Tuesday, October 12, 2010

EARTH CHARTER, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, AND RICK WARREN'S ROLE IN NEW WORLD ORDER

 To my readers:  I wrote this article for NewswithViews.com in January, 2007.  Because of what I have discovered is the strong interlinking between the World Economic Forum, "Minister" Rick Warren, and "interreligious dialogue" and plans to harness churches of all world denominations in Rev. Warren's PEACE plan for global redistribution, I am reprinting the fundamentals of the proposed apostasy now in fuller political implementation here.  SARAH LESLIE, blog author of HERESCOPE and I will be discussing the interrelationships of Rick Warren, the C Street Foundation ("The Family") of Doug Coe and Company, "GLOBAL REDESIGN INITIATIVE" (World Economic Foundation) on the air tonight and will possibly continue it on Thursday.  Tune in at www.themicroeffect.com at 7 p.m. eastern, 4 p.m. Pacific time and if you miss it, check for rebroadcast times.


Tune in and stay tuned!


CONSTANCE
PILLARS OF THE "ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATION"
THE EARTH CHARTER


By Constance Cumbey - January 16, 2007


A primary source for what was to become known as the Alliance of Civilizations, was the “Earth Charter Initiative.” Some chroniclers trace it back only as far as the 1987 Brundtland Commission The Earth Charter Declaration contains language startlingly reminiscent of its salvation-based religion baiting precedents, Humanist Manifesto and the Humanist Manifesto II. One prominent Earth Charter proponent, Maurice Strong, was quoted saying that the Earth Charter would become as important as the Ten Commandments. Conflicting histories have been given and it appears that it was in progress, per Maurice Strong, much earlier than the 1987 Brundtland Commission.
“The whole question of an Earth Charter was in fact on the UN Agenda at Rio. We didn't quite make it. We did make some progress. At the Stockholm Conference, which was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, governments agreed to a historic declaration, which moved the world community towards what we now call an Earth Charter. Then, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, as the Secretary General of that conference, I challenged governments to produce an Earth Charter.[1]
This obvious phase of implementation of what former UN Assistant Secretary General Robert Muller and Maurice Strong alike would acknowledge was “The Plan” was being developed on Muller’s Costa Rican turf in 1995.[2] For me 1995 was an interesting year. It was then I discovered the existence of another interesting “eminent personality,” in the form of one Dr. Javier Solana. He also has had enormous input in the “Alliance of Civilizations.
If the declared agenda of the Alliance of Civilizations of regulating religious schools and their curriculums seem potentially draconian, its incorporated “Earth Charter” is even stranger. It had a Vermont eerie coming out party, complete with drums and masks, preceding on September 9, 2001. This happened at Shelburne Farms, Vermont. “Eminent personalities” who were part of that party included Dr. Steven Rockefeller, Jane Goodall. New Age musician Paul Winter and “peace walker” Satish Kumar.  Clearly, their Moloch was not appeased. Only two tragic days later the Eastern USA skies were aflame. The Twin Towers burned, the Pentagon burned, and an assaulted plane crashed and burned over Pennsylvania. The ritual masks and pagan drumbeat to usher their version of a 21st Century “Ark of the Covenant” clearly had not inoculated the world against war.

Another source of both Alliance of Civilizations and The Earth Charter inputs include Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross. Author Wayne Peterson, a former United States State Department official and Fulbright Scholar executive wittingly or unwittingly reveals much of the possible agenda. He claims to personally knows Mikhail Gorbachev to be open devotee of “Maitreya, the Christ.”  This may be entirely possible. The Earth Charter website says it was “restarted” by Strong and Gorbachev “with the assistance of the government of the Netherlands.” Many New Age guides to Europe in my personal library say Holland is the New Age capital of Europe. Apart from the obvious Findhorn Community (Scotland) claims, this may well be true. As early as 1903 a major Theosophical world congress was held in Amsterdam. During the 1920’s Theosophists were vigorously working to smooth the way for world acceptance of a “Day of Declaration.” Jiddhu Krishnamurti was anointed by Annie Besant, then Theosophical Society leader to be the “new Christ” and lead the world into a “New Order.” Dutch Queen Wilhelmina was an open devotee of Krishnamurti and eagerly awaited that “Day of Declaration,” offering Dutch national radio to broadcast the awaited Maitreyan acceptance speech. World theosophists flocked to the Theosophists Holland Camp Ommen. There they camped and shared vegetarian picnics out while taking part in convocations with “sacred fires.”

At Eerde, Holland, Krishnamurti had a lavish castle formerly belonging to a member of Dutch nobility. There he spent pre-Day of Declaration days with his Annie Besant and other followers. Several years later, in World War II, the Nazi warriors used Camp Ommen as a concentration camp. After Krishnamurti failed to deliver the acceptance speech, or so the official version goes, Annie Besant supposedly dissolved the “Order of the Star” connected with the “Christ’s reappearance.” Reportedly, she returned moneys to donors. I say supposedly, because despite these historical representations, I have amassed a collection of Order of the Star publications going through the mid 1930s and it appears that meetings were going on in Holland as well. Perhaps it was God who was not ready rather than Krishnamurti who expressed regrets from time to time in later life that he had not fully fulfilled his role as “the vehicle for the Christ.”

This is the Earth Charter Initiative’s own version of the time and events:

"The World Commission on Environment and Development (aka 'the Brundtland Commission') called for 'a universal declaration' and 'new charter' to set 'new norms' to guide the transition to sustainable development. (Our Common Future, 1987)
"A draft UN Earth Charter was developed for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but the time for such a declaration was not right. The Rio Declaration became the statement of the achievable consensus at that time.
"In 1994, Maurice Strong (Chairman of the Rio Summit) and Mikhail Gorbachev, working through organizations they each founded (Earth Council and Green Cross International respectively), restarted the Earth Charter as a civil society initiative, with the help of the Government of the Netherlands. The initial drafting and consultation process drew on hundreds of international documents.
"Messrs. Strong and Gorbachev convened an independent Earth Charter Commission in 1997 to oversee the final development of the text and to come to agreement on a global consensus document.[3]
Bottom line: As one primary pillar of the now shaping Alliance of Civilizations, we have an Soviet atheist turned New Ager combining with an equally fervent Canadian billionaire devotee, both true believers in an alleged “Maitreya the Christ,” the latter particularly working openly with Lucis Trust, the offspring of Alice and Foster Bailey’s original “Lucifer Publishing Company.”

That such is taken seriously in more than esoteric circles is easily proved. One illustration is an article in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law on December 2, 2001. Had a Christian or Jew dare suggest that this was God’s judgment on an idolatrous world, the outcry would still be heard. However, this suggestion that we all join in common earth worship passed at least the scrutiny of editors of what was supposed to be a respected legal journal:
"World tragedies necessitate the reaction of a united global society dedicated to responsible action and committed to peace. Identifying a common motivation and mode of communication to which all individuals can relate is a prerequisite component to avoiding destruction and moving towards progress. Humanity's dependence upon the planet earth serves as the natural primary connection between all people. By joining this undeniable truth with the notions underpinning the Earth Charter,[1] a blue print for building a new foundation to address our current reality can be identified."
Where this is heading and where environmentalists and New Agers alike are harmonically converging is clearly in the direction of earth worship and beyond to universe/cosmos adoration. Bundled in with the concept is one of gratitude to [gasp!] Lucifer himself, whom Benjamin Crème proudly proclaimed on one unwilling radio debate he did with me in the early 1980s, “made a tremendous sacrifice for our planet.” Evidently Lucifer, per Crème, ran a Garden of Eden intervention challenging God to see that we properly “evolved” rather than vegetate in a tropical garden. As a result, per Crème, Lucifer is the “prodigal son.” It is startling in personal conversations I have had with some in those circles that God is expected to welcome Lucifer back with open arms. A related belief is that those forever barred from the new Utopian Eden are those who stood in Lucifer’s way. This is a strange perversion of Judeo/Christian theology, widely published from sources such as Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard and David Spangler. Lucis Trust has offered to cap it all off by allowing the world to use their “Great Invocation,” presumably a forced replacement to “The Lord’s Prayer” and “23rd Psalm.”

Such idolatry is condemned across the board by traditional monotheistic theology. Catholics as part of their baptismal rites say, “Do you reject Satan? The congregation is expected to answer, “I do.” “And all of his works? I do”

The biblical Book of Revelation contains a stern warning in chapter 14 that all should “fear God and give glory to Him for the hour of his judgment is come. Worship God who created the heaven, the earth, the seas, and the fountains of waters.” The Earth Covenant and its new bible called “the Book of Temenos” frighteningly reverse that command to one that inverts it to the very worship condemned: “If any man worships the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation.” Those worshiping the “beast and his image” and receiving the mark of his name were to “have no rest day nor night.”[4]

An even earlier proponent, working even closer to the time of the Krishnamurti era envisioned a scenario startlingly close to what now appears to be full process. H. G. Wells wrote in his 1928 book, THE OPEN CONSPIRACY; BLUEPRINTS FOR A WORLD REVOLUTION:
"Whenever possible, the Open Conspiracy will advance by illumination and persuasion. But it has to advance and even from the outset where it is not allowed to illuminate and persuade it must fight . . .in the face of unscrupulous opposition creative ideas must become aggressive, must define their enemies, and attack them. . . . The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for "nationality . . ."
Again, I say, "fasten your seatbelts, friends. We are in for a bumpy ride. Keep the faith!"

Footnotes:
1, See "Earth Council: Papers" and here.
2, In his UN retirement, Robert Muller moved to Costa Rica to chair the UN University there.
3, Origin and history of the Earth Charter
4, See Revelation (Apocalypse) Chapter 14, verses 6 through 12).


Comments: 1 – 200 of 303 Newer› Newest»
I did catch part of the show. I was ALARMED that US military chaplains were instructed to use NAR-type 'spiritual warfare' practice. I see this as BLATANTLY occult.
 
A couple years ago I commented on a local Christian talk shows something to the effect that Rick Warren was one of the most dangerous men within "Christendom." The host scoffed at the notion.

I don't think it takes a genius to see that Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan is pushing UN MDGs -- especially when one considers that Warren is on the board of Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

Perhaps this talk of Rick Warren will bring Richard Abanes - Warren's appointed or self-appointed apologist.
 
Are there any Christians you winghuts actually like? I mean apart from yourselves and the beo-nazi's over at microeffect??
 
Anon 8:15:

I don't know about any wingnuts; but, there are plenty of Christians I like. They're the ones who aren't wolves in sheeps clothing.

Do you think it's OK to push for UN Millennium Development goals? Do you even know what they are?
 
I know I'm among those who think theyre the elite of the faith right here at this blog. A bunch of wacked fundaMENTALists neo-nazi types. You dont really fight the new age, you contribute to it with your insane hatred of everybody who doesnt think just like you. wonder why it is that cumbey could only get a show on a weird fundie jew hating network?? and then to have the fruitcakes like those who post here as listeners. hmmm..whos the real enemy then?
 
Anon:

I don't understand why you would comment -- let alone read anything on here. Really, if you have nothing of substance to say whether pro or con, why bother?

And, you can count me as a fundamentalist using the strict definition of the word a la the fundamentals of math, etc. I don't feel that makes me in the slightest bit elite.
 
Oh yes, I remember. Someone defined wingnut.

A wingnut is a very useful piece of hardware, used to hold things together. It has wings that make it very useful when put in action. Without a wingnut in the right place, things can fall apart. I understand the person who first developed them got the inspiration from the picture of an angel.

Glad to help.
 
Unfinished business from the previous thread:

Recently Glenn Beck asked for information on Maurice Strong. The people at Free Republic posted much information about the connections between him, individuals and organizations, too much to summarize.
http://209.157.64.201/focus/news/2512355/posts?page=127

http://tinyurl.com/37lrvcc

The link also leads to the book Cloak of Green showing the connections between the government, the environmental movement and private business. Few will be able to buy a used or new copy, so here is a book review.
http://resourceclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/cloak-of-green-book-review.html

http://tinyurl.com/38gjdnv

Dorothy
 
Why didn't anyone comment on

Anonymous Susanna said...

The last paragraph of the following article is instructive.

THE U.S. CHINA CURRENCY DISPUTE

......The US-China currency dispute is a symptom of the non-system of international monetary relations. Fighting the cause of the dispute rather than dealing with the symptom is the way forward. If the Obama Administration were to apply its New Philosophy to the international monetary system and start considering its transformation by basing it on a carbon-based monetary standard, the dispute would be resolved and the world would become a very different place. The Institute’s Tierra Land of 2025 scenario spells out this new world together with the social processes that make this Great Monetary Transition possible. It proposes that nations pass a UN General Assembly resolution to establish the UN Commission of Experts on Monetary Transformation and Low Carbon, Climate-resilient Development that submit its Monetary Plan of Climate Action via the UN FCCC to the Rio 2012 Earth Summit where monetary global governance would become part of its global economic and environmental governance. In preparation of that Commission the IIMT has started to organize international professional working groups that are doing the research, education and action needed to have the world transition from the non-system in international monetary relations to a carbon-based international monetary system which being glue (Eichengreen 2008) would bind together and transform the global financial, economic and commercial systems....read entire article...

http://www.timun.net/blog/post.php?i=98
______________________________

IMHO, globally embracing the Terra (a.k.a. Tierra) based on the carbon standard could very well open the door wider to one world governemnt.

It is basically a currency based on hot air!!!

Wouldn't Al Gore and Maurice Strong (from his hidey hole in China) be thrilled!

Sounds like another species of socialism to me with a little "green" religion thrown in to make it look respectable.

Anyone ever heard of "inverted totalitarianism?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Inverted_totalitarianism
_________________________

Same circus - different clowns.
 
Oh wow. I just received this invitation in an email. Do you think it really can transform me the New Age way. It sounds so exciting.

From the email:
In the wonderful world of teleseminars, Quantum Healing, Consciousness and Soul is unique. It’s true that this amazing lineup of expert speakers, teachers and mentors will be helping you to tap into a vast wellspring of powerful, life-changing information and cutting edge, transformational tools for your body, health, relationships, finances and more. But this series takes healing and transformation a giant step farther… to help you reveal and align with the powerful core healing energies of your soul.

Quantum Healing, Consciousness and Soul is designed to be much more than just a learning opportunity... my intention is that it will be an authentically transformational space... a bridge toward a vibrantly healthy body... a clear, inspired mind ... and an aligned, empowered, illuminated life.

Click here to reserve your spot

http://www.kabbalahoftransformation.com/quantumhealing

Here are just some of the expert mentors and healers that you'll meet when you register for this FREE event:

Dr. Eric Pearl, Dr. Norm Shealy, Dr. Bruce Lipton, Donna Eden, Tapas Fleming, Brent Phillips, Dr. Gregg Braden, Richard Gordon, Dawson Church, Chunyi Lin, Barbara Stanny, Jon Gabriel, Simon Jacobson, Dr. Pat Carrington, YY Jacobson, Melissa Joy Jonsson, Richard Bartlett … and many more…

And of course, I'll be there, on each and every call, to represent YOU... making sure that your most burning questions get answered, that you receive absolutely the highest quality information... and the most transformational energetic vibration... the very best that each speaker has to give... to help you reveal and activate your soul's deepest healing powers.
....
And these people say they are real doctors. .......

Do you think that it is really teaching about the Kabbalah? That sounds so exotic.

Maybe 8:22 is one of those elite people who has come here to inform us of the wonders in strange thinking. Do share 8:22.
 
Nope. 8:22 is a Christian. But that doesnt matter here does it? Unless I grovle and agree with your stupid ideas Im an evil new ager right? LOL

Im as far from new age as it gets. I been reading here for about three weeks now and notice that whenever someone disagrees one of you fruitloops decides they are a new ager. Your in a self supporting delusion that treats any dissent as affirmation of your tinfoil hate notions.

What shiould concern people is that racists like the garbage said on this blog and like some others revealed here cumbeys show is on a racist fundie network. You scare me more than some idiot with a crystal.
 
He asked about winghuts not wingnuts. Different things.
 
In the Tierra Manifesto of 2009, which mentions the Earth Charter, it reads in part:

3. This Manifesto is presented to press the global political leadership into becoming
statesmen and stateswomen who are willing to think outside the box of present
international financial institutions and not use the IMF/IBRD as a crutch in
solving the economic crisis. As a matter of fact, the Tierra Solution upon which
this Tierra Manifesto of 2009 is based rests upon the theory that one can solve the
economic crisis only by resolving the climate crisis. The time has passed to treat
the economic and climate crises sequentially: no lasting solution is possible
without attacking both crises simultaneously.
Not doing this means measures that
may give some relief in the short term while aggravating both crises in the mid and
long-term
......read entire article...

http://www.ethicalmarkets.com
/2009/02/09/tierra-manifesto-2009/
_______________________________

As indicated in the TIERRA MANIFESTO, the Tierra concept is not anything new. It is an updated version of the "bancor."

BANCOR

Bancor is the name of the supranational currency that John Maynard Keynes was conceptualising in the years 1940-42 and which the United Kingdom proposed to introduce after the Second World War. This newly created supranational currency should then be used in international trade as a unit of account within a multilateral barter clearing system – the International Clearing Union –, which would also have to be newly found. The Bancor was to be backed by barter and its value expressed in weight of gold. However, this British proposal of introducing a supranational currency could not prevail against the interests of the United States, which then at the Bretton Woods conference established the U.S. dollars as world key currency.

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008 Keynes' proposal is winning in importance: In a speech delivered in March 2009 entitled Reform the International Monetary System, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People's Bank of China called Keynes' bancor approach "farsighted" and proposed the adoption of IMF SDRs as a global reserve currency as a response to the financial crisis of 2007–2010. He argued that a national currency was unsuitable as a global reserve currency because of the Triffin dilemma - the difficulty faced by reserve currency issuers in trying to simultaneously achieve their domestic monetary policy goals and meet other countries' demand for reserve currency. A similar analysis can be found in the Report of the United Nation's "Experts on reforms of the international monetary and financial system" as well as in the IMF's study published on April 13, 2010.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor

cont....
 
cont....

Interestingly, what we are now experiencing under the current administration is "Keynsian economics" which involves "fiscal interventions" ( a.k.a. stimulus, bailouts, deficit spending ) on the part of big government.

Keynes' central theme was: "the modern capitalist economy does not automatically work at top efficiency, but can be raised to that level by the intervention and influence of the government."

One can only imagine how this might translate into a global approach if a one world government were established.

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_
Maynard_Keynes
_____________________________

Again, in the TIERRA MANIFESTO, the "tierra solution" involves
"treating the economic and climate crises sequentially: no lasting solution is possible
without attacking both crises simultaneously."

The only problem is that the "climate crisis" turned out to be bogus when it was discovered that data had been tampered with and manipulated. This was the scandal that came to be known as "Climategate."

Were it not for Climategate, the Copenhagen summit would have been the equivalent of winning the lottery for looter states who have no qualms about mooching off of other countries without making any adjustments in their own bad spending habits.

But at the end of the day, one has to wonder.....If the climate crisis was artificially created, isn't it possible that the economic crisis could have been likewise artificially created?

With people like George Soros bringing about the downfall of various markets and currencies ( i.e. the British pound ) such a possibility is not too farfetched.
 
Unfinished business from the previous thread:

Recently Glenn Beck asked for information on Maurice Strong. The people at Free Republic posted much information about the connections between him, individuals and organizations, too much to summarize.
http://209.157.64.201/focus/news/2512355/posts?page=127

http://tinyurl.com/37lrvcc

The link also leads to the book Cloak of Green showing the connections between the government, the environmental movement and private business. Few will be able to buy a used or new copy, so here is a book review.
http://resourceclearinghouse.blogspot.com/2010/04/cloak-of-green-book-review.html

http://tinyurl.com/38gjdnv

Dorothy
 
China Stakes Claim To South Texas Oil, Gas

http://tinyurl.com/2a52jzh
 
The Tierra Monetary Pathway as a carbon-based bancor or Bancor2
Post By gaia1 in IMF/WorldBank

The Tierra Monetary Pathway can be considered to be an updated version of the bancor, the international reserve currency that was proposed by John Maynard Keynes as part of his vision of monetary reform at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference of 1944, better known as the Bretton Woods Conference. The bancor currency, composed of the price of some 30 commodities, was part of his proposed international clearing union that could act as a bank by issuing bancors.

His vision was not accepted and was replaced with the US approach that led to the establishment of the IMF and the World Bank, both of which were and are still controlled by the U.S. government by the Fund’s and Bank’s weighted voting systems.

This updated version of the bancor, which can be called bancor2, is based upon the Tierra international reserve currency and its monetary architecture. Bancor2 is a modern version of the Keynesian vision that would use the carbon-based international reserve currency of the Tierra and a UN Monetary Board to deal with the climate crisis. It would provide an institutionalized means of funding for mitigation and adaptation measures and development of the Millennium Development Goals via the carbon account of a nation’s balance of payments
......read more...

http://www.timun.net/blog/post.php
?i=57
 
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

http://tinyurl.com/2ab7uto

Comments from Harold Lewis - a scientist who had been a member of the American Physical Sociey for 67 years!

...It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare...

This scheming at APS [American Physical Society] HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst...


Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

 
Susanna wrote:

But at the end of the day, one has to wonder.....If the climate crisis was artificially created, isn't it possible that the economic crisis could have been likewise artificially created?

Absolutely! It's clear to me that the US economy was sabotaged as we look at the sub-prime mortgage scandal and the resulting bailout plus the record earnings by some as a direct result of the bailout.
 
Winghut -- now I'm all confused. I looked it up. There are Wing Huts around the country. There's a Wing Hut in Aurora, CO with 30 flavors. That's pretty exciting. Another in Florida, Tennessee and West Virginia. Wow. But I don't know what that has to do with the New Age movement? Are customers at Wing Huts part of some sort of cult? Maybe the person who wrote about Wing Huts is doing product placement like those products that appear on television shows and in movies. If so, that would be very inappropriate posting here. Shame on you.

However maybe there is a link between the Earth Charter and Wing Huts that we don't know about. Are Wing Huts sponsors of the Earth Charter? Wow. We might be on to something very new here.
 
The New Agers are serving WINGS?!?! I should go scope out more of their meetings, I love buffalo wings.
 
Here is the secret financial network behind George Soros


QUANTUM GROUP OF FUNDS

The Quantum Group of Funds are privately owned hedge funds based on Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles) and Cayman Islands. They are currently advised by George Soros through his company Soros Fund Management. Soros started the fund in the early 1970s along with Jim Rogers. The shareholders of the funds are not publicly disclosed although it is known that the Rothschild family and other wealthy Europeans put $6 million into the funds in 1969.

In 1992, the lead fund, Soros's Quantum Fund became famous for "breaking" the Bank of England, forcing it to devalue the pound. Soros had bet his entire fund in a short sale on the ultimately fulfilled prediction that the British currency would drop in value, a coup that netted him a profit of $1 billion (see Black Wednesday). In 1997, Soros was blamed for forcing sharp devaluations in Southeast Asian currencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Quantum_Group_of_Funds
______________________________

BLACK WEDNESDAY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Black_Wednesday
______________________________

1997 ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
1997_Asian_Financial_Crisis
_______________________________

Soros and his Quantum fund were also reportedly involved in the Pesos crisis in Mexico in 1994...the one in which President Clinton wound up bailing out the peso after doing an end run around Congress.

CRISIS TRIGGERED BY THE QUANTUM FUND
http://www.p168.info/crisis
-triggered-by-the-quantum-fund.html
________________________________

HOW DID CLINTON BAIL OUT MEXICO?

http://answers.encyclopedia.com/
question/did-clinton-bail-out
-mexico-605534.html
 
Craig,

I am also mindful of the Cloward-Piven strategy which is the strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.


BARACK OBAMA AND THE STRATEGY OF MANUFACTURED CRISIS

Sept. 28, 2008

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.


Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.


But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.


The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis


In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?


Why?


One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.


cont....
 
cont...


I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.


The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:


The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.


Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:


"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)




Newsmax rounds out the picture:


Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.


In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:


By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention
.....read entire article...

http://www.americanthinker.com
/2008/
09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html
 
Craig said...

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

http://tinyurl.com/2ab7uto

Comments from Harold Lewis - a scientist who had been a member of the American Physical Sociey for 67 years!

...It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare...

This scheming at APS [American Physical Society] HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst...

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
 
Susanna,

I didn't know the history or the name for it; but, I think it's obvious when one reviews parts of history. But, I do think it really does not matter who is sitting in the White House anymore -- the agenda will still get done. There may be a different "face" and what seems like a different political persuasion; but, for example, it's clear both Bush's were part of NWO strategies just as much as Clinton and Obama. There were different roles. Just as Marilyn Ferguson said that if one part of the interlocked network is hindered, another will take over (my paraphrase).

I liken this to what I see as the different roles of the International House of Prayer and the more blatant players within the New Apostolic Reformation within Christendom. Each have their own part to play within the larger picture.
 
Global warming is a fraud and on 10/10/10 that was one of the things for the powers that be.
 
Susanna,

Once again you are spot on. You stated "If the climate crisis was artificially created, isn't it possible that the economic crisis could have been likewise artificially created?"

I don't know if I would say this is 100% accurate, but it has to be close. As we were discussing at the beginning of the crises, those in charge understood they were driving the car over the cliff. The public is beginning to be made aware of this through media outlets now, which in itself is dangerous because it will leave them clamoring for change yet again.

The credibility of man made climate change did take a hit, but beyond those of us who took a hard look at the facts a large percentage were caught up in the media spin on the issue. The weather anomalies of this past year will only serve to repackage and sell the myth to the public.

If sold as a cure all, many may be willing to curb doubts on climate change since the word tax won't be directly attached to it. Beyond taxes few have any idea about monetary policy, so hoodwinked they shall be. Not only that but it could even be spun so that people are left fearing about how a basket currency may strengthen enemies, and the Tierra would leave everyone on a level playing field.

Very interesting dynamics at work. While there is a glitch for the PR to overcome, I can easily name a few selling points that may over take it.
 
Craig,
Right on and here are my thoughts lately regarding up coming election and the Tea party. Note that Tea Partiers are a convergence of NARites, conseratives of the Beck and Savage ilk, and others. Recently been brought to a thought of part of God judging the church is that of allowing those who profess Jesus but chase after other lusts to be given over and allowed their lusts. We will see a sweeping of these into power and without "family" influence per say. We may even see an apparent change with court rulings and such that give the appearance of correction. YEt, it will not be getting on the right path and then the precursor toward the great crisis. You can also expect and anticipate that "immigration" politics will heat up and tighten up. Ultimately serving the PTB agenda on migration. There is a path, the path is leading to further polarization. I have no doubt of sweeping changes to Congress this next election and the further rise of "Tea Party" as God delivers others over to their lusts and ungodly desires.
 
Obama Administration Appeals Gay Marriage Ruling

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS
TRE69B63U20101012
 
Craig,

Re: But, I do think it really does not matter who is sitting in the White House anymore -- the agenda will still get done. There may be a different "face" and what seems like a different political persuasion; but, for example, it's clear both Bush's were part of NWO strategies just as much as Clinton and Obama.

Bingo!

It translates into "same circus, different clowns."
 
Go to website of Columbus Dispatch newspaper today and read about The Family
 
I should state further why I believe the US economic crisis was planned which, in turn, furthered the growing world crisis. The US is the last great nation standing in the way of global governance. By and large, Americans want US sovereignty to remain; and, hence, most will do what they can to retain our freedoms. So, the best way to disempower Americans is to take away our standard of living to which most Americans will cry out as we've become spoiled. These disenfranchised will be more likely to want a hand out from the government which then gives rise to more governmental power relative to the individual.

With these government hand outs will come increased losses of both personal freedoms and clout as more and more power moves from the individual to the government who will, in turn, hand over American sovereignty to the globalists of which many in charge are a part of anyway.

I've not studied enough politics to know exactly how this plays out; but, I do see the end results bit by bit in hindsight. Of course others on here see it better in advance as you have studied it more.

I'm focusing more on the religion side of it -- specifically from a Christian standpoint. From what I see it's plain that both Word of Faith and extreme pentecostalism were were contemporaneous with the advancement of global governance which really began to grow around WWII. Word of Faith has its roots in the teachings of E W Kenyon of whom Kenneth E. Hagin drew his teachings to the point of actually being accused of plagiarization. Kenyon.

Kenyon's work predated WWII and Hagin picked it up and futher popularized it. Hagin's era predates the aberrant pentecostal movement known as Latter Rain by a few years although both are basically contemporaneous with roots in the mid-40s. Most think these are divergent streams, yet as I do more research it appears Latter Rain has the same root as Word of Faith although it's more outwardly mystical.

Without getting into details, WoF belief is that faith is a force the believer can use at will and that God must relent when said force is used. According to the belief, God Himself used this force of faith in the Creation account when He said, "Let there be light." This really boils down to witchcraft.

cont:
 
cont:

Similarly in Latter Rain beliefs (and, of course WoF), adherents can take Biblical passages and "declare" them forcing God to do things for the adherent. I'm finding other tenets of this WoF belief system in Bill Johnson's teachings as I research part II of the article I'm writing. And, both WoF and LR have roots in Theosophy.

Similarly, while IHOP is seen as being different from typical NAR doctrine the roots are the same. Both claim Bob Jones as their main prophet. And, while both claim different eschatologies -- NAR is postmillennial while Bickle of IHOP claims his own "Apostolic Premillennialism" -- the basic outcome is the same. The church will rise victorious in the endtimes defeating her enemies while winning "a billion souls" for Christ.

Converting "a billion souls" just flies in the face of many Biblical passages not least of which is the 'narrow' vs. 'wide' gates. Clearly, this will not happen; however, just as clearly to me "a billion souls" will actually be lost to the antichrist.

So, who will be the enemies this "church" will concur? A: True professing Christians. This is where Joel's Army comes in -- that portion of the Manifested Sons of God who will be the "combat" portion of this elite group who will have attained their resurrection bodies this side of "salvation" -- or so they think.

I have to say that it gets frustrating as many refuse to look at or lend any thought to what I feel are some very alarming trends. I posted a very brief article showing Joel Osteen (who I term "WoF light") doing a promo for Che Ahn -- a well known member of the NAR and vocal supporter for Todd Bentley and Lakeland -- on Ahn's own website. More and more these aberrant streams are converging.
 
Sorry in above "concur" should be "conquer"
 
I should have posted a clearer comment. The Columbus Dispatch reports today about a group of apostate church pastors who with the help of the IRS are trying to sic the IRS on The Family and the Coes. Isn't this a house divided against itself?
 
Read this for an eye-opener regarding Rick Warren's "non-profits:"

http://tinyurl.com/27l6joq

Quoting from Tim Wirth's blog:

I think its disingenuous to make people think you are giving money away while paying yourself a beefy salary from the very foundation you set up for your charity.
 
I see the Group Think has kicked in. LOL

Just like typical Jew haters.
 
Rick Warren Cites Hitler Youth as Model For Christian Dedication

http://tinyurl.com/7j9w8t
 
The Purpose Driven Life Takers (Part 1)

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.

http://tinyurl.com/s8jr4
 
JD,

From you link above:

He [Warren] describes himself as a "stealth evangelist" and describes his training programs as "a stealth movement, that's flying beneath the radar

That's an appropriate self-description; however, it doesn't point to Christianity.
 
Rick Warren, Facism & The Family

http://tinyurl.com/2apsqwe
 
Rick Warren involved with the Council on Foreign Relations? You bet!

http://tinyurl.com/2849bng

In fact he is listed on the membership roster.

http://tinyurl.com/25hcgun
 
Rick Warren, member and participant at the World Economic Forum.

http://tinyurl.com/22qcy8m
 
To the Anonymous poster at 3:50 pm, on the previous topic page, 'MADARIAGA FOUNDATION: "BRETTON WOODS NEEDS A 3G PLUS'

You wrote at 3:50 (have you removed your post yet?) "To a former catholic
You really believe that the bible was bound and in full circulation in 100 AD? The printing press wasn't even invented until the 1500s. How were the books chosen? I am sure there were thousands of writings (papyrus, scrolls, etc.). Use your intelligence, I know it's in there!"

Your own words expose your ignorance. The Holy Bible, and the means to effectively create copies [have you heard of scribes?], and distribute it easily were in place, according to acedemics, by the early Christians, long before Constantine and his creation of the Mother of Harlots, RCism ever existed!


"Certain historians of Greek Civilization have claimed that papyrus books - that is, rolls - must have existed in Greece from the Homeric period (8 to 9 Centuries B.C.) with leather rolls going back to an even earlier time. However, the earliest surviving rolls of papyrus date from only the 4th Century B.C...

The very word biblion [i.e., book], comes from the material byblos (papyrus)The famous Dead Sea scrolls are, of course, in roll form, but the more recently discovered Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels [we're interested here in indicating an example pertaining to era, not in promoting the false gospels of the Gnostics] are in codex [books in leaf form & bound, as we identify books as being today].

It was in Rome that the wax tablet books [that is, Rome before Constantine, and we know that Rome occupied Palestine & Greece during the time of Our Lord's first comming, and during the period immediately following the Resurrection] were replaced by parchment leaves, or membranae, referred to in Martial. There were several virtues to this new type of codex. First, a text written in codex could be easily cited, a convenience QUICKLY realized by CHRISTIAN AUTHORS & SCRIBES [Well before RCism & the Council of Nicea!], who perhaps took over the codex form under the influence of Roman lawyers [i.e., well before RCism even existed]: EASE OF REFERENCE [because rolls are long and cumbersome] WAS IMPORTANT TO both legal & PATRISTIC SCHOLARSHIP. Second, the codex could receive writing on both sides of the leaf. Third, it was compact and could therefore store much longer texts. Fourth, it was more easily storable...

The codex form of the book was taken up VERY QUICKLY by CHRISTIANS, and soon only pagan works [excepting legal documents] were written in roll form. Perhaps it was the advantage of having an ENTIRE BIBLE, or at least a testament or commentary [27 NT books of which could still be easily stored, (along with OT books)],in one volume [i.e., text gathered into item as we currently understand the word volume, as opposed to its eytomological volume as the word is latin for roll(from evolvere =to roll)]; or perhaps it was the sheer "difference" from the pagan form [excepting pagan Rome's legal documentation] that attracted the CHRISTIANS. What ever the reasons, BY the THIRD CENTURY [200 A.D. onwards, about 120 years before Constantine] the roll was in decline, as was pagan literature itself...

All the above cited from, 'Textual Scholarship, An Introduction', by D.C. Greetham, Pub. by, Garland Publishing Inc., New York & London, 1994. ISBN: 0-8153-1791-3

So, early Christians very quickly adopted the codex form & well before 200 A.D., as by the 3rd Century [200A.D. onwards] the roll format was already in decline. It is therefore entirely feasable and highly probable that Christians had begun using the codex format by 100 A.D., if not before! And, if there were some still using rolls, so be it, but they still would've had the bible written down, though the acedemic explanation is, to repeat, that they were aready using codex, writing in the lingua franca of the Middle East & nearby countires, i.e., Greek not Latin!
 
To the Anonymous poster at 3:50 pm, on the previous topic page, 'MADARIAGA FOUNDATION: "BRETTON WOODS NEEDS A 3G PLUS'

You wrote at 3:50 (have you removed your post yet?) "To a former catholic
You really believe that the bible was bound and in full circulation in 100 AD? The printing press wasn't even invented until the 1500s. How were the books chosen? I am sure there were thousands of writings (papyrus, scrolls, etc.). Use your intelligence, I know it's in there!"

Your own words expose your ignorance. The Holy Bible, and the means to effectively create copies [have you heard of scribes?], and distribute it easily were in place, according to acedemics, by the early Christians, long before Constantine and his creation of the Mother of Harlots, RCism ever existed!


"Certain historians of Greek Civilization have claimed that papyrus books - that is, rolls - must have existed in Greece from the Homeric period (8 to 9 Centuries B.C.) with leather rolls going back to an even earlier time. However, the earliest surviving rolls of papyrus date from only the 4th Century B.C...

The very word biblion [i.e., book], comes from the material byblos (papyrus)The famous Dead Sea scrolls are, of course, in roll form, but the more recently discovered Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels [we're interested here in indicating an example pertaining to era, not in promoting the false gospels of the Gnostics] are in codex [books in leaf form & bound, as we identify books as being today].

It was in Rome that the wax tablet books [that is, Rome before Constantine, and we know that Rome occupied Palestine & Greece during the time of Our Lord's first comming, and during the period immediately following the Resurrection] were replaced by parchment leaves, or membranae, referred to in Martial. There were several virtues to this new type of codex. First, a text written in codex could be easily cited, a convenience QUICKLY realized by CHRISTIAN AUTHORS & SCRIBES [Well before RCism & the Council of Nicea!], who perhaps took over the codex form under the influence of Roman lawyers [i.e., well before RCism even existed]: EASE OF REFERENCE [because rolls are long and cumbersome] WAS IMPORTANT TO both legal & PATRISTIC SCHOLARSHIP. Second, the codex could receive writing on both sides of the leaf. Third, it was compact and could therefore store much longer texts. Fourth, it was more easily storable...

The codex form of the book was taken up VERY QUICKLY by CHRISTIANS, and soon only pagan works [excepting legal documents] were written in roll form. Perhaps it was the advantage of having an ENTIRE BIBLE, or at least a testament or commentary [27 NT books of which could still be easily stored, (along with OT books)],in one volume [i.e., text gathered into item as we currently understand the word volume, as opposed to its eytomological volume as the word is latin for roll(from evolvere =to roll)]; or perhaps it was the sheer "difference" from the pagan form [excepting pagan Rome's legal documentation] that attracted the CHRISTIANS. What ever the reasons, BY the THIRD CENTURY [200 A.D. onwards, about 120 years before Constantine] the roll was in decline, as was pagan literature itself...

All the above cited from, 'Textual Scholarship, An Introduction', by D.C. Greetham, Pub. by, Garland Publishing Inc., New York & London, 1994. ISBN: 0-8153-1791-3

So, early Christians very quickly adopted the codex form & well before 200 A.D., as by the 3rd Century [200A.D. onwards] the roll format was already in decline. It is therefore entirely feasable and highly probable that Christians had begun using the codex format by 100 A.D., if not before! And, if there were some still using rolls, so be it, but they still would've had the bible written down, though the acedemic explanation is, to repeat, that they were aready using codex, writing in the lingua franca of the Middle East & nearby countires, i.e., Greek not Latin!
 
Where I've written acedemic in last post, it should read academic, as in academy or academia... still, ...
 
My personal opinion is that Glenn Beck is doing an excellent job of waking many up to the realities of this new evil World Order. He may not have full understanding, but I do believe he is on the case with the understanding he has.

Dorothy, I have that book CLOAK OF GREEN somewhere in my collection, but it may take me months to dig down to it.

Constance
 
Susanna,

This is why I'm hoping people here are truly reading and digesting this kind of information. It's like the book "1984." Who's controlling the information? China does an excellent job at telling its people what to believe. I don't know how many people in China actually believe what its government tells them, but no one dares speak out.

If we're not careful, that could be us. However, I really think the biggest danger in our country is just a lack of knowledge. As long as people can watch their shows, listen to their music, and entertain themselves, I don't think most Americans really care what happens. And they're happy being told what to think, as long as they've got they're IPods.
 
Consider this quote by Doug Coe in an exclusive interview he gave to a Professor Throckmorton:

"During the interview, I told him I was surprised by the different religious groups represented
in the Fellowship events I had attended. Coe replied that the teachings of Jesus are "totally
cross-cultural and form the bridge for common ground. What unites all the major religions,"

he said, "is Jesus." [Doug Coe]


Christian? That is FUNDAMENTALIST NEW AGEISM! Paul N. Temple must have beamed in delight!

Constance
 
Constance, sure, perhaps Glen Beck is exposing some things, but it is from a particular side and with a particular agenda. Compare what he says and states with folks from "The Family." Compare what he said even with Obama's words. Now while there are differences in perspective they essentially say same things and point to "eternal truths." His "Black Robe Brigade" is a wide ranging group, focus is all on "moral structure" the "importance of America" not really all that different than "The Family" or even NAR, IHOP, Dominionist views. Add in that both the Rally and Glen Beck have a relationship with Newt...
 
Great info on Rick Warren, JD. Thanks.
 
And dont forget that Beck is one of those evil New Age Mormons!! (gasp!)

I bet he doesnt even hate Jews like the rest of you here. (double gasp!)
 
Yes, Peacebringer7 - I agree with you.

While some view Glen Beck as our only hope and media 'voice' these days, he may very well be a 'tool.'

Let us all pray for discernment, and continue to be vigilant - whle keeping our eyes and ears wide open.
 
Anon 3:21

I always thought Beck hated Mormons and New Agers, but what makes you think he's Jewish? I always assumed he was Catholic.
 
Peacebringer, I think you completely underestimate the problems that have come with informing others of the behind the scenes facts. Constance could give you an earful about what happens to people who work to inform others.

Beck has given names, dates and places to a very wide audience in a short period of time. In the 30 plus years I've been following this, I've seen no one, Christian, Mormon, Jewish or secular, reaching such a large audience with the kind of information he has been providing. Yes there have been individuals who have tried to reach out to let others know what is going on. Their audiences have been much smaller because the power was with the opposition NWO and NA people who worked to defeat them. Their following wasn't large enough. Most people who agreed with them sat on their hands, rationalizing that someone else would save the situation.

Why can't you just take the gift you've been given without throwing all kinds of allegations around that have no facts to back them up. I don't know why he hasn't been shut down. Neither do you. It may be that enough got out to a large enough audience in a short enough time that that he couldn't be shut down.

Now my view of both the political and "spiritual" parts of New Age is that it is a movement that it is necessary to fight it no matter what religion one has faith in. During the last 100 years enough Christians or Jews could have gotten together to get the information out. They didn't.

I really don't think that there is any chance of people converting to Mormonism as a result of his work. In fact he probably has kept the Mormonism low key for the same reason he has not mentioned the New Age movement. Many listeners would be completely turned off.

You may think you are attacking Beck along. What you are doing is attacking all of the information he has provided to you free of charge.

Dorothy
 
Rick Warren truly believes that the Church should have a role in all these worldly things. This is how, he believes, the Kingdom of God is going to be built.

I have to tell you, his idea for building churches is about how many people you get in the doors. This means more people will get to know Jesus.

When my church decided to adopt this Purpose-driven stuff, we initially did see a spike in attendance. However, as quickly as they came, they must have all left because attendance is significantly down. This was the case before the tornado hit the church. If church is simply about packing people in, the problem is there's always a church that can do it better. We Methodists always had a favorite hymn of what really builds a church (the Church's One Foundation). It must have a foundation built on Jesus Christ. I think this has gotten lost some where. It's still in the hymnal.
 
Dorothy, I did an extesnsive examination of his speech. Now the focus was on true repentance: http://wp.me/p8N6Q-lp

But Dorothy I listened to what the man said. Are you aware of the "Black Robe Brigrade?" You aware of his "American scriptures" perspective? Glenn Beck is using same words as obama. He fits in line with the working of Family. So this is not an instance of how hard it is to get truth out there. It is clear, take Albert Molher recent posts on Yoga and the backlash received resulting in another article.

Again Glen Becks rally was endoresed and even facilitated by Newt Gringrich. So, dorothy, why the response to Glen Beck.
 
Jesus never quoted Socrates,
Plato or Aristotle.
He could have.
Jesus never quoted
Confucious or Lau Tsu either.
Jesus only quoted The Torah,
(Moses), and The prophets of
the Holy Scriptures, a.k.a. The
Holy Bible, including everything
in The Psalms, and the Proverbs
and Ecclesiastes and Job and all
the so-called minor Prophets,
though none are minor, and
maybe especially David and
Soloman who were also kings,
of course.
Jesus did not quote the then
Mishna or its' Talmud, except
a few times in order to point
out that something in there was
a lie. He refers to it as the
scribes' and Pharasees' traditions.

Jesus never quoted Ovid.
Jesus never quoted the
Gilgamesh Epic, or any books
from Egypt or Babylon.
He could have, but he didn't.
Jesus only quoted the Bible.
He Is the One who wrote it.
The Author and finisher
of the faith.
I'd have to say He Is
Sola Scriptura.

God says, speaking to
Joshua, almost as an epilogue
to the Torah?, in Joshua, chapter
one at verse eight:
"This book of the Law shall not
depart out of your mouth but you
shall meditate thereon day and
night, that you may observe to
do according to all that is written
therein; for then you shall succeed
and prosper."
 
To "Anonymous 10:31"

Again...use your intelligence. Most people were illiterate and the books of the bible were very costly to produce, but I'm sure everyone had one. Mass distribution, definitely!

Before the advent of the printing press, the only way to duplicate a document or book was to copy it by hand. Probably the first copies of writing were made by engraving symbols on a slab of rock. A more temporary copy could be made by using a stylus on beeswax. The ancient invention of ink or dye enabled early scribes to make marks on animal hides, which could be scrubbed and used again.

A great leap forward took place when the Egyptians began using papyrus. This plant, found along the Nile, was cut into strips, soaked in water, and then pressed into sheets. While the Old Testament was first copied on leather scrolls, the use of papyrus soon became the favorite of Bible copyists. The sheets of papyrus were sewed together and placed between two pieces of wood for covers. This type of book was called a codex. Actually the term Bible comes from the Greek word for "papyrus plant" (biblos). The oldest surviving manuscript of any part of the New Testament is a papyrus fragment containing part of John 18. Scholars estimate that it was written about 125 AD.

Around 320 the codex book form replaced the roll or scroll, and parchment made from the skin of sheep or goats replaced papyrus. Also around this time the Roman emperor Constantine became a Christian and authorized the production of many copies of the Scriptures. Now the making of copies of the Bible began in earnest, but it was still a huge undertaking. Nor was much translation attempted. Probably the first translation of the New Testament was into Latin in 175. By the year 600, the Gospels had been translated into only eight languages.

With this copying and translation activity, a confusing variety of Scriptures began to circulate through the early church. Finally, the Pope commissioned the great scholar Jerome to make a definitive translation into Latin, which was completed in 405. For nearly a thousand years this translation, known as the Vulgate, reigned supreme. While many translations were made, a church council in Toulouse, France, in 1229 forbade anyone who was not a priest from owning a Bible. Nevertheless, "underground" translation and circulation of the Bible continued.

The work of copying the Scriptures was undertaken in earnest in the monasteries in the Middle Ages. Several thousand monasteries were established across Europe, and for many of the monks making copies of the Scriptures was their chief task. They became the true guardians of the text and produced literally thousands of magnificent Bibles. Teams of scribes and artists worked with parchment to produce incredibly beautiful works of art. A scribe taking dictation might use as many as 80 quills a day, and artists embellished the work with intricate designs and illustrations.

By the late Middle Ages, the production of both religious and secular texts passed to professional copyists. Booksellers placed shops near the universities and 2 cathedral schools, and so the book trade mushroomed. Of course, most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate, and so picture Bibles full of wonderful illustrations became popular.

cont...
 
cont...

Because of the huge size of complete Bibles, they were divided into several volumes, and each was very costly. Only the rich and the universities could afford them. Into this situation came a great revolutionary named John Wycliffe, whose central doctrine was, "Every Christian ought to study this book because it is the whole truth!" Wycliffe inspired the first complete translation of the Scriptures into English. He also lashed out against the power and riches of the church establishment, and became a very popular leader at Oxford. Inevitably, he was condemned by the archbishop and was fired from Oxford; however, his conviction of the authority of the Bible rather than the Pope stirred great controversy. Despite the church's efforts to suppress the Bibles, the common people were at last able to receive and read God's Word.

Today we are pretty casual about this great treasure, so readily available to us. We do well to stop for a moment to realize that we can actually hold in our hands the precious revelation of God Himself. It costs us less than an hour's wage, rather than a year's salary, as it once did. The temptation now is to treat the ancient word casually as well. But from this ink and paper springs the ageless gospel of hope for this life and the life to come. It is our priceless heritage.
 
Hey Paul,

Sola Scriptura is nice but some friends of mine were in the Algarve last year and they said it was much better. Great beaches, wonderful food - real value for money. Gotta watch out for those earthquakes though. And don't even get me started on those pagan wingnuts on their way back from Fatima.

What do you think about Lanzarote?
 
Peacebringer,
Are you saying that Beck has to be exactly the kind of Christian you are before you listen to what he has to say on political matters? Won't you acknowledge that there can be a group religious leaders who have the Bible in common? Who have moral values in common? Moral values that are in complete opposition to those who follow the "spiritual" end of the NA movement. That's the bottom line you know.

It appears to me that Molher is more worried about Beck than the growing paganism in the culture. Mohler is
President of the The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. That's a position of power. Let's see how many churches he can persuade Constance to speak at, complete with speaker fees that are more than a collection plate. He isn't letting anyone know about the New Age movement.

Newt Gingrich can be totally discounted. He will be whatever anyone wants him to be. Not everyone knows that. Some of us know that, but not everyone.

No, I don't think of Beck as the second coming. I just see him as a person in the right time and place to give others a warning about what politically is going on. He hasn't run from that job.

Dorothy
 
Anon 2:48,

Thanks, I tried to provide pieces that provide more insight into where Warren is coming from when he speaks. One can white wash a lot with verbiage, but certain things will always bleed through. I thought the rosters his name could be found on might add a little more to the conversation as well.
 
Re Glenn Beck,

My personal opinion based on the present scanty knowledge I have is that he is well intentioned and trying to sound alarms. He's not perfect. Neither are the rest of us. Take the wheat, leave the chaff. Write him nice letters about your points of disagreement, respectfully suggesting he might want to augment his research with the points you feel he has missed.

At least, that's my perspective, for now at least until I find much more damning evidence on the subject.

Constance
 
Right now if I had to choose between buying a used car from any of the following, I'd probably be most inclined to buy it from Glenn Beck:

1. Maurice Strong
2. Steven Rockefeller
3. Al Gore
4. Rick Warren
5. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown
6. Glenn Beck
7. Dave Hunt

That is not to say I agree with Glenn Beck's theology, I don't.

Constance
 
So, lets see..the Vatican with its new age humanistic garbage is okay with you, and so is mormonism, as long as they say what you want them to.

Thanx for clarifying.
 
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/141203/book_review_the_hidden_dangers_of_the.html
 
Cumbey a false watchman:http://www.moriel.org/articles/sermons/watchmen_who_are_not_watchmen.htm
 
Herescope has up probably the best yet in their current series: Great Awakening or Great Deadening. It covers much more on Rifkin and the current rise of dominionism.
 
Bettle Creek David 12:32

You are absolutely correct. China wants to present a facade of "democracy," but in reality, the regime in China is anything but!

As you said:

As long as people can watch their shows, listen to their music, and entertain themselves, I don't think most Americans really care what happens.

This is the American form of the Roman "Panem et Circenses" ("Bread and Circuses") - which is the usual means by which dictators try to persuade people to forget the loss of their freedom.

BREAD AND CIRCUSES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
______________________________

Perhaps out of a desire to look more "respectable," China seems to be moving more towards a more technologically based "inverted totalitarian" system. In fact, China has a whole city (Shenzhen) that has been placed under the technological yoke of RFID control.
China may be planning to similarly move the whole country in that direction.

Of course, if the default global currency were to become the Tierra, the system would already be in place in China to control and keep track of everyone's carbon credits in addition to every other aspect of everyone's daily life.

CHINA TO ISSUE RFID EMBEDDED ID CARDS

Work history, religion, police record, and reproductive history to be tracked


August 11, 2007

By Daniel Taylor

As reported by the New York Times, China is set to begin issuing computerized RFID enabled identification cards to 12.4 million people in the city of Shenzhen.

"Data on the chip will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial “one child” policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card."


cont...
 
To Anonymous 6:10

"false watchman"

Moriel/Prasch has never once tried to talk to me, contact me, and they have backed people who were busy spreading disinformation. I have had recent disagreements with Barbara Aho; nevertheless, the information she had on that "ministry" appeared accurate to me. Tal Brooke whom they adamantly defended tried his very best to stop my work even in the 1980s. He was allied first with Sai Baba ("chief western disciple"), then allegedly became a Christian; HOWEVER, he was spreading the EUSTACE MULLINS brand of extreme anti-Semitism. He copied part of my writings in his book WHEN THE WORLD WILL BE AT ONE. Barbara Aho may have hit the nail on the head as regards part of the problem with some of the Discernment Ministries as well. My jury is still fully out on that one.

The false watchman were Moriel/Prasch!

As I said before, I held my peace on much of this for years, but it is time that people learned just how insidious and dirty this long war which started for me personally in 1981, the year I started researching and lecturing about the increasingly apparent dangers of the New Age Movement.

CONSTANCE
 
cont....

In 2006 China's Ministry of Public Security announced plans to issue 1.3 billion cards utilizing RFID technology.

The vice president for investor relations at China Public Security Technology, Michael Lin states that, “If they do not get the permanent card, they cannot live here, they cannot get government benefits, and that is a way for the government to control the population in the future.”

The New York Times also quotes Robin Huang, the chief operating officer of China Public Security as stating, “We have a very good relationship with U.S. companies like I.B.M., Cisco, H.P., Dell,.", “All of these U.S. companies work with us to build our system together.”

Similar statements to those coming from China Public Security have come from Britain and the United States regarding plans to issue RFID enabled cards in the two countries. As the UK Daily Mail reports,

"James Hall, the official in charge of the supposedly-voluntary scheme, said the Government would allow people to opt out - but in return they must "forgo the ability" to have a travel document."

The Real ID Act, signed into law in 2005 in the United States, is a "voluntary" program in which states will follow federal standards on drivers licenses. If individuals choose to not accept the card, they lose the ability to board a plane, open a bank account, or enter a federal building. Biometric information such as fingerprints and retinal scans are required on the cards. Also included in the Real ID legislation is the requirement for "Machine readable technology." While RFID is not specifically mentioned, the trend is towards the use of the technology, as American passports have been recently RFID enabled. Homeland Security has warned states not to reject the "voluntary" cards. Computerworld reports,

"Despite the criticism, the DHS continues to insist that the law be implemented on schedule. "I think residents of states that choose not to comply are going to be displeased with their leadership's decision when we get closer to full implementation," a DHS spokesman said. "They'll no longer be able do certain things that carriers of state-issued drivers licenses take for granted today."


http://www.oldthinkernews.com/
Articles/oldthinker%
20news/china_to_issue_rfid_embedded
_id.htm

___________________________________
U.S. MUST BALANCE SELLING TO CHINA WITH CURRENCY CONCERNS

http://www.usatoday.com/money/
world/2010-10-13-Chinatrade12_cv_N.htm
 
Dorothy, it is clear we have different perspectives. Glen Beck is not a Christian. Yes, there are people with different moral values that can agree. But here is the issue with folks like Palin, Beck and so on is that they look simply to a "moral answer" and are seeking to change the world in only the way the True messiah will. Glenn Beck in particular views "America" as saviour. Yes, the information Glen Beck provides can be helpful. Same can be said for Alex Jones, Vigilant Citizen, Psuedo Occult Media and other sources that all have twisted views, in terms of websites. Vigilant Citized and Pseudo occult really still have a humanistic, pschological, new agey, jungian bent to them, yet they see the trends and images of the media and document it. Also a bit "hyper" illumanati and freemason. The eyes are open to a part but not the whole.

Regarding Al MOhler, my reference was to the "flak" he got about his comments related to Yoga related to a point. It is not an edorsement of all that is Al Mohler by any stretch. Just that "the Christian church" has a lot to learn. I don't even know Mohler's opinion of Beck, as the whole "paganism" aspect of YOGA was even what brought Mohler a lot of worldly attention (to point even being mocked by aethiests thinking christians are a bunch of tools to be talking against exercise).

I do find it interesting the proclaimation that Newt has been "neutered" of any influence so to speak. He was key broker of Glen Beck's rally. He has NAR types praying blessing over "Newt" as well. So if you can declare Newt neutered would be interesting in learning how that is the case.

Dorothy, no I respect you but disagree with you on several matters.

Let me ask you this Dorothy, did you listen to Becks MLK day speech, or any others for that matter? Is it Just the liberal side of the NAM that concerns some, or do you not realize there is the dialectic and even some 1984 type of stuff going on related to some of those "sounding" alarm. Not saying that is the case with Beck, per say, but not all is what appears, but I have not the proclivity or interest to do the research that would be needed to examine as there are other things set before me.

Here is a fact right now, many people are sleeping. Many people are being drawn to lusts of power and influence and trying to "set the world" right. Again, these are all steps to setting the foundations and structures for what is ahead. It all serves a purpose.
 
Peacebringer, I can only tell you I have researched the New Age movement very deeply for the last thirty years. I've watched Beck almost every day and listen to him on the radio. I followed the rally. I see absolutely no connection between the NA movement and Beck.

Constance and I did major research on Newt early on. He is not a neutral person. He is a New Age person. He takes on whatever coloring is needed to keep him in the game. Because no one has exposed his efforts in many years, he appears acceptable to many conservatives.

We assume that people like Beck know all there is to know about what is going on. He probably depends on a staff of young researchers who have their own limitations. People trying to reach him via mail depend on those screening what he receives.

If you make charges you should be willing to document them. Generalizations comparing Beck to Jones don't mean much without such documentation. Jones, for instance, deals with gossipy little bits of information. Beck can report on the NA network for his audience. He has reported on things it took me a long time to put together because he does have access to a large body of information, from that of individual long time researchers to that found on the internet.

I have no idea how long you have been researching, what you've gathered or who you respect. I have no idea what you mean when you write "Is it Just the liberal side of the NAM that concerns some, or do you not realize there is the dialectic and even some 1984 type of stuff going on related to some of those "sounding" alarm."

Yes, I know that not everyone who claims to lead the moral side is to be trusted. But I can document where CNP leadership is playing their games. I also know that there are some who claim to lead the moral side who attacked Constance time and time again. Off public view I've been attacked by those who have claimed to lead the moral side.

You may have a case, but you have to document it or have someone do it for you.

Dorothy
 
Thanks for the info on Moriel, Constance. It is vital to rebut rumors like this.
 
Rumors seem to be what you fruitloops thrive on. Only three or four threads back rumors were used to attack a priest you didnt like. Stupid little insults are used to attack those you disagree with routinely. So now rumors and insults are bad? LMAO!

I think Moriel is telling the truth from what I've been reading at this blog for the past two or three weeks. Lets get real, this blog is filled with anti-semites, anti-catholics, new age catholics, and you Cumbey do a program on a network that several people told you was racist. But there u remain. Moriel is on to something I think.
 
Dorothy, admittedly I am not a "researcher" type. Not that I am not capable, just that it is not really the way I am wired. My brain is one more of patterns and big picture, understanding the ways things connect and interact. Now that being said. The whole "Tea Party" as a whole is problematic on the "dialectical" scale.

Yes, Glen Beck has put stuff out there at the same time promoting Newt. Now sure it is possible Newt is being "deceptive" and folks like Beck you look up to for putting some information out there are simply decived.

Part of the difference between you and I Dorothy, is your view of simply the "moral side." It is not about a moral side per say. For the "Tea Party" all claim it is morality and seeking to "alter" the "nation." See the problem here with the likes of Beck and the Tea Party that Newt will expoilt is the whole mythos of a "christian nation" which is essentially equating the US for Christians as Israel is for Jews. It is a designation that USA is a special, righteous nation. Now granted, that is not NAM, per say, but just as having to look into "The Family" and the prayer breakfast in order to see what is there.

Now in terms of Mr. Beck and what he speaks of let me point you to his MLK day speech. A quote from my blog article "Another disturbing element of Glen Beck’s speech was the frequent references to “looking within.” He made comments such as we need to “strengthen our spirits” and we need to explore “inner space.” The need for such “inner exploration” is not part and parcel to the Christian concept of awakening and repentance but rather calls to finding what you are sure of and finding some form of spiritual guidance for inner strengthening. And while it was not directly said, it suggests pointing to some inner element of “the divine.”"

Is not this looking within, strengthing spirits pure and simple elements of the New Age dorothy? Is not the NAM spiritually as a whole about elevation of some divine within? Is this not within Beck's language? Perhaps the lanaguage is just me, as I have sat and listened to a Brazilian Freemason use the same sort of words related to a strength within that I see the connection all to easy. There also was way too much similarity between Obama's referencing eternal principles and what Beck said. It was pretty close to the same thing. Now I am sure there are others that can document the deeper ties to newt and his buddies Jim Garlow and David Barton.

So with Beck really there is only a couple answers, he is sincere but being played and is wrong, deceived, and being used.

He is aware of things but simply seeking to be a power broker and weild influence.

He is actively aware and playing his role, much like the guy in 1984 who was speaking against only as part of the way to play the role to move things in a certain direction.

Here is a question for anyone that is always before me, is their behavior exhibiting love for God 1st or is there self elevation? (Note masons point to love to God but it is really about their "moral choices" and influence)

Note DOrothy, I am not seeking to change your mind. Just giving you things to think about, as everything is not as appears. There will be a shift in the American political power. It will appear a good thing but will not be so. As ultimately anything that serves political answers is really more about antimessiah then God's truth. God's kingdom is not of this world.

And Dorothy I will let matter rest after your next response as we will have both made our points perfectly clear and we will likely disagree. Let me leave you this question though, why such the reaction r/t Glenn Beck, what has he meant to you?
 
Jacob Prasch has, what I and many others online have termed a "pedo smile" he is a debauched man, As someone who survived sexual abuse, harassment and rape, I dont like his "vibe"

He has the same one as Alex Jones and Glen Beck, and believe it or not after viewing Constance on video, she has the "Vibe" of girls I went drinking and got arrested with. Dorothy has the "vibe" of a fat woman who is into her sins so much she will die in them.

I could go on and on about how each one of you have a "dirty" soul and how I can never trust you after getting to know you slightly better.

The internet has some good people of God on it looking and searching, sometimes they wander onto various blogs people here have suggested or written, only to find truth was not there, just a kernel with a web of lies spun around it.

You kids have fun trying to lie to God's own children. We have discernment and intuition that have been honed by life experiences, hard lessons and such.
We will always figure you out.
 
Peacebringer, it appears your main concern is that different people have said look within.
You wrote: ""Another disturbing element of Glen Beck’s speech was the frequent references to “looking within.” He made comments such as we need to “strengthen our spirits” and we need to explore “inner space.”

He has never said things like organized religion is corrupt, you need only to look within for your values. He speaks to a religiously diverse audience and is trying to connect with all who listen to his programs. He is trying to get people to strengthen the values that they learned through any connection with their religious base. Would you have him say this is good for Baptists, another thing is good for Jews, another for Sufis, another for Hindus, another for (fill in the blank). Would you have him say Episcopalians do it this way, Baptists use this book, Lutherans look to God's word in this other book? Or maybe you want him to say follow Catholicism as the best way to know what God wants you to do?

It might make for a few interesting shows, but would only get everybody squabbling.

The words looking within can be a substitute for examine your conscience, think about it, meditate, ask yourself, think before you act, or remember what you were taught.
They don't necessarily refer to the idea of each man his own god.

Yes, he likes America and believes the founding fathers acted on Christian principles with intelligence, decency and honor. Those are pretty high standards. Not every American then and now can be said to possess intelligence, decency and honor. Some do. We recognize those are good qualities and should try to put them into our own lives. Now intelligence can mean IQ or it can mean we reasoning before we act. Honor and decency come from the values of the religion that has influenced us or the people around us who teach us indirectly. It's so very easy to find the faults of everyone around us. We hardly ever stop and think about their good qualities and where they were learned. Beck is saying look to the examples of those who fought for the freedoms we take for granted.

For your information I've made it a point of learning about all aspects of the New Age movement. I primarily document the cultural and political changes it is bringing about. I can speak and write about the one world religion part, but as this blog has a Christian following, I think it is only appropriate that Christians talk among themselves about how NA has influenced the Christian community and what can be done about it.

I've seen Barton's videos and have no problem with them. The historical information he presents seems pretty solid. Of course it flies in the face of those pushing a one world religion.

What I like about Beck's shows:
He presents political information not heard elsewhere in a logical and understandable manner to a large audience. Since I've spent 30 years trying to warn others with the same information on a tiny scale, of course I like what he is doing. Makes my self-given task easier.

Is what he is doing perfect? For one, his audience is so passive that I don't think he needs to tell them to be more passive. Also there is too much musing and looking within himself and the show gets boring quite often.

I've answered you. Yes, we will disagree.

Dorothy
 
11:07
You sound like the Protocals of the
Learned Elders etc., or just an
amygdala in a jar hooked up to
speak through an angry voice.
I think somebody's off their
Anonymous meds.
Judge much ?
It's become familiar though:
Christians aren't allowed to judge,
BUT non christians ARE allowed,
so it ends up being open season
on christians, continually.
And the Christians can't or
won't, but usually don't
even retaliate.
Congrats on the getting arrested
braggadoccio thingy, though, dude.
Wow,
Got Judgement ?
 
Peacebringer’s warning re: Glen Beck should be heeded.

As per LDS prophecy, Beck’s popular brand of patriotic dominionism has vaulted him into the role of “savior of the Constitution”. Beck’s political/spiritual rants mirror the strategies outlined by Jeremy Rifkin’s “emerging spiritual revolution”.

See: http://www.herescope.blogspot.com/

Here is a sample of the relevant LDS “prophetic” words concerning Beck:

“Will the Constitution be destroyed? No; it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, "The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At this critical juncture, this people (LDS) will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction." It will be so.” Discourses of Brigham Young, p.469

”The Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith there would be an attempt to overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang, as if were, by a thread, and at that time 'this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.' It is my conviction that the elders of Israel, widely spread over the nation, will at that crucial time successfully rally the righteous of our country and provide the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of constitutional government.” Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.618-619

“As we spread abroad in this land, bearers of this priesthood, men and women with high ideals and standards, our influence will spread as we take positions of leadership in the community, in the state, in the nation, in the world. We will be able to sit in counsel with others and we will be able to influence others in paths of righteousness. We will help to save this nation, because this nation can only be preserved on the basis of righteous living.” Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.619

“Here in America, the Lord's base of operations-so designated by the Lord Himself through His holy prophets-we of the priesthood, members of His restored Church, might well provide the balance of power to save our freedom. Indeed we might, if we go forward as Moroni of old, and raise the standard of liberty throughout the land. My brethren, we can do the job that must be done. We can, as a priesthood, provide the balance of power to preserve our freedom and save this nation from bondage. The Lord's priesthood has a mission to perform for liberty loving people everywhere. We cannot, any more than Jonah of old, run away from our calling.” Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.620

Beck has clearly emerged as a “light bearer”, one of the aforementioned “priesthood of Israel” arising at this opportune moment in history to rally the troops and protect the goddess “Liberty” from Satanic evil forces. Unfortunately, Beck is just one more in a long line of false prophets, spiritually deceived himself, he is now engaged in deceiving others.

omots
 
Oh well, now it happened to me. I wrote a very long answer to Peacebringer. I got one of those too long messages, but it appeared in sequence and now it has disappeared. I know Constance didn't take it down because if she did there would be one of those "removed by the author" spots.

Do I try to rewrite it or just leave it as it is. I don't know.

Dorothy
 
Michelle Obama's bizarre comments:

http://tinyurl.com/3xhuz7u

I actually found this at Born to Watch. I wonder what kind of spirits she's talking about.
 
Hey dorothy, I have had that happen before, or without being signed into wordpress and not going directly there from here. Always is frustrating and never can say things the same way I had put time into. Look forward to hearing what you have to say, if you are able to, if not, then guess that is the way it is. Like I said, we clearly disagree. I am simply as omots said, sounding a warning, you can take it or dismiss it as any will. I am convinced though of where things are headed currently, which is best summed up in the phrase, "giving over to what lust after." In grand scheme, Beck, Jones, Newt, and so on are simply tools whether they know it or not.
 
Dear brother, Paul -

Please do not fall into the trap of feeding the hijackers/trolls!
 
I'm just reporting, not "Catholic bashing;" ie, I'm not picking on a particular Catholic with the exception of the views of this bishop and by extension this writer for the Catholic News Agency. I would think the CNA is culpable as well.

Lest anyone STILL want to accuse me of "Catholic bashing," just go to my blog and you'll see I've no problem in pointing out false teaching in Protestant circles. 'Nuff said.

Rosary paves way for holiness, Argentinean bishop teaches

http://tinyurl.com/2a445jt

The article in full:

Bishop Jorge Luis Lona of San Luis, Argentina encouraged the faithful this week to pray the Rosary because its “repetitive rhythm of praise and supplication, like a sort of spiritual breathing,” helps one attain the gift of holiness.

“God gives us an immense aid. In order to be able to recognize and receive his gifts, he teaches us to practice praise and supplication,” the bishop said.

In this sense, “that is what the Rosary is,” as each one of its mysteries “is a repetitive rhythm of praise and supplication,” he continued. “In Mary, we praise the gift of God, God himself who gives us Jesus Christ. And through her, we pray to be able to receive him now and at the doorstep to eternity.”

“God does not need our praise and prayers. We are the ones who need them,” he continued, noting that the Marian prayer helps us understand that we are offering praise for the true good, “because of we lose that, we lose everything,” the bishop added.

“It is the gift of the simplicity of a child, who learns to recognize and attain what is good at the side of his mother who loves him and in whose love he trusts. This is the gift that God gives us each time we pray the Holy Rosary,” Bishop Lona said.


I would like to comment on this part:

“In Mary, we praise the gift of God, God himself who gives us Jesus Christ. And through her, we pray to be able to receive him now and at the doorstep to eternity.”

At the point of salvation Jesus Christ is received. There's no further need of reception as salvation is a one time occurrence.

This bishop is in effect stating that the rosary is contemplative prayer -- a way to the Divine.
 
Rick Warren Prepares Saddleback for Decade of Blessings

http://tinyurl.com/2vbl3u7

snippets:

"God blesses you so you can be a blessing to others, not just so you can be some fat cat and self-centered," Warren highlighted.

Yes, but the ultimate goal is salvation.

The conditions to receiving God's blessings include: meeting with God daily, studying His word, tithing, helping others in need, sharing the Good News, and participating in fellowship (such as small groups).

So, there ya go. If you don't "tithe" as per the typical church definition of today, you won't be blessed. It's interesting how pastors, who liken themselves to OT Levitical priests, like to extort "tithes" by using some OT scripture while ignoring others such as the fact that Levitical priests could not own land. A rather convenient "oversight."

What happened to giving without compulsion [2 Corinthians 9:7]? And, what is the Good News to Warren? Keep in mind his PEACE plan, in which there are two "E"s in the acrostic, do not contain "evangelism." It's all works based religion.
 
Craig,
the concept ot "Once saved, always saved" is a deception from the evil one.
Please consider the following:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#tradition-II

GMA
 
If you just found this blog RUN AWAY! It is a false watchman blog filled with anti-semites, new age catholics and real Catholic bashers! Run away now!
 
GMA,

I'm aware of the divergent views of "once saved, always saved." Jesus Himself said in the Olivet Discourse, "he who stands firm to the end will be saved." With that it's clear to me that a person can walk away from their salvation. Yet, there are other Scriptures that talk about the sealing of the Holy Spirit [Ephesians 1:13-14; II Corinthians 1:21-22]. The elect are the elect [Matthew 24:24] and they will not be deceived.
 
Craig,

I've been tempted to quote from Warren's Purpose-driven Life, which I have. He has an interesting spin on theology and what the scriptures say. However, when he quotes scripture, he varies the version of Bible nearly every time. And although he points out somewhere that "The Message" is a paraphrase, he uses it as if it was equal to any Bible version. In fact, it is the "Bible" he quotes from almost more than any other.

I think, though, Herescope has him pegged pretty good. I'm trying to sift through all my Rick Warren books. There is one point he makes that stands out in my mind more than anything else. When I find it, I'll post it. It has something to do with switching our paradigm of thought. It was a definite new age red flag, if there is such a thing.
 
Hi Graig

Once saved always saved is surely not true. How many people walk down the isle thinking they will be saved only to repeat their blasphemies?

I think we would agree that believing and having faith in God’s Word and in the message of the Gospels is to take up our cross daily. This will probably involve arguments with our families and friends who to not believe and it doesn’t help that the onslaught of a ‘New’ political and ‘religious’ regime is being implemented under our noses. At least we are not being burned at the pyre, well, in other forms of censorship we are and it is getting more evident year by year.

God has an elect family and disciplines “His” children to conform (adapt) to the image (likeness) of Christ.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."
Romans 8:2

I have come from a 'new age' perspective, so I know how people can be easily deceived. I know I did the right thing to stand up and turn away and now I am learning about Lord Jesus Christ.

H.E
 
Graig, sorry,
Correction:

Romans 8:29
 
H.E.,

Praise God for unveiling your eyes toward Jesus Christ the Author and finisher of our faith and away from New Age teachings!

Thanks for your comments. Yes, we must take up our cross daily. It's not "Your Best Life Now" as one popular 'preacher' wants you to believe.

The real question regarding "once saved, always saved" is if there was a true conversion to begin with.
 
H.E.,

Please be aware that there are those who take Romans 8 and apply it to mean we can become gods. See I Corinthians 15 for a further explanation of Jesus Christ as the firstfruit of many. Also, I like II Corinthians 3:16-18 which explains how we grow in Christ-likeness.
 
Looks like Jeff Sharlet has contact with Alliance of Civilizations interested folk. That gives him more in common with Paul N. Temple and Doug Coe than maybe even he has guessed. He quotes John Esposito in his book!

Constance
 
I'm on the air right now with Sarah Leslie discussing all of this, www.themicroeffect.com
 
From Climate Control to Population Control:
Troubling Background on the “Evangelical
Climate Initiative”


A Joint Paper of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and the
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty

Introduction
On February 8, 2006, the National Association of Evangelical's “Evangelical Climate
Initiative” (ECI) was launched. Citing the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and other sources, the ECI was described by its organizers as a Bible-based
response to global warming: “We are convinced that evangelicals must engage this issue without
any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem or humanity’s responsibility to address
it.”1 The 86 signers argued that “this is God’s world and any damage that we do to God’s world
is an offense against God Himself.” Moreover, they claimed that “most of the climate change
problem is human induced” and makes predictions that that “millions of people could die in
this century.” Their prescription is to “pass and implement national legislation requiring
sufficient economy-wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions….”2
ECI signers include megachurch pastor Rick Warren, Christianity Today editor David Neff,
and former Vice President of Governmental Affairs for National Association of Evangelicals
Robert P. Dugan. Since those who signed the ECI are respected evangelical leaders, their
statement was widely reported and discussed. That discussion reached a crescendo when it was
discovered that one of the largest funders of the effort was the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation. The Hewlett Foundation, which contributed $475,000 to the ECI, is a major
contributor to the causes of abortion and population control. Like many other groups, the Hewlett
Foundation explicitly connects its interest in these causes to its views on the environment.
Why would a pro-abortion foundation want to fund an evangelical effort to fight global
warming? Is there a connection between these efforts? There is. And that connection should
trouble all evangelicals, especially those who endorsed the Evangelical Climate Initiative.
From Global Warming to Abortion
Logically, one can care for the environment without supporting population control. But for
many radical environmentalists, the route from global warming (and care for the environment
generally) to population reduction seems irresistible: since people use up natural resources,
release CO2 into the atmosphere and otherwise pollute the environment, the fewer people, the
less global warming and less harm to the environment.3 To help the environment, therefore, we
must reduce the human population. Q.E.D.
...

cont....
 
cont...


This reasoning hovers in the background of current environmental debates. So how does the
ECI statement respond to this background? It doesn’t. It simply says that “climate change is
happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil
fuels.”4 Actually, scientists still fiercely debate the causes, severity, and results of climate change
while policymakers fiercely debate the relative costs and benefits of various proposed
responses to climate change. But what is important here is that the ECI signers seem naively
unaware that such dystopic interpretations of human activity are often tied to and derived from
campaigns to reduce the human population.
This connection is not a coincidence. Population control is official doctrine for many
environmental groups just as it is in certain circles of the UN. This reflects the historical views
of prominent founders of the environmental movement. Consider these examples:
• “Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.”
John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club5
• “Given the total, absolute disappearance of Homo sapiens, then not only would the Earth’s
community of Life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being enhanced. Our presence,
in short, is not needed.”
Paul Taylor, author of Respect for Nature, A Theory of
Environmental Ethics6
• “I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who
shoot birds.”
Paul Watson, Founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepard7
• “[W]e have no problem in principle with the humans reducing their numbers by killing one another.
It’s an excellent way of making the humans extinct.”
Geophilus, spokesman for Gaia Liberation Front8
• “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
John Davis, editor of the journal Earth First!9
Of course, not all environmentalists share such beliefs, but many do believe that the health
of Earth’s environment requires drastic reductions in the human population. For instance, Don
Hinrichsen of the UN Population Fund and Bryant Robey, editor of The Population Report at
Johns Hopkins University, have argued:
Slowing the increase in population, especially in the face of rising per capita demand for natural
resources, can take pressure off the environment and buy time to improve living standards on a
sustainable basis. . . . If every country made a commitment to population stabilization and
resource conservation, the world would be better able to meet the challenges of sustainable
development.10

The authors then specify what actions they believe should be pursued to attain “population
stabilization”: “Family planning programs play a key role. When family planning information
and services are widely available and accessible, couples are better able to achieve their fertility
desires.”11
While this language may sound benign, phrases like “population stabilization,” “family
planning,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” almost always include abortion-on-demand
....read more....

http://www.theird.org/Document.Doc
?id=67
 
If there was ever a New Age concept, it is "VIBES"!

Constance
 
To the anonymous poster who keeps bashing this blog and Constancy, even a fool is counted wise if he holds his peace.
ASK
 
EVANGELICAL CLIMATE INITIATIVE - SIGNATORIES

http://christiansandclimate.org/
learn/call-to-action/signatories/
 
Oops that should've read Constance and the signature should be ASI.
ASI
 
Oh this is too much. I just came home 7:30 CDT only to find my response to Peacebringer up and running. Now to read the rest of the posts.

Dorothy
 
BILL GATES FUNDS RICK WARREN
http://herescope.blogspot.com
/2007/01/bill-gates-fund-rick
-warren.html

The Grameen Foundation founded by Mohammad Yunus also receives support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Here is one example:

Grameen Foundation Expands Technology Program for Poor Farmers in Uganda

Community Knowledge Worker Initiative Provides Vital Information Link to Improve Agriculture

As the international community prepares to celebrate World Food Day, Grameen Foundation today announced that it will expand its Community Knowledge Worker (CKW) initiative in Uganda, supported by a $4.7 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The initiative is building a self-sustaining, scalable network of rural information providers who use cell phones to help close critical information gaps facing poor, smallholder farmers. They will strengthen the information link to poor farmers by disseminating and collecting relevant information in these underserved communities.

“Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for poor people in much of the world, including more than 75 percent of Ugandans. Through the Community Knowledge Worker initiative, we are helping poor, smallholder farmers, who may meet with an agricultural agent infrequently, access vital agricultural advice, weather forecasts and other information to improve their lives,” said Alex Counts, president of Grameen Foundation. “Equally important, we are providing a business opportunity for Community Knowledge Workers, who will be providing government agriculture programs, NGOs and other entities with relevant and timely information about the on-the-ground needs of poor farmers.”
....read more...

http://www.gfusa.org/grameen
-foundation-expands-technology
-program-poor-farmers-uganda-0

Among other things, recipients of microcredit are indoctrinated with family planning propaganda at their weekly borrower meetings.
 
So sorry. My mistake. Saw a response to Peacebringer only it was an earlier one.

Dorothy
 
BILL MOYERS - VIDEO CLIP - IS GOD GREEN? EVANGELICAL CLIMATE INITIATIVE - PBS

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyerson
america/media_players/iggevan
climate_video.html
______________________________

EVANGELICAL CLIMATE INITIATIVE

The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) is an initiative by some American evangelical leaders and organizations designed to mitigate global warming (the current climate change). ECI's first statement, calling for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, was released on February 8, 2006 and was signed by eighty-six evangelical leaders and organizations. Signatories included Rick Warren, the presidents of thirty-nine evangelical colleges, and the leader of the Salvation Army.

The ECI's first statement on global warming was released one week after the National Association of Evangelicals decided not to take a stance on the issue by releasing a letter stating that "global warming is not a consensus issue."....

The Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) is an initiative by some American evangelical leaders and organizations designed to mitigate global warming (the current climate change). ECI's first statement, calling for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, was released on February 8, 2006 and was signed by eighty-six evangelical leaders and organizations. Signatories included Rick Warren, the presidents of thirty-nine evangelical colleges, and the leader of the Salvation Army.

The ECI's first statement on global warming was released one week after the National Association of Evangelicals decided not to take a stance on the issue by releasing a letter stating that "global warming is not a consensus issue."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Evangelical_Climate_Initiative
__________________________________

EVANGELICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM

Evangelical environmentalism is an environmental movement in the United States in which some Evangelicals have emphasized biblical mandates concerning humanity's role as steward and subsequent responsibility for the caretaking of Creation. First, the movement asserts that global warming (the current climate change) is man-made.[1] Second, it asserting that God's mandate to Adam to care for the Garden of Eden also applies to evangelicals today, Genesis 2:15.[2] Third, it asserts that people in poor nations will be hardest hit from the effects of global warming. From this assumption, the movement then asserts that it is therefore a moral obligation for every Christian to support creation care and that the way to do this is support[citation needed] emissions trading called "Cap and Dividend", a form of Carbon pricing.....

......Specific Actions by Evangelical Environmentalist Groups

In February 2006, a group of 86 notable U.S. evangelical Christian leaders launched the Evangelical Climate Initiative, a campaign for environmental reform, calling on all Christians to push for federal legislation that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to stem global warming. Critics argue that this would do little to help the environment but rather, is a large tax increase on Americans called "Cap and Trade", which is highly criticized by conservatives as anti-business and anti-American.



cont....
 
cont...

The initiative's organizers intend to lobby federal legislators, hold environmental meetings at churches and colleges, and air television and radio advertisements that link drought, starvation, and hurricanes to global warming. The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Rev. Ted Haggard, did not join the leaders in the statement on global warming. He declined because it would have been interpreted as an endorsement by the entire National Association of Evangelicals. Speaking just for himself, he said, "There is no doubt about it in my mind that climate change is happening, and there is no doubt about it that it would be wise for us to stop doing the foolish things we're doing that could potentially be causing this. In my mind there is no downside to being cautious."

Those Evangelicals that support environmentalism were surprised and delighted when influential televangelist Pat Robertson changed his stance on global warming. In October 2005, Robertson accused the Evangelical Climate Initiative of teaming up with "far-left environmentalists," but in the summer of 2006 on his 700 Club television show, Robertson stated that "they're making a convert out of me." He also said "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of this planet, we need to do something about it.

In March 2008, a minority of Southern Baptist leaders issued a statement that their denomination had been timid when it came to environmental issues and that they have a duty to stop global warming. This declaration was signed by the President of the congregation. The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States with 16.3 million members.

The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) has received much attention for actions such as lobbying the United States Congress and producing environmental/theological educational materials which were sent out to Evangelical congregations across the country. Also, in 1996 the EEN produced television advertisements warning Christians, "don't let the special interests sink the Endangered Species Act." The EEN also mailed out 38,000 "Let the Earth Be Glad" packets and enlisted 1000 churches as "Noah Congregations (Kearns, 1997).".....

Opposition to Evangelical Environmentalism

The primary criticism of Creation Care is that it is primarily a push for a massive "Cap and Trade" tax increase under the veil of helping the environment. Cap and trade is a redistribution of wealththat is opposed by conservative evangelical Christians. Criticism comes from Jan Markell who stated partial support of the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the Creation Care movement comes from the pro-choice Hewlett foundation. CWA asserts that if enough conservatives vote for progressive candidates, a large block of conservative voteres will be effectively neutralized and thus aid the pro-abortion movement in America.

In January 2006, a group of evangelicals opposed the Evangelical Climate Initiative's stance and issued a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals which stated that "global warming is not a consensus issue, and our love for the Creator and respect for His Creation does not require us to take a position [supporting a cap and trade tax increase]." In 2007, leaders of the conservative Christian wing of the Republican Party, including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Paul Weyrich, told the policy director of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the Rev. Richard Cizik, to "shut up already about global warming." In 2008, the NAE clarified that it does not “have a specific position…on global warming or emissions.”

Those who maintain a conservative/traditionalist stance on the issue of global warming have formed the Cornwall Alliance
.....read more....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Evangelical_environmentalism
 
Susanna said...
EVANGELICAL CLIMATE INITIATIVE - SIGNATORIES

I visited the site, read the list of signatories, and read the preamble. Each of their claims is wrong -- aside from getting on the PC bandwagon regarding an issue that doesn't have scientific support, what a fatal distraction when the world's most critical need is the true, accurate presentation of God's Word. Focusing on the climate is an abdication of the signatories real purpose and mission in life.

Well I guess it's time to hold hands and worship Mother Earth as an act of our faith and duty as believers in God's Word. How Sad! The apostacy is picking up steam and we're becoming one.


Dave in CA
 
Dave in CA

As you saw, one of the signatories was Rick Warren.

The Evangelicals and other Christian communions who are opposed to being exploited by the environmentalist movement have formed a group called the Cornwall Alliance.

An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

On December 2, 2009, the Cornwall Alliance's evangelical arm issued a statement called "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." In the statement, they declare,

"Recent progress in climate research suggests that:
1. Observed warming and purported dangerous effects have been overstated.
2. Earth’s climate is less sensitive to the addition of CO2 than the alleged scientific consensus claims it to be, which means that climate model predictions of future warming are exaggerated.
3. Those climate changes that have occurred are consistent with natural cycles driven by internal changes in the climate system itself, external changes in solar activity, or both."
Along with the "Evangelical Declaration," Cornwall Alliance also issued a three chapter document, examining the theology, science, and economics of Anthropocentric Global Warming entitled "A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor." Their "Executive Summary" of the document stated,

"The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea-we'll call it "global warming alarmism"-fails the tests of theology, science, and economics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cornwall_Alliance
 
Note that many of the signatories also signed A Christian Response to "A Common Word Between Us and You".
 
Article from ABC News:

The FAA is unable to identify an object flying over New York City yesterday, Wednesday, October 13th.

Jaded New Yorkers actually froze in their tracks!!!

http://tinyurl.com/24q2kwj
 
RICK WARREN'S APOLOGY FOR MARRIAGE

.....One of those principles was marriage. “For this reason shall a man leave his parents and join with his wife and the two shall become one flesh,” Jesus instructed. One man, one woman, for a lifetime, with no sex outside of that union.

Fast forward to 2009: California voters of various religious persuasions, in a ballot measure called Proposition 8, held to the traditional view of marriage—a union between a man and a woman. Subsequently challenged in court, as the battle ensued, Pastor Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life” and pastor of Saddleback, one of the largest churches in the country, deeply influential, rightly told his congregation “…if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.” Until this week … Holy Week.

On the first Holy Week Peter promised Jesus, “Though others may turn away, I will never deny you.” But then in the chill of night in a courtyard just outside the place of Jesus’ trial, as others around the fire began to probe his relationship to Jesus, he quietly denied even knowing him. No one was threatening his life, but the derision increased and with every barb, until Peter’s denial escalated to a curse as he emphatically denied he had ever known Jesus.

Peter was worried about his reputation. He didn’t want to be the odd man out in the courtyard over the fire … it wasn’t a Roman soldier with a sword who challenged him, it was a mere servant girl.

“On moral issues I come out very clear,” declared Rick Warren when writing in the safety of his office. But when confronted by homosexual friends and Larry King this week, he folded just like Peter. Now, to be clear, he did not deny Christ, but he backpedaled so fast from where he previously stood and reinterpreted his previous statements in a way that strains credulity. He went on to describe how he has “apologized” to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of Proposition 8. He “never once gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment, he declared.

And in one fell swoop, he not only separated himself from the biblical teaching on marriage, but distorted the past in the process. Seduced by the pressure of fame? Driven by the desire to please his friends? Afraid to be seen as bigoted to a national television audience? Whatever the motivation, the behavior is no less significant.
...read more...


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/
commentary/11602172/
 
Rick Warren's Apology for Marriage

April 9, 2009

This Holy Week, a key portion of the “old story” has been revisited in a very contemporary way. The last instruction Jesus gave as he left earth was Christ followers should tell His story of forgiveness and redemption not only in their communities, but to the “ends of the earth.” And as His followers told the “old story” they should not leave out all the other things as well. In the second part of the Great Commission, Christ admonished his followers to teach others “to obey all the things I have commanded you.” He wanted future generations to go beyond mere intellectual understanding and move to actually living out the principles … walking the walk.

One of those principles was marriage. “For this reason shall a man leave his parents and join with his wife and the two shall become one flesh,” Jesus instructed. One man, one woman, for a lifetime, with no sex outside of that union.

Fast forward to 2009: California voters of various religious persuasions, in a ballot measure called Proposition 8, held to the traditional view of marriage—a union between a man and a woman. Subsequently challenged in court, as the battle ensued, Pastor Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life” and pastor of Saddleback, one of the largest churches in the country, deeply influential, rightly told his congregation “…if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.” Until this week … Holy Week.

On the first Holy Week Peter promised Jesus, “Though others may turn away, I will never deny you.” But then in the chill of night in a courtyard just outside the place of Jesus’ trial, as others around the fire began to probe his relationship to Jesus, he quietly denied even knowing him. No one was threatening his life, but the derision increased and with every barb, until Peter’s denial escalated to a curse as he emphatically denied he had ever known Jesus.

Peter was worried about his reputation. He didn’t want to be the odd man out in the courtyard over the fire … it wasn’t a Roman soldier with a sword who challenged him, it was a mere servant girl.

“On moral issues I come out very clear,” declared Rick Warren when writing in the safety of his office. But when confronted by homosexual friends and Larry King this week, he folded just like Peter. Now, to be clear, he did not deny Christ, but he backpedaled so fast from where he previously stood and reinterpreted his previous statements in a way that strains credulity. He went on to describe how he has “apologized” to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of Proposition 8. He “never once gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment, he declared.

And in one fell swoop, he not only separated himself from the biblical teaching on marriage, but distorted the past in the process. Seduced by the pressure of fame? Driven by the desire to please his friends? Afraid to be seen as bigoted to a national television audience? Whatever the motivation, the behavior is no less significant.

Rick Warren did not deny Christ on Larry King. But every believer who was watching had to question whether Rick was being faithful to the commission Christ left him with: Teaching others to “obey all the things I have commanded you.” And obedient biblical teaching on marriage is not a particularly difficult matter. Unpopular? Yes. Unclear? Hardly.
..read more...

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/
commentary/11602172/
 
Thursday, September 25, 2008

PRESS RELEASE: Former President Clinton, Muhammad Yunus to Speak on Closing Day of Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) Annual Meeting

» Posted by MicroCapital Team in Category: Key Players at 2:20 pm
Source: Clinton Global Initiative.

NEW YORK, September 25 – Friday’s sessions are to feature Wangari Muta Maathai, Rick Warren, Muhammad Yunus and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others.
President Clinton will conclude the 2008 CGI Annual Meeting tomorrow following sessions featuring new commitment announcements and panel discussions which focus on devising solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. Nearly 60 current and former heads of state, hundreds of top CEOs and non-profit leaders, major philanthropists, and five Nobel Peace Prize winners are attending the fourth annual meeting.

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) is a project of the non-partisan Clinton Foundation with an emphasis on results. Since 2005, CGI members have made nearly 1,000 Commitments to Action valued at upwards of USD 30 billion to improve more than 200 million lives in over 150 countries around the world.

http://www.microcapital.org/press
-release-former-president-clinton
-muhammad-yunus-to-speak-on
-closing-day-of-clinton-global
-initiative-annual-meeting/
 
Blast from the past.....

Rick Warren Teams Up With New-Age Guru Ken Blanchard!
This is a Special Report.


Record of Events


Apr 19, 2005 While Rick Warren is gearing up to "train a billion people,"(from Christian Post) unbeknownst to many he has also been teamed up with New Age and contemplative promoter, Ken Blanchard, for some time now. According to a new biography on Rick Warren, A Life With Purpose written by George Mair, Rick Warren has solicited the services of Ken Blanchard to aid him in training leaders: "Rick taps the best and most famous to help train church leaders to be like Jesus. He has hired Ken Blanchard .... to come to Saddleback to help train people how to be effective leaders." p. 193 (See Rick Warren Sermon on Ken Blanchard)

In light of knowing who Ken Blanchard is, this is shocking and devastating news for the church!

There is countless evidence to show that Blanchard sits on the New Age/mystical/contemplative bandwagon. Blanchard believes in the benefits and use of mantra meditation, yoga and has no trouble borrowing from Buddhism.

Here are just a few examples:

Wrote the foreword to Jim Ballard's Mind Like Water
Wrote the foreword to Franz Metcalf's What Would Buddha Do At Work?
Is on the Front Cover of Corporate Mystic-(Listen)
Is on the Back Cover of Deepak Chopra's 7 Spiritual Laws of Success
Jim Ballard, a staunch New Ager, and a colleague of The Ken Blanchard Companies
Wrote the Foreword to Ellen Tadd's (clairvoyant) book, Death and Letting Go.
Blanchard makes no apology when he says much can be gained from Buddhism. He and his wife both encourage the practice of yoga (link no longer available) and mantra meditation. Even more disturbing is his seat on the Board of Advisors of a New Age organization called Hoffman's Institute (known for the Hoffman Quadrinity Process).

For those who do not find the words of an unofficial biographer (Mair) linking Rick Warren with Blanchard convincing enough, Ken Blanchard, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels (Willow Creek) have become team players at the Lead Like Jesus conferences and the Leadership Summit Conferences, which take place across North America. The three also have an audio set they co-authored together. Incidentally, Rick Warren sits on the Board of Blanchard's Lead Like Jesus organization along with Ken Blanchard, Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul), John Maxwell, Bill Hybels, and Laurie Beth Jones.

Did Rick Warren know of Blanchard's sympathies when he brought him in to help at Saddleback? Of course he did. And do you think that Rick Warren and Ken Blanchard are going to train their "billion" soldiers for Christ how to practice New Age mysticism and learn how to go into altered states of consciousness? You bet. And that is definitely something to be concerned about. "...they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false ..." II Thessalonians 2: 10-11

http://www.lighthousetrailsre
search.com/PressReleasekenblanchard.htm
 
Susanna,

Glad you are posting on the envirogelicals (I am trademarking this one) I posted some info on Cornwall Alliance a couple months back as part of a discussion on the New Apostolic Reformation. Chuck Colson and a few other of the self proclaimed apostles are involved with Cornwall as well as James Dobson among others. While Bill Hybels and others can be found on the ECI list.

The more things change, the more they look the same? I will go back and repost some of the info I had put up earlier. In the meantime here are a few to add to the list.

http://www.coolingcreation.org/

http://tinyurl.com/33pms3l

http://www.creationcsp.org/eyci.html

http://tinyurl.com/27h4ccj

Pro-abortion foundation aided evangelical climate effort

http://tinyurl.com/26osw49
 
Susanna,

I am archiving the CGI piece for obvious reasons.
 
Not to add fuel to the Beck fire. But on Friday night he is doing a show on a new six week curriculum to hit churches. It is called "Let there be Stuff". It is produced by the Tides foundation and Greenfaith. It is suppose to be similiar to "The Story of Stuff" video produced earlier this year or late last year.
No matter your opinions on Beck, I think it will be an interesting show. It seems to be good timing with the posting on "envirogelicals" (JD your check is in the mail now that I have used your word).
 
Thanks Dawn, I ended up watching the whole clip even though I knew what you were pointing out was towards the end. As many are probably aware, Green Faith is a form of interfaith dialogue wrapped around environmentalism.

Do you have my correct address? I need to make sure I get that check! lol
 
Not shocked at all at "Sharlets" connections to AoC. Especially since his work was something used to marginalized and paint as extreme Christians in general. There was a point and purpose to that whole deal...
 
JD,

I figured you were tuned in to the "envirogelicals."

What grabbed my attention were the ties between Muhammadad Yunus, Grameen, Rick warren and Bill Gates......which is directly related to our research project.

Both Rick Warren and Yunus' Grameen Foundation are recipients of Bill Gates' largesse.
 
To Susanna & JD:

Great research work, you guys.

Love you both!!!
 
June 17, 2008 | 2:15 pm

Rick Warren, fascism and ‘The Family’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’m currently reading “The Family,” Jeff Sharlet’s new book about the shadowy and incredibly influential organization behind the National Prayer Breakfast.

Sharlet, who is Jewish, was, quite oddly, invited into The Family’s fundamentalist fold a few years back, from which he produced this Harper’s exposé. (The book is a scary read that expands heavily on that article, and which I’ll be reviewing for The Jewish Journal.)

Sharlet describes the organization’s theology as built upon Jesus the strongman and revolutionary, not the savior and street preacher. What seems to trouble him most is how this organization and its friends, which include many members of Congress and foreign leaders, often those with less than stellar human-rights records, combine religion with capitalism, fundamentalism with power.

For example, this conversation between Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., and The Family’s longtime leader Doug Coe:

God’s law and our laws should be identical. “People separate it out,” he warned Tiahrt. “‘Oh, okay, I got religion, that’s private.’ As if Jesus doesn’t know anything about building highways or Social Security. We gotta take Jesus out of the religious wrapping.”

“All right, how do we do that?” Tiahrt asked.

“A covenant,” Doug Coe answered. The congressman half smiled as if caught between confessing ignorance and pretending he knew what Doug Coe was talking about. “Like the Mafia,” Coe clarified. “Look at the strength of their bonds.” He made a fist and held it before Tiahrt’s face. Tiahrt nodded, squinting. “See, for them it’s honor,” Coe said. “For us, it’s Jesus.”

Doug Coe listed other men who had changed the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their “brothers”: “Look at Hitler,” he said. “Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, bin Laden.” The Family possessed a weapon those leaders lacked: the “total Jesus” of a brotherhood in Christ.

“That’s what you get with a covenant,” said Doug Coe. “Jesus plus nothing.”


Hitler gets positive treatment by The Family’s leaders throughout the book; not praise for his atrocities but admiration for his ability to mobilize the masses. Sick indeed but not without precedent in American Christianity. There was once a man named Frank Buchman, an upper-class evangelist, who Sharlet discusses in the book and also in this excerpt, “The F-Word,” for Counterpunch, which I don’t make a habit of reading:

“There is tremendous power,” preached Buchman, “in a minority guided by God.” In a sympathetic portrait published by The New York World-Telegram, Buchman named names. “But think what it would mean to the world if Hitler surrendered to the control of God. Or Mussolini. Or any dictator. Through such a man, God could control a nation overnight and solve every last, bewildering problem.” He thought the process had already started: “I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler, who built a front line of defense against the anti-Christ of Communism,” he told the reporter.

Before the war, when men such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh openly admired Hitler, it was still safe to name the style of government to which these words pointed: Human problems, Buchman declared, require “a God-controlled democracy, or perhaps I should say a theocracy.” Just as good, he added, would be a “God-controlled Fascist dictatorship.”

What surprised me, aside from remembering a time, long before mine, when right-wing nuts had a thing for the resolve of fascist dictators, is what Sharlet writes next in a portion that doesn’t appear in the book:


cont...
 
cont...

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
Anonymous 12:05 PM

Thanks! :-)
 
cont...

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont...

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
EU Sets Sights On Extending Current Climate Deal At Cancun

October 15, 2010

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - European environment ministers have agreed a list of priorities for the upcoming UN conference on biodiversity, with the bloc's strategy for crucial climate change talks later this year increasingly shifting towards the issue of an extension of the existing Kyoto Protocol, long a bone of contention between rich and poor countries.

The gathering in Luxembourg on Thursday (14 October) confirmed the EU headline target of halting biodiversity loss by 2020 and restoring the ecosystem in so far as feasible, while stepping up the bloc's contribution to avert global biodiversity loss.

But Europe will not provide new money to other countries in this area at the moment, warned Flemish minister for environment Joke Schauvliege, ahead of the biodiversity talks in Nagoya, Japan, later this month (18-29 October).

The ministers indicated that Europe would push for an extension to the current multilateral treaty on reducing greenhouse gases - the Kyoto Protocol - at crucial UN climate change talks which start in Cancun, Mexico, next month.

For more . . .
http://euobserver.com/9/31049
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont....

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
This morning Beck was saying that our religions are being hijacked by those using the term social justice. Isn't that what we who are fighting NA are saying?

At Alternet, a very leftist website, they are running a story on The Family based on an interview with Sharlet.
http://tinyurl.com/2wgnzqs

At the right margin they are featuring this:
Violent Hunter of Progressives Tips His Hat to Glenn Beck for Inspiration - He 'Blew My Mind'

Morality is another matter. Where a person can take information from the right or left after double checking, there can be no compromise on morality.

That may sound stiff necked, but it's how things have to be if we are to weather this storm. This is an example of the need to stand firm:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/paladino.apology/

By the way, this is the second attempt to post this. I saved what I attempted to post (CTRL C). I had received a message saying there were conflicting attempts to post. When I went back, what I wrote had disappeared. If I hadn't saved it, what I wrote would have just disappeared. I guess Constance's warning "now you see it now you don't, save it" has come to this blog.

Dorothy
 
cont...

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont...

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
Dorothy,

I am having the same problem as well.
 
cont.

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont.

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont.

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
...That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
cont..

That dream survives today. Not just in the political ambitions of Christian Right politicians, currently an embattled species, but even more so in the seemingly sanguine lifestyle fundamentalism preached by mega-pastors such as Joel Osteen (author of Become a Better You), whose very name is trademarked, and Rick Warren, author of the mammoth-selling Purpose-Driven Life—and, as of April 2008, the official sponsor of Rwanda, which under his guidance has submitted to soul surgery on a national scale to become the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” embracing Warren’s amiably-phrased mixture of obedience theology and Bible-based capitalism as an antidote to godlessness, whether that comes in form of genocide or socialism.

Warren, despite his mild-mannered demeanor – or maybe because of it –doesn’t make distinctions. Either you’re with God, or you’re against Him.

And yet, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and the business-friendly fundamentalism of the post-Christian Right era don’t set off liberal alarms the way the pulpit pounders such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson do. The irony is that the agenda of this new lifestyle evangelicalism is more far-reaching than that of the traditional Christian Right: the Christian Right wanted a seat at the table; lifestyle evangelicalism wants to build the table. It wants to set the very terms in which we imagine what’s possible, and to that end it dispenses with terms that might scare off liberals. It’s big tent fundamentalism – everybody in.

cont...
 
cont...

But the ultimate goals remain the same. True, Osteen steers clear of abortion for the most part, and Warren, every bit as opposed to homosexuality as Jerry Falwell was, prefers to talk about AIDS relief. But both men—and the new evangelicalism as a movement—continue to preach the merger of Christianity and capitalism pioneered three quarters of a century ago. On the surface, it’s self-help; scratch, and it’s revealed as a profoundly conservative ideology that conflates church and state, scripture and currency, faith and finance. There’s a sense in which Buchman’s vision of “God-controlled supernationalism” thrives today more surely than it ever did in the 1930s, a period of radical economic upheaval. Only, today we call it globalism.

The F-word, as I understand Sharlet, is not fascism but fundamentalism—“Nope,” he corrected me in an email I just received, “It’s ‘fascism,’ the most toxic word in American political discourse.” —though I’m not sure he sees much difference between the two Sharlet wrote:

fundamentalism has deep democratic roots as well as authoritarian inclinations. Fascism does not. In most of my interviews, I even defend Dobson and Robertson and co—I disagree with them, but they participate in the democratic process. Moreover, fascism reveres violence as redemptive; fundamentalism does not, even when it participates in state violence.

Certainly, I can agree with Sharlet that governments don’t work well when they are handed over to a dictator who claims to be doing the work of God; yes, God can use humans to further his kingdom on Earth, but humans have a mortal inclination to abusing power. King Henry VIII is an easy and clear example, as are a number of the popes of the Middle Ages. But this a critical—some would say cynical—way to look at Warren’s humanitarian efforts in Africa.

Maybe I’m naive for not seeing it the same.


http://www.jewishjournal.com/
thegodblog/item/rick_warren_
fascism_and_the_family_20080616/
 
Anonymous said...
This morning Beck was saying that our religions are being hijacked by those using the term social justice. Isn't that what we who are fighting NA are saying?

At Alternet, a very leftist website, they are running a story on The Family based on an interview with Sharlet.
http://tinyurl.com/2wgnzqs

At the right margin they are featuring this:
Violent Hunter of Progressives Tips His Hat to Glenn Beck for Inspiration - He 'Blew My Mind'

Morality is another matter. Where a person can take information from the right or left after double checking, there can be no compromise on morality.

That may sound stiff necked, but it's how things have to be if we are to weather this storm. This is an example of the need to stand firm:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/paladino.apology/

By the way, this is the second attempt to post this. I saved what I attempted to post (CTRL C). I had received a message saying there were conflicting attempts to post. When I went back, what I wrote had disappeared. If I hadn't saved it, what I wrote would have just disappeared. I guess Constance's warning "now you see it now you don't, save it" has come to this blog.

Dorothy

12:27 PM
 
Peacebringer,
The accuracy of Sharlet's information doesn't depend on who is promoting his material. The left will see it as Christian conspiracy. The right will say it's not accurate. Only people who have learned of the connection with New Age have the larger picture.

It's a capitalist culture and Sharlet wants compensation for the research he did. He didn't put in so much effort as a favor to those on any side so he will get his information out where he can.

Too many on the left and right, conservative and leftist, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, have bought into welfare thinking. They trust that someone else must sacrifice everything to take care of them while they go about their own lives. So, they are suckered by manipulators who tell them they are doing just that, taking care of them.
 
My comment just posted.e

Dorothy
 
Anon 12:05,

Thanks, it sure is nice to feel loved! lol
 
Anon at 5:20 pm,

do you deny that Christians used the codex form before the 3rd Century, i.e. 200 AD? The point in question is was the Holy Bible, especially the 27 books of the New Testament already agreed apon and in circulation well before the invention of the Roman Catholic Church & therefore well before the Council of Nicea, the answer is yes to both of these points.

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church deliberately kept the Latin Vulgate [ A poor & corrupt translation from the original Greek MANUSCRIPTS], allowed only the Roman Church heirarchy to read & interpret it, forbidding the laypersons to do so, even if they were extremely dynamic in reading texts, and murdered people such as Tyndale for translating the Bible, even the Corrupt Vulgate, let alone the Greek, into the vernacular. So Rome inhibited and demoted the disemination of the Holy Bible, & it did not originate the disemination of the 27 NT books!

[In fact, at the Council of Trent, Rome decided to include the Apocryphal books as part of Divinely Inspired Holy Scripture, which were important historical books, granted, but were NEVER PART of the True Canon of God's inspired Holy Scripture! It is a red herring for Rome to pretend it doesn't view the Apocrypha as part of God's Inspired Holy Scripture just because it terms the books of the Apocrypha as deutrocanonical, it does and to its great error!

(NO mention of any part of the Aprocryphal books is found in the New Testament, unlike the references in the New Testament pertaining to every one of the 39 books of the Old Testament)

How many people could read versus how many couldn't during the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Centuries is irrelevant to the point of whether the contents of the 27 books had been agreed upon as Divinely given Holy Scripture, and whether the entirety, whether or not bound in one item, were in circulation well before Roman catholicism even existed. The answer to both questions being a resounding yes!

Continued below
 
To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
This isn't exactly what I was looking for, but it illustrates some of the new age thinking in the Purpose-Driven Life.

Taken from Chapter 38 on “Becoming a World-Class Christian”

Shift from local thinking to global thinking. God is a global God. He has always cared about the entire world. “God so loved the world…” From the beginning he has wanted family members from every nation he created. The Bible says, “From one person God made all nations who live on earth, and a he decided when and where every nation would be. God has done all this,so that we will look for him and reach out and find him.”(Acts 17: 26-27 CEV)

Much of the world already thinks globally. The largest media and business conglomerates are all multinational. Our lives are increasingly intertwined with those in other nations as we share fashions, entertainment, music, sports, and even fast food. Probably most of the clothes you are wearing and much you ate today were produced in another country. We are more connected than we realize. (Warren, 2002, p. 300)

Warren, Rick (2002). The Purpose- Driven Life: What on Earth am I here for? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
 
BattleCreekDavid:

Those will work for me. It's the same ol' local-global dialectic
 
DUE TO MY FOLLOW UP BEING REMOVED, I AM REPOSTING IT!

To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
Susanna,

I had done some looking across these lines previously, but with all of the subtle nuances we have covered this end had not had nearly enough time devoted to it. Warren's ties to Yunus are not restricted to financial dealings with Gates though. Both Warren and Saddleback heavily promote microcredit. So much so that it has become a formula advocated within his PEACE Plan.

http://tinyurl.com/249oqqe

http://tinyurl.com/264ekfc

http://tinyurl.com/2ffqgp6

http://tinyurl.com/2abnsjc

There are multiple areas where these men cross paths. I am going to take some time and compile a more detailed list because the cross pollination here really is alarming.
 
P.S., Anon at 5:20, regards your irrelevancies. You obviously have no concept of the history of oracy and literacy. If you did, you would not put up such strawmen. In cultures, relevant to the period and region to which my points pertain. Those who did not take up aprenticehips to learn to read and write and effectively be trained as scribes, and for the general populace who were neither rich nor offered the position to train as a scribe, were nonetheless in the habit of learning by memory, word for word, those things pertaining to Holy Scripture, which were relayed to them; a feat unimaginable by the vast majority of people in today's modern society in the West. Their memories were so habituated to storing such information repeated to them over and again, that the prospect of 'Chinese whispers', was negligable if not non-existent.

Notwithstanding my response above to your irrelevant and naive comments relating to literacy and the propensity to disseminate, the facts remain that evidentially the 27 books of the Holy Scripture were agreed upon as uniquely Holy Scripture regarding the New Testament and were freely disseminated in codex format long before Constantine and RCism. Those who read, did, and narrated to others who in turn committed the passages to memory in their entirety!

The Council of Nicea, presided over by Constantine just BEFORE the establishment of anything resembling or being the Roman 'Catholic' 'Church', dealt with Arianism and affirmed, because of doubts being sown by promoters of Arianism, the Divinity of Jesus Christ [already recognised by those of the Church that had not succumbed to anything pertaining to Arianism].

The Council of Nicea was not where the 27 books of the New Testament were first recognised as uniquely being that pertaining to inspired Scripture, which happened in the 1st Century organically and similtaneous to the period immediate to the completion of all that is contained within those blessed 27 books, the 27 books copied being disseminated from the word go! [70 -100 A.D.!]

I have nothing more to add, as you are obviously deaf and blind to the truth!
 
Here is one more I forgot to add that goes a long way toward understanding how Warren relates to our work. From the PEACE Plan site, when one searches for microcredit, 21 lessons and resources are brought up on the subjects of social lending and social business. One of these alone is titled Kingdom Business, which advocates that micro enterprise is the business of the kingdom of God.

http://tinyurl.com/29z5pom
 
MY FOLLOW ON FROM 1:27 PM to ANON at 5:20 PM HAS DISAPPEARED ONCE AGAIN!

I SHALL JUST HAVE TO KEEP POSTING IT!!!!!!

To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
SEEING AS MY POST KEEPS DISAPPEARING, AND IS NOW JUMBLED LET IT BE SEEN IN ORDER! IF IT JUMBLES AGAIN, PLEASE FOLLOW THE NUMBERING!!

1)

Anon at 5:20 pm,

do you deny that Christians used the codex form before the 3rd Century, i.e. 200 AD? The point in question is was the Holy Bible, especially the 27 books of the New Testament already agreed apon and in circulation well before the invention of the Roman Catholic Church & therefore well before the Council of Nicea, the answer is yes to both of these points.

Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church deliberately kept the Latin Vulgate [ A poor & corrupt translation from the original Greek MANUSCRIPTS], allowed only the Roman Church heirarchy to read & interpret it, forbidding the laypersons to do so, even if they were extremely dynamic in reading texts, and murdered people such as Tyndale for translating the Bible, even the Corrupt Vulgate, let alone the Greek, into the vernacular. So Rome inhibited and demoted the disemination of the Holy Bible, & it did not originate the disemination of the 27 NT books!

[In fact, at the Council of Trent, Rome decided to include the Apocryphal books as part of Divinely Inspired Holy Scripture, which were important historical books, granted, but were NEVER PART of the True Canon of God's inspired Holy Scripture! It is a red herring for Rome to pretend it doesn't view the Apocrypha as part of God's Inspired Holy Scripture just because it terms the books of the Apocrypha as deutrocanonical, it does and to its great error!

(NO mention of any part of the Aprocryphal books is found in the New Testament, unlike the references in the New Testament pertaining to every one of the 39 books of the Old Testament)

How many people could read versus how many couldn't during the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Centuries is irrelevant to the point of whether the contents of the 27 books had been agreed upon as Divinely given Holy Scripture, and whether the entirety, whether or not bound in one item, were in circulation well before Roman catholicism even existed. The answer to both questions being a resounding yes!

Continued below
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
3) P.S., Anon at 5:20, regards your irrelevancies. You obviously have no concept of the history of oracy and literacy. If you did, you would not put up such strawmen. In cultures, relevant to the period and region to which my points pertain. Those who did not take up aprenticehips to learn to read and write and effectively be trained as scribes, and for the general populace who were neither rich nor offered the position to train as a scribe, were nonetheless in the habit of learning by memory, word for word, those things pertaining to Holy Scripture, which were relayed to them; a feat unimaginable by the vast majority of people in today's modern society in the West. Their memories were so habituated to storing such information repeated to them over and again, that the prospect of 'Chinese whispers', was negligable if not non-existent.

Notwithstanding my response above to your irrelevant and naive comments relating to literacy and the propensity to disseminate, the facts remain that evidentially the 27 books of the Holy Scripture were agreed upon as uniquely Holy Scripture regarding the New Testament and were freely disseminated in codex format long before Constantine and RCism. Those who read, did, and narrated to others who in turn committed the passages to memory in their entirety!

The Council of Nicea, presided over by Constantine just BEFORE the establishment of anything resembling or being the Roman 'Catholic' 'Church', dealt with Arianism and affirmed, because of doubts being sown by promoters of Arianism, the Divinity of Jesus Christ [already recognised by those of the Church that had not succumbed to anything pertaining to Arianism].

The Council of Nicea was not where the 27 books of the New Testament were first recognised as uniquely being that pertaining to inspired Scripture, which happened in the 1st Century organically and similtaneous to the period immediate to the completion of all that is contained within those blessed 27 books, the 27 books copied being disseminated from the word go! [70 -100 A.D.!]

I have nothing more to add, as you are obviously deaf and blind to the truth!
 
Point 2) again

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
POINT 2 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!

2:37 PM
 
JD,

Nice picture of Rick Warren sitting next to Yunus while Yunus is speaking accompanies this article about CGI.

YUNUS SPELLS OUT LESSONS FOR BANKERS

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus has said philanthropy has to change from a system where people receive charity to one where they learn how to empower themselves.

Yunus put forward the lesson to world leaders as he spoke at former US President Bill Clinton's global summit in New York on Friday amid unfolding woes of Wall Street giants collapsing one after another.

The three-day summit came to a close on Friday with Clinton's appreciation of microfinance investors who helped ``real people'' make a ``real rate of return'' in poor nations.

It was suggested that the financial giants look to the world's humblest lenders.

"We have to get out of this mindset that the rich will do the business and the poor will have the charity," said Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, which provides small business loans to people who cannot get traditional loans.

The Clinton Global Initiative brought together global leaders to develop and then implement workable solutions to some of the world's most pressing challenges.

Yunus, the "banker to the poor," won the Nobel in 2006 for inspiring a global microfinance movement that has lifted millions out of poverty by granting tiny loans.

Unlike Wall Street, which is reeling from a flood of loans that may never be paid back, Grameen Bank has a recovery rate of more than 98 percent, according to media reports.

In his speech, Clinton cautioned against allowing the US financial crisis to undercut anti-poverty aid.

As congressional leaders try to hammer out a $700 billion bailout plan to buoy US financial markets, Clinton said lenders for small-scale businesses in impoverished nations were ``smart people'' making money with a ``real economy based on real people doing real things for a real rate of return".

Clinton unveiled 250 new commitments worth $8 billion and aimed at improving living conditions for about 158 million people as his annual conference ended in New York.


http://www.thedailystar.net/story.
php?nid=56828

By the way, the statictics about the loan "recovery rate" are debatable, but that is another story.
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
Constance 8:02 P.M.

Earlier you mentioned VIBES.

I checked it out and learned that "VIBES" is definitely New Age insofar as it refers to
a New Age concept called "Six-Sensory living." It teaches that we have six senses, and not five.

There is even a book about it by so-called "psychic" Sonia Choquette entitled TRUST YOUR VIBES: SECRETS FOR INTUITIVE LIVING.

And.....roll the drums......there is even something called REIKI VIBES!!!.....

Reiki Vibes

A couple of years ago I met Tanya Bakas through the Canadian Reiki Association. While getting ready for a Reiki Demonstration on City TV’s Breakfast Television, I learned that Tanya and her friend Tracy Lydiatt, found that they shared the same mission: “To Inspire, Educate and Connect people to Reiki.” In addition to their own practices, they formed “Reiki Vibes Holistic Consulting” and gathered inspiring stories, submitted by friends, family and clients – literally, from around the globe. The result? The book: Reiki Vibes – Heartwarming Stories. Want to be inspired while at the same time learn more about the healing loving energy of Reiki? Buy the book. You’ll love it! Official book launch is Saturday February 6, at Dream Designs, 1502 Marine Drive, West Vancouver Reiki Vibes – Heartwarming Stories

http://www.virginiasmith.ca/
________________________________

There's even "Trust Your Vibes Oracle Cards"......hmmmmm... sounds like Tarot to me...they even claim to be playing with a full deck!

http://www.janetboyer.com/Trust_
Vibes_Deck.html
______________________________

They even have "Saints and Angels Oracle Cards".....no danger of playing with a full deck here since there are only 44 cards.

Get a load out of this! Deception on steroids!!!

This is not Catholic. It is heretical gnostic occultism.

http://www.janetboyer.com/Saints_
and_Angels_Oracle_Cards.html
________________________________

Tarot is even openly mentioned in the sidebar to the left.

Sonia Choquette has her own card decks which are now available in your iPhone or iPod touch. ( Here is a new one for us to consider, JD....I wonder when these will morph into "Smart Oracle Cards???" )

The web-surfer is encouraged at the website to "Use Oracle Cards to help you to overcome life's challenges."

http://agoodvibeaday.com/
_______________________________


The Roman Catholic Church has long condemned the Tarot as a device of the devil and in the past referred to the cards as "the Devil's Bible" or "the Devils Picture Book."
 
Anonymous said...

Peacebringer,
The accuracy of Sharlet's information doesn't depend on who is promoting his material. The left will see it as Christian conspiracy. The right will say it's not accurate. Only people who have learned of the connection with New Age have the larger picture.

It's a capitalist culture and Sharlet wants compensation for the research he did. He didn't put in so much effort as a favor to those on any side so he will get his information out where he can.

Too many on the left and right, conservative and leftist, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, have bought into welfare thinking. They trust that someone else must sacrifice everything to take care of them while they go about their own lives. So, they are suckered by manipulators who tell them they are doing just that, taking care of them.

12:54 PM


Anonymous said...
My comment just posted.e

Dorothy

12:54 PM
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
2) To Anon at 5:20 PM Continued here:

Again you pack your response with irrelevancy to the question at hand. Firstly, You infer the word 'mass' where I speak of circulation based upon your irrelevant premise of the notion that few people could read [despite you not providing percentages of such for the period in question of how many people, in Israel and Greece for example, could read, and how many dedicated scribes there were etc, even if you did, which you haven't, such information would be irrelevant, given the information I have provided for my points at hand.) Whether this is the case or no, IT IS IRRELEVANT to the question at hand, which favours my points due to the academic resources at hand.

Secondly, I note that the academic evidence points to the 27 books of the New Testament being in free circulation by 70 to 100 AD, facilitated by the codex form which in turn became the format overwhelmingly accepted by Christians for production and distribution of copies of the 27 books of the New Testament.

Your point, I repeat, over how many people were able to read is a red herring and you know it! The point is, I repeat again, that scholars agree, as the overwhelming evidence impels them to, that the inclusion of the 27 books into the New Testament canon and the distribution of all 27 books, was agreed long before the Roman 'Catholic' Institution ever existed, itself being established by Constantine!

Provide worthy academic evidence to refute my claims of the 27 books being recogised, copied and diseminated well before Constantine, his Council of Nicea, and establishment of Roman 'Catholicism'. You've provided no sources so far. Keep it relevant.

Face it, you don't like to face facts, and you have nothing substantial, despite your red-herrings, irrelevancies, strawmen, and diversions, and cannot back up anything you purport, relevant to my points, with which to refute my argument!

Educate yourself, and stop waffling, keep things relevant! You have done nothing but further highlight your ignorance of both academic method, the historic period we are concerned with, and my validated points at hand!

I can no longer humor you. It is pointless to try to educate you, for you are obviously unwilling to be educated or to provide any educated points outside speculation!
 
1 – 200 of 303 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]