist Erasmus from Rotterdam presented this in the 16th century.
Read it yourself here and in Øyvind Kleiveland's answer.


Here are some excerpts from there, and the articles you can read are here:

http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2014/01/nr-648-humanist-erasmus-of-rotterdam.html

 http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2015/10/no-1056-what-jesus-is-talking-about-in.html

Here is Brother Øyvind Kleiveland's writing which is reproduced with permission and obtained from ToSko's Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/StiftelsenTOSKO/posts/2830311227011343?__tn__=K-R

DON'T MAKE THEM!

The Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group came yesterday with its conclusion on marriage, divorce and remarriage. And that's sad reading.

In the early part of the text, the group claims that "the innocent party must decide whether the marriage should be terminated or whether there is hope for restoration". Not even throughout the document is mentioned that the thesis of the "innocent" party did not appear before Erasmus from Rotterdam presented this in the 16th century. The Bible has no references to "the innocent party" and the command of God's Word is that everyone should honor the marriage, which one does not get the feeling that the reflection group does in this conclusion, which has taken them more than five years to produce.

With statements like "Maybe we should have a greater focus on how to preserve the marriage than to debate for and against divorce and remarriage?"
 "," There are no biblical texts that give unambiguous answers to the problem raised here
 "And" No one will argue that the path to restoration of family life will happen if we forbid divorce and remarriage
 "Shows that the reflection group has probably lost all relevance. When they move into thoughts like "should we have an alternative marriage ritual for those who are remarried?"
 "So you realize that this fight they do not intend to address, at all.

Who's been talking about banning anything? People do what they want, anyway. What is important is to make God's command, to honor the marriage, only between a man and a woman who has never been married before, as the only approved cohabitation between humans. This must be done in speeches, conversations, book form, by articles by all preachers, priests, pastors, and rulers in our country. It is the only way we can make the Lord's will happen, on earth as in heaven.

Everything else is not in line with God's word, no matter how much the Pentecostal movement claims there are cases where marriage will not be "practical"
 ”And asks the question“ how long do you have to wait before you get married again?
 "And claim that it is possible to" wait too long
 "To get married again.

The book is referred to several times as T.B. Barratt wrote about marriage, divorce and remarriage, which was never released, when the elders council in Philadelphia did not allow Barratt to release this, when it fought against the word of God. The book was first published several decades after his death.

What appears to be a total lack of knowledge about the relationship between Mary and Joseph, as betrothed Jews who had not yet undergone the second feast of the betrayal phase (Nisuin), is almost comical to read about. Jews were allowed to give their betrothed wife (still not married) a divorce letter, in the betrayal phase, if evidence of adultery had been found. This is not the case in John 8, where the woman was caught in adultery after Nisuin was executed. We read that punishment was stoning, not divorce.

We also see this in Pauli's letter to the Corinthian congregation, where he writes to those who are "redeemed from a wife," in other words, Jews who had taken out divorce in the betrayal phase, just as Joseph considered doing to Mary. If Mary had been unfaithful in the faith phase, as the Jew Joseph believed, he would be able to marry another, and that would not be a sin. Now we know that Mary was pregnant with the Holy Ghost, and that Joseph actually married Mary (took her home to him), but this lack of knowledge of the reflection group is grave. In the English Standard Version Bible, we see that they actually include the words betrothed, in order to bring out the meaning that this permission applied to Jews who had divorced in the betrothal phase, not western divorces, where one did not have a betrothal phase which for the Jews was extremely important.

Now concerning the betrothed
 , I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do not marry, and if you have a marrying woman, she has no idea.
 1. Cor

The most serious thing about this reading is that the marriage is basically regarded as a contract, which - under the "right" circumstances - can set aside. You get no understanding that holiness, honor, and a bond are only separated by death.

Finally: Jesus' own words that as long as one is on this earth, one is not right on a new wife, seems to be completely away from the Pentecostal Theological Reflection Group:

Then Jesus answered and said, "Verily I say unto you, There is none that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, which shall not return a hundredfold now in this. time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions, and in the time to come, eternal life. But many who are the first will be the last, and the last ones the first. "
 Mark 10: 29-31

Here we see that Jesus says that even if you were to have the choice of following Jesus or leaving everything you have for his sake and the gospel, you are not right on a new wife. And this is not so weird, since God has already told us that it is only death that separates a man and a wife who have not been married before?

As I said, do not be seduced by the secular currents that have crept into the Pentecostal Movement, and which the Theological Reflection Group promotes in its document!

Øyvind Kleiveland

onsdag 26. juni 2019

No. 1439: Marius Vamnes Must do a "neutral" job - but it is so colored by having money like Kjell Inge Røkke so get a law for most, but being in the "middle class" like us, one can statue an example!

No. 1439:
Marius Vamnes Must do a "neutral" job - but it is so colored by having money like Kjell Inge Røkke so get a law for most, but being in the "middle class" like us, one can statue an example!


Picture of Marius Vamnes as one can count almost as a "running boy" for Kjell Inge Røkke, but for us he is anything but this when he once again says no to anything that has to do with us.
The problem is, in fact, that the County Governor protects the PBE, the Civil Ombudsman protects the County Governor. That protects the PBE and the Ombudsman. The court protects everything and everyone, not least the PBE and the City of Oslo.
How to win over such a system as a regular man? Better then being rich like Røkke and getting everyone to say yes, he-he! No, God is bigger than both Marius Vamnes, Kjell Inge Røkke and everyone else, Hallelujah, Amen!



Has written about this before, but follows a line with Kjell Inge Røkke so-called illegalities and construction at Konglungen in Asker. There among others he got no both regarding construction, and when he "pluses" with a lot of tons of stone all over the property he got dispensation. The person who gave him the dispensation was the same person who said no to us. In other words, here it is done to the degrees of difference between people in my eyes.
But at the same time, I like Røkke to have done what he has done by all means.
Røkke only does what he wants and has the desire and opportunity on his own property, something that everyone else should be allowed to do on the whole.

We read here, for example. a former Storting politician says about Røkke:
Kristin Halvorsen about Kjell Inge Røkke: - An unstable, irrational and dejected boy.

We also experienced a bunch of ladies who first said yes, so it has become no on no.

Here an excerpt for a report in the newspaper VG before Kjell Inge Røkke built:
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/OLG0l/roekke-faar-bygge-luksusvilla

The case ended this afternoon.

- We considered Asker municipality's decision as correct. The legal conditions for the reason for the exemption are fulfilled, says adviser at the county governor of Akershus Marius Vamnes to VG Nett.

The smokehouse was first assessed by Asker municipality as approved the plans, but after complaints from the county municipality and neighbors, the case was re-evaluated by the county governor in Oslo and Akershus.

Here it is actually the same man who also approves when Røkke is accused of having built eg. own jetty and lots of other things with lots of stones. Or rather, carved mountains obtained without passing Larvik. This Marius Vamnes was, of course, super-fit in the case, but got everything Røkke mind building approved.

https://blog.janchristensen.net/2019/03/nr-2419-marius-vamnes-som-representerte.html

note that there were many who defended Røkke, and with shoots that were powerful. Blue. there was a bunch of ladies who prevented Røkke from building what he wanted and wanted.

Here from the newspaper VG:
https://www.vg.no/forbruker/i/1kPBeQ/mener-roekke-er-offer-for-kvinnehevn

Think Røkke is a victim of women's revenge

Architect responds to building law

Finn's architect Finn Sandmæl (62) blames "incompetent, premenstrual women" for Kjell Inge Røkke's rejection of his solid construction project in Asker.

Victim

At home in Sandmål's own luxury villa on Nesøya in Asker, the architect points out to VG that Røkke has been the victim of revengeful "premenstrual women" in the building case.

- It's time to get it out: That women in all teams, from the building industry to the county level, have made the politicians make a decision on wrong terms. Had this happened in the United States, politicians had been sued personally. In Norway, the developer is powerless, says Sandmæl to VG.

- According to the Act on Outdoor Activities, the public does not have anything to do with land. As Konglungen is an inland market, Røkke should therefore be built as he wants. The safety plan that it is talking about does not deal with the Konglungen, he believes.

According to Sandmæl, it is not just legal interpretation this is about: In the reader post, he looks at gender-based descriptions of central women in the Røkke case:

"With female case officers, you as a man should feel what hormonal cycle does with the individual's character."

And further:

"In the Røkke case, several central women's cycles have clearly interfered. These women are pestered to such an initiative in this building case, an initiative the man in the age of equality wishes he experienced in the bedroom, but unfortunately rather gets served in Budstikka. "

Sandmeal further acknowledges that "such a statement as this is, of course, labeled as female hostile".

sticks

At the same time, he writes that he "loves women, other than those in politics, construction, or other power agencies".

- What do you have against women, Sandmeal?

- Nothing. But it is a fact that for many years there are women who have stuck sticks in the wheels of my building projects. For example, a giant year-round country home I designed for Kjell Inge Røkke on an island in Bærum a few years ago.

- What do you want to achieve with the reader post?

- Nothing, just confirm it's a fact that women should see their own position in say n own time. Expertise is independent gender, but women should pay tribute to old sticks. Women are detailed, they never forget, they repeat the same many times. What I am looking for is a democratic, honest public system, says Sandmæl.

Sandmeal is tired of rich people "knocking down" when they want to build big projects, saying especially women are hard at practicing the law of jantles.
(quote end.)

Final Comment:


Marius Vamnes is "a little" of a guy. He approves Kjell Inge Røkke's solid palace with exemptions at most. Before he has built.
When he has built and has a whole lot of "illegality" with eg. to get tons of rocks or blocks of mountains larger than a pyramid block. Bigger than our wall and bigger than most. This approves the same Marius Vamnes, although obviously he is incompetent in the case, this is Norway. No one is ever held responsible for anything just about whatever they do wrong.
Then we get rejected not only once, but twice by the same Marius Vamnes. Here is the money, power and other things that matter.
That we receive rejection that has not really built something that is a hindrance to anyone, just to the joy and favor of all. It is so unfair it is possible and remains!

It was someone who wrote that I was whining. But this is the opposite of whining.
Sutre means: Crying for something childish and trivial, sewn, sipping
Example: Ola got more soda than me! - END OF CUT!

Answer: It's just the opposite of whining I do.
What we are experiencing is the opposite when others are allowed to do what they want, but the little we've done about "transgressions" should be punished the most.
In other words, I do the opposite than whining !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I point out injustice, injustice and democracy do not work. Blue. then it becomes completely wrong when eg. Riches such as Kjell Inge Røkke receive an exemption for all the same men every time he searches. This Marius Vamnes berry will soon be on the payroll for Aker and Røkke?
By all means, what Røkke has built I do not mind. But that same man can give Røkke exemption not only once, but several times in the same construction project and case. It testifies to so much discrimination that words do not extend!
Røkke asks for extended exemption on the extreme both before he starts to build. And after he has built, and Marius Vamnes says yes time after time.
We meet the same man, and here there is talk of minimal conditions after we have built something extra after eg. received guidance from PBE, however oral. When we complain to PBE both once and twice, Marius Vamnes answers as a standard no to us. It is obvious that here it is made to the degrees of difference between people!

tirsdag 25. juni 2019

No. 1438: In this conflict between us and the Planning and Building Administration here in Oslo, this agency has in fact made every possible mistake, abuse, abuse of power and authority that it is possible to do, is the Norwegian record?

No. 1438:
In this conflict between us and the Planning and Building Administration here in Oslo, this agency has in fact made every possible mistake, abuse, abuse of power and authority that it is possible to do, is the Norwegian record?


Picture of Nils-Henrik Henningstad who tried to trick me into thinking that there was nothing special about our property, that it was "common" practice to tear walls.
When I went in to look at those issues, it turned out that it was comparing our case with the issues that night and day. Here we see how PBE has always tried to seduce us, not to guide us in a good and fair manner. This is one of many cases with authority tyranny I will call it. Here, there are attempts, when I revealed it and paired this with what I have done with everything else in this matter. Here they actually have no arguments left to use against us than the one that we need dispensation. But when a thousand other things speak to our favor and favor, then dispensation should and should be given.



We have experienced systemic cheating, manipulation and abuse of authority, and which I unfortunately believe is widespread throughout public Norway. Are we the last communist that a Swedish minister claimed a few years ago?
There is a lot in what he pronounced, and he got a very disgust when he stated what he was doing. But it was true, and it is true if there is no change for the better!

In many ways one can say that the Planning and Building Administration here in Oslo has made two big and almost completely incomprehensible mistakes, with subsequent abuse of power and authority in our eyes.

1.) We who have built according to PBE recommendation, however oral. Will they on the deaths and lives be submersible. Then it turns out afterwards that what we have built is actually not a single negative encumbrance with. Not an actual, just positive, to everyone's advantage.

2.) Secondly, those who have obviously built illegally and who should have been stopped and demanded that they have changed what is built. Almost all of them have either received an exemption, or what is built they overlook and leave it as it stands.

For me, this is an agency that appears unfit and unfit for the task.

It is as I write in another article about PBE here in Oslo municipality.
"Can't understand how it is possible to mess up so much of a public agency and in retrospect do not admit anything or show better judgment to others afterwards when one even makes those mistakes and needs the grace of others.
It again shows that they make a difference between people, and that they seem to be untidy, rotten, non-jealous, schizophrenic, unpredictable and acutely obscene! "

What is PBE really doing? They do not do their job, as they exaggerate our minimal small errors that actually only have positive and beneficial benefits (I shall explain later in the article).
But what is really criminal offenses and which creates negative conditions for both car and bus traffic here in Stormyrveien, and other traffic conditions. As well as the aesthetic and legal. Blue. so the neighbor has a little further down the street been given permission and exemption during the same period to build as us dispensation 57 times than us in exploiting the plot. And the worst walls in Stormyrveien that are at least 2. Which are both approx. 20 cm from the road, they are allowed to stand.
I also mean those garages that one has to drive straight out of their own property and one does not have the opportunity to turn inside on their own property, 1 Million times more traffic is dangerous than for example. Our stairs as one had a good overview while one was walking down. As we were told to change with PBE 11.04.2019, we testify that what is really bad. It does not care about PBE, but of all the crap they have, they attack only those who have housing and property against the Stormyrveien. They then make two real roars to attack us for minimal overruns. While the overshoots that are large and obstructive, they are devoid of interest and commitment to bring the relationships into an arrangement. This testifies to a work that does not attain goals.

It says in Jeremiah that two people have done evil things.

Jeremiah 2. 13 For my people have done evil things:

Now the similarity between Israel's children and PBE here in Oslo is nothing more than that they both have done two evil things. The evil that PBE here in Oslo has done is to attack me, my family and property without the gentleness of so-called offenses that we have received guidance from them to build.
And that what is real illegal and which should have been changed and ordered to demolish and build up again.
Gets totally overlooked and not grasped at all!

Picture of our closest neighbor just across the road, both of which have signed on Roar Telje's campaign against us where he will have removed everything we have built. Bid, staircase and wall even though he signed that we should set up a store closer than 1 meter from his land border. The man appears to us as erratic and moody. Not easy to associate with such people.
Note that this is set up obviously on its own and illegal. And that it is to ease the problem they have as they cannot turn inside on their own site as they have required us to. Here there are neighbors with evil and hateful eyes facing us, but even they have far greater problems and illegality then also the one neighbor and Telje even wall which is 20 cm from the road. Telje has made a garage with a car parking space that is half on his property. And half in the road. What he has done is not just illegal. But it is to take care of that afterwards he demands of us the impossible that we should not even be able to go down the Stormyrveien which our property is against. Here is life and then learn to the degrees without being intact, to listen to such people I would say is dangerous. The fact that PBE has unfortunately done so and not brought order to conditions that are obviously illegal is evidence that they have become heavily obsolete.




Picture of Neighbors' illegal signs. This they have both neighbors right opposite us as they have to straighten out a one-way street as the bus runs several times an hour. The fact that PBE ignores this and attacks us with the hardest of witnesses testifies to a totally inadequate understanding of right and wrong. They are simply dangerous and colored by their judgment. Where to take that has something that works perfectly, while neighbors have something built that is not legitimate and workable, are allowed to stand up. Understand the one who can.



Picture of Roar Telje get the right parking space. That these neighbors are allowed to hold on, but that we should tear. Witnesses how bad the PBE here in Oslo is doing. That they should be professional, there is not much trial on this at least!
One also sees the back edge of the wall on the garage which is also only 20 cm from the road. These are conditions that are 1 Million more illegal than ours as PBE totally ignores. There, Telje cars often park far in the road, testifying that this is a man with a standard for himself, where everything is allowed. While others should not be allowed the smallest thing, not even getting in from their own property down the road closest to it. He is obviously hateful, not good!



Here's how it gets when Telje parks, a bit on his own property, the rest out in the road. This is of course both dangerous and illegal.




We really have nothing to do with other properties and conditions, but when one is attacked and "pissed" on by other neighbors, then one must be allowed to tell!

When other neighbors have built both before and after us both higher walls, larger walls, larger stalls, the plot utilized much more than us. And what we j
Completion certificate Byggesak AS by our responsible applicant Paal Løvaas mentions this here in our application to PBE. That was rejected for reasons that I cannot understand and which is perceived as abuse of power and authority when it was rejected.

Comment on "good faith" action:

It is important in the end to point out again that the project owner in the project in question has acted in "good faith". Initiatives have consulted with PBE, and listed what they experienced as very common conditions in the immediate area. By a search on the "Stormyrveien" in case view you will, as far as we can see, no uplift cases. Initiatives have no interest in "entering" neighbors, but when one has ended up in the situation one has done, it is difficult not to try to explain all aspects of why one has done what one has done - and why one thought this was correct. Images from the surrounding area are by no means intended to be proof that the measure is not an obligation to apply (which has now been understood), but it appears to be relatively clear that the initiative owner acted in good faith when seeing all intersections / fillings and walls in the immediate area. In this context, the owner of the initiative feels somewhat discriminated against in relation to several other landowners in the immediate area. There is a hilly terrain in the area, and one has something difficult to understand that the municipality has taken this over itself in sc. approved Small house plan covering more than approx. 29,000 properties. 29,000 different properties.

Neither do you need to move around in the immediate area to see that there are many walls there. It is sufficient to look at the image the agency itself has taken on inspection. In this connection, PBE must have passed dozens of walls on its inspection. The initiative owner finds it strange that both the case officer who signaled that the establishment of a wall over the old wall is referred to the situation map the municipality has sold. In this connection, it may seem that several walls have been established against a road that has not been sought, without the initiative owner wishing that we should take a closer look at this.
(end of quote).

So we have built with a pretty wall at Max height 185 cm. The fence on top of it at 1 meter, it fits perfectly to our house, the property and access. Then there is such an insight that it is not exaggerated, at the same time that we are somewhat protected.

Seeing that PBE has now settled on a line where several have a wall of ½ meter and some huge Tuva hedges that make it want no access to the degrees. That PBE almost compels than to have a completely different property than it has. In other words, they take both the freedom and the aesthetic desire that one has as a homeowner. It becomes a deprived and PBE exaggerates its power towards ordinary people.

Here in Stormyrveien there are several of the neighbors who have a garage so that they have to back straight into a dangerous and busy road as they write it themselves. In other words, they have made this easier for themselves by setting up illegal signs and barriers, including stands private parking. One neighbor feared another neighbor that she would now send mail to the municipality to get Stormy the road closed for parking. Of course, when one has been heard to the degrees of PBE before, one thinks that is so. No, this is what is written here, as it is written in the text that black is white, and white is black. What is right is wrong, and vice versa. In other words, PBE has not done or does its job. They attack us with guns, and others who do illegal things ignore them. Can't see that PBE deserves respect or reputation for the quiet and bad job they do here in Oslo.

Final Comment:


Must also mention in the end here a relationship that makes this matter between me and really the public Norway a bedriten case. That's when we appealed this decision to the County Governor and received a rejection. Then it turned out that the one who gave us rejection, Marius Vamnes had given Kjell Inge Røkke a dispensation for conditions compared to ours as astronomical.
In other words, it is free to those with money, power and influence. For us "normal" it is about doing that we should be taken, staffed and it should be horror and warning for others not to do the same.
What we have been exposed to is the City of Oslo, the Civil Ombudsman, the County Governor and the Norwegian Courts. There is so much discrimination, rude and unfounded that this must be like a Norwegian record in poor treatment of law-abiding citizens.

Røkke has tons of extra stones all over her own property. Also made an artificial pier of the same stone, all without searching. The "transgressions" were just as great if not greater than our entire property together. Okay for me, he did everything on his own property. What we have done is like a drop in the ocean, and should be punished as hard as possible.
Equality for the law? It is so bad the treatment we have received from the public agency, not least PBE here in Oslo. That it must be the Norwegian record in bad and plain treatment.
PBE and the entire public agency are to the degrees not only on thin ice, they are not on ice at all. Most deeply, it is criminal that they have done so much discrimination, and that they lie constantly and try to distort the truth.
Let me finally give an example of a criminal act in my eyes. When we pointed out that everyone who had applied for dispensation in small conditions here in Oslo had received an exemption. Then I presented this to PBE here in Oslo. They replied by Nils-Henrik Henningstad that there were several who had to demolish, so we were not unique.
Then I went in and looked at those cases, and they could not be compared to our case whatsoever.
Here were fire and other agencies inside the picture. They said the wall was obstructing, among other things. emergency vehicles.
With us it is the opposite, among other things. The staircase we have is a big plus for emergency vehicles when Krokstien and inside our yard are cramped and not easy for emergency cargo gear to come to.
I wrote this back without getting an answer. This is how they keep, eg. when we suggested that they come to visit in 2015. Then they were on a hidden visit, but they would not come to have inspection with us. How to keep PBE without wanting to realize that they should and should have approved everything we have built for a long time, long ago.

No case has taken away so many illusions about public Norway as objective and with fair judgments / treatment in circumstances where one is treated according to Norwegian law in a good and fair manner.

This case is probably the most serious thing I have experienced about the abuse of authority.
It is the sum of everything the government has done, which makes this a very serious matter, it is ours and my personal opinion!