Friday, January 26, 2007
Filtering or sorting the truth from the errors is extremely difficult to do when one starts with the specifics. The only way to appraise the truth is to start with the most general possible. This is why Jesus started with results or consequences, what he called "fruit."
Misinformation and deliberately spread disinformation is nearly impossible to verify without huge resources. What person acting alone can fact check every assertion made on the Internet for example or on TV or in hardcopy print, etcetera?
Concerning the Clinton conspiracy spreaders for instance, the Internet sitehttp://www.w3f.com/patriots/bodies.htmlsays the following about Larry Nichols:
Larry Nichols, a former official of the ADFA and author of "The Clinton Chronicles", was apparently poisoned in November 1994. On a recent TV show Nichols said, "I guess they will have to try again." He also stated that, "Bill Clinton deals in margins" ..(paraphrasing)... he will decide whether it will result in more problems for Nichols to die suddenly vs. risk having him testify if the Republicans gain control of the Senate."
However, Larry Nichols is still alive as of Friday, January 26, 2007. He has his own website at.
Was it deliberate disinformation to include Larry in the body count? Who else on the body count pages is still alive or didn't die as suggested? If someone doesn't check each and every one of them and just rather runs with the information, the virus spreads whether initially intentional or not.
This is not to say that people should not engage in seeking the truth and then put out there what they have. It is rather to say that it is wrong that the centralizing aspect of our societies is in the hands of those who really don't want the truth out. They want rather to control for evil's sake.
The problem is that people in various camps are out to get others rather than in being out to save others. There's a huge difference. In fact, it is all the difference.
Jesus wasn't motivated by getting the Pharisees. He was motivated by saving the savable. The un-savable consequently got themselves. It wasn't and isn't Jesus's fault.
The mainstream news cannot be trusted and the alternative news doesn't have the resources to check everything even if it wanted to.
Plenty of alternative news sources definitely want to look hard at those who will keep the alternatives from obtaining their own selfish desires. When it comes time to turn the spotlight on the side they are promoting, it's all kid gloves, it's all excuses, every mistake is an honest mistake, etc.
You will note that nothing Jesus wrote in the mundane sense has apparently survived. Yet, he is the most famous person in human history. You will also note that what is written as quotation of him in the Gospels is sparse really.
That sparseness lends itself to less specific nitpicking. He isn't caught in repeating an error made by someone else, therefore, his message is not so readily dismissed by those who will throw out an entire message over a single questionable point or a discovered error.
Of course, Jesus was closer to the truth for it.
Well then, why do we write? Why have we written thousands of pages? Aren't we setting ourselves up for others to discover errors and therefore weaken and destroy the message?
That would be the case except for the exception that the message is about discovering and uncovering the truth. It isn't about having all the specifics instantly. It is about becoming closer and closer to the real kingdom of heaven.
We don't say we have a monopoly on the individual facts. We do say that we have a monopoly on the path to them.
We also say that the reduction of error is the point rather than giving up just because one hasn't yet achieved the sharing with God God's ultimate perfection. We mean that it is wrong to give up when one discovers, or is informed of, factual errors. One corrects them and adjusts accordingly in the spirit of honesty.
It is within that spirit that people may openly question and others may openly answer for the sake of truth that is righteousness.
Right now though, we have a huge push that is a continuation since the beginning, toward mundanely outlawing questioning. Questioning is to be looked upon as disloyal.
It cuts both ways, people will think. It is paradoxical, people with think. They will say then what's wrong with questioning everything about God.
Well, the very act of questioning is the search for God's real nature whether or not people realize that or not. The way things really are is God by definition. It isn't a question of whether or not God. It is a question of what is really real. In this sense, the God of the atheist is the atheist him or herself and others.
Since we've raised Larry Nichols, let's take a look at how he turned the spotlight on Clinton but turns it away from the Bush family.
Larry rips Clinton with everything he has. He concludes collusion everywhere based upon the preponderance of evidence he presented. However, he does not bring that exact same methodology to viewing George W. Bush. The way Larry presents it, Clinton's motives were evil and selfish while Bush's motives are righteous and unselfish.
For instance, look at what he has to say that is perception management concerning 9-11:
May I set the record straight, or at least give you my opinion of why we are in Iraq and where we are in the war. First, let me remind you, why and how, we got in this war in the first place. President Bush didn't start this war. they did. Yes, and "they" in this case, were the terrorists and it started on September 11, 2001 ( better known today as 911) in New York City, Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania.
It wasn't about WMD, oil or revenge. It was about protecting you and me and our families from having to worry about terrorists killing us right here in the United States of America. Don't let time, politics or anything else confuse you about who started this war and when it actually began.
You see how it works. Nichols bread is buttered by a particular gang manifestation of the selfish spirit of Satan.
This is the half-truth methodology being exposed. It isn't which brand of selfishness to choose. It is not to choose selfishness at all. That's the challenge. That's what overcoming means.
Larry is trying to wrap God in the American flag. He is duped (no matter how aware of his conniving he is) and is duping others. Larry is making money off his methodology. That's first and foremost. He says "God Bless" as his complimentary close, but then does he preach giving and sharing all as the Christian commons? No. Where does he stand on divine egalitarianism and humanitarianism? He certainly isn't a pacifist even though Jesus was.
This is how we know them. What are the results of Larry's position? War, death, destruction, commercial enslavement—not freedom.
David Lawrence Dewey has taken a position concerning Mena that is very much closer to the real kingdom. He saw the need for a clear account and then universal repentance and forgiveness. He expressed that on his website:http://www.dldewey.com/columns/menaf.htm. This is not a blanket endorsement of Dewey's site, however, far from it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)