The Latter Rain: Fundamentalism versus Pentecostalism: Heresy Issues, Etc.
This is an interesting page that explains a great deal about the Latter Day Movement in Christianity. Just to be clear, the RLCC agrees with much of Pentecostalism. Where we diverge concerns speaking in tongues as the Pentecostals define the term. We believe in the account in Acts, but we believe they were speaking in native tongues: National tongues that all people from the given nations would understand without needing any interpretation allowed for by Paul in his version of tongues that is most certainly not the same thing as what occurred at the Pentecost, the fiftieth day after the Resurrection.
To be further clear, not all Pentecostals believe in the unintelligible form of tongues either.
On October 1, 2008, Comcast plans to limit residential customer downloads to 250 gigabytes a month. They say that represents 50 million e-mails [what size?] or 125 standard-definition movies [most people would prefer hi-res].
So-called governmental officials involved in the city's (Minneapolis) handling of the Republican National Convention have been repeating the idea that a few "anarchists" disrupted the peaceful protest activities of people around the convention. While it is true that there are people who call themselves anarchists who do engage in property destruction, the vast majority do not. Most anarchists are in fact pacifists.
Anarchists were given a bad name as the direct result of the extreme capitalistic forces operating the attorney generals office under Palmer and his assistant, J. Edgar Hoover, who went on to become the lifetime director of the FBI. Anarchists were framed with the crimes of a few, who may very well have been agents of the government or incited by such agents (a very common tactic of the FBI and others). Also, as I've stated before in earlier posts, the government of the U.S., which now has melded local law-enforcement under the Nazi term "Homeland Security" into one system spanning the globe, does send in agents provocateurs (agents whose job it is to provoke violence).
As to the repeated statement by the officials, the truth is that many peaceful protesters with no agitators or militant anarchists involved were unconstitutionally attacked (which means unlawfully) by the Minneapolis police. Many were pepper sprayed, Maced, subjected to concussion grenades, beaten, thrown down, dragged, handcuffed, bloodied, and arrested all while engaging in completely constitutionally protected activities. It's on video, clear and plain.
Also, the police have arrested people with no legitimate cause for such arrests. They have arrested them solely to disrupt dissent, to intimidate, to hold people illegally until after the convention is over. Also, Ramsey County (the county of Minneapolis) Attorney Susan Gaertner has said that she is charging 8 people (who reportedly have no criminal record of violence) with conspiracy to commit riot in the second degree. There is no evidence of which we've been made aware supporting the charges. The charges it has been reported stem from the activities of others outside the group to which the 8 we are assuming belong, namely the RNC Welcoming Committee.
For more information, visit the DemocracyNow! website.
Biden: Israel's decisions must be made in Jerusalem, not D.C.
Joe Biden said, America will "always stand by Israel, without telling Israelis what they can and cannot do." Well, that's a sweeping statement. If pressed, one would hope Joe Biden would openly admit that he would not support Israel were Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran where there is nothing more than fear or longing in the hearts of Israelis and no concrete, verifiable evidence of Iranian international illegality, which so far there has not been.
by Andrew Purvis. Time magazine.
Some people writing for big publications either don't get it or are just propagandists. The U.S. CIA budget (the non-black budget, meaning the one we get to hear about) is some 30 billion dollars a year. That's just the CIA. Then there's the NSA and the DIA and the State Departments own intelligence branch. There's more though. There's also the black budget. The black budget comes out of illegal activities engaged in by the intelligence services. Mostly it comes out of just failing to account for funds allocated to the intelligence and military. It comes from redirecting the funds while deliberately ending the audit trail.
Recently, the U.S. has been exposed for lie after lie after lie, for forgery after forgery, for this covert operation and that covert operation around the globe. Yet, here we have a person writing in Time magazine that there is no evidence that the U.S. was behind the Georgian attacks on South Ossetia.
The U.S. and Israelis have funded the Georgians by billions. They equipped them. They trained them. They had high ranking officials in the military and intelligence services in Georgia. The U.S. has obviously been trying to stir up more and more boogiemen to justify its Military-Industrial Complex. It has plans to install advance radar in the Czech Republic and antiballistic missiles (ABMs) in Poland (unilaterally breaking the ABM Treaty) and it has expanded NATO to Russia's doorstep all against earlier promises not to. It is threatening to end the U.N. to form a League of Democracies to exclude Russia and China and others who won't knuckle under to the U.S.
In spite of all that, Andrew Purvis would have us believe that there is no evidence. The U.S. just finished war exercises with Georgia right before the invasion of Georgia into South Ossetia.
Exactly what the U.S. wanted has happened. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili invaded. The Russians moved in to protect South Ossetia from U.S. hegemony. Now the U.S. neocons are screaming that Russia is the boogieman.
The only way Andrew Purvis could be right would be if there were no struggle by the U.S. to become the global Empire. Everything that has been happening says he's wrong.
You shall know them by their fruits.
The U.S. isn't in the Black Sea with a fleet and it isn't investing another billion dollars in the area because it is disappointed in Mikheil Saakashvili's actions.
There is a great deal of winking going on, and no amount of obfuscation or blindness by Andrew Purvis is going to cover that over.
The neocons are worried about American public opinion. That's why all the stories about how Georgia did it alone and Israel makes its own decisions. That's so when Israel attacks Iran, neocons hope against hope that Americans won't know full well that the U.S. gave a green light.
It's all Machiavellianism. Anyone who doesn't believe that or know that is gullible or ignorant or both.
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)