The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.

Paul answered the theological aspects of the Galatian error with solid theology. But the “whiff test” that something was wrong in those Galatian churches was more subtle than theology alone. The problem was also sociological. “They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them” (Galatians 4:17). In other words, “The legalists want to ‘disciple’ you. But really, they’re manipulating you. By emphasizing their distinctive, they want you to feel excluded so that you will conform to them.” It’s like chapter two of Tom Sawyer. Remember how Tom got the other boys to whitewash the fence for him? Mark Twain explained: “In order to make a man or boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain.” Paul saw it happening in Galatia. But the gospel makes full inclusion in the church easy to attain. It re-sets everyone’s status in terms of God’s grace alone. God’s grace in Christ crucified, and nothing more. He alone makes us kosher. He himself.

The Judaizers would probably have answered at this point, “We love Jesus too. But how can you be a first-rate believer, really set apart to God, without circumcision, so plainly commanded right here in the Bible? This isn’t an add-on. It’s the full-meal deal. God says so.”

Their misuse of the Bible showed up in social dysfunction. “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised. . . . They desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh” (Galatians 6:12-13). In other words, “When Christians, whatever the label or badge or shibboleth, start pressuring you to come into line with their distinctive, you know something’s wrong. They want to enhance their own significance by your conformity to them: ‘See? We’re better. We’re superior. People are moving our way. They are becoming like us. We’re the buzz.’” What is this, but deep emotional emptiness medicating itself by relational manipulation? This is not about Christ. This is about Self. Even Peter fell into this hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14). But no matter who is involved, this is not the ministry of the gospel. Even if a biblical argument can be made for a certain position, and we all want to be biblical, the proof of what’s really happening is not in the theological argumentation but in the sociological integration.

Paul had thought it through. He made a decision that the bedrock of his emotional okayness would forever lie here: “Far be it from me to boast [establish my personal significance] except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:14-15). In other words, “Here is all I need for my deepest sense of myself: Jesus Christ crucified. His cross has deconstructed me and remade me, and I am happy. Everything else is at best secondary, possibly irrelevant, even counterproductive. Let Jesus alone stand forth in my theology, in my emotional well-being and in my relationships with other Christians!” This settledness in Paul’s heart made him a life-giving man for other people. He was a free man, setting others free (Galatians 5:1). This is the acid test of a truly Reformed ministry – that other believers need not be Reformed in order to be respected and included in our hearts.

Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a “plus” we’re adding to the gospel. It is the Galatian impulse of self-exaltation. It can even become a club with which we bash other Christians, at least in our thoughts, to punish, to exclude and to force into line with us.

What unifies the church is the gospel. What defines the gospel is the Bible. What interprets the Bible correctly is a hermeneutic centered on Jesus Christ crucified, the all-sufficient Savior of sinners, who gives himself away on terms of radical grace to all alike. What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love (Galatians 5:13).

My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.
-Ray Ortlund

La humanidad siempre ha tenido un espíritu sectario y la historia no es más que el relato de las guerras entre sectas por alcanzar la hegemonía y el poder, e imponer su credo.

Por un reflejo defensivo ante el acoso a que les someten las sectas dominantes, los grupos minoritarios suelen radicalizarse y se caracterizan por un extremo fanatismo.

No faltan ejemplos en la Historia, aunque tal vez el más significativo sea el que tuvo lugar en el mundo judío, cuando surgió un líder carismático, Jesús, que arrastraba a las masas. Fue acusado de blasfemo por el judaísmo establecido y condenado a morir en la cruz. Sus seguidores fueron perseguidos y considerados como una secta demoníaca. La persecución les radicalizó hasta el extremo de morir martirizados con una sonrisa en los labios. Veinte siglos después, aún pueden apreciarse en la Iglesia católica algunos trazos de fanatismo y no pocos mecanismos represivos que recuerdan, como cicatrices, las heridas de tiempos más difíciles.

Estos algunos de los crímenes cometidos, a lo largo de la Historia, en la lucha por el poder entre sectas. Cruzadas, guerras santas, Inquisición, represión, dictado del terror, etc., son algunos nombres que pueden servir de recuerdo concluyente.

Los ataques que ahora dirige la sociedad cristiana a las sectas minoritarias pueden inscribirse dentro de la estrategia de esta ininterrumpida guerra de las sectas. No debieran olvidar los cristianos su pasado al juzgar a grupos que surgen hoy con una espiritualidad renovada, debido, como ellos antes, a la corrupción de los estamentos religiosos al uso.

Las sectas son grupos minoritarios de personas que han aceptado como absoluta una filosofía determinada y mantienen una actitud hostil y de enfrentamiento hacia otras corrientes de pensamiento. Son tanto más radicales cuanto mayor es el grado de fanatismo de sus miembros y casi todas se caracterizan por un desmesurado afán de proselitismo.

Aunque, a veces, es difícil establecer donde termina la secta y donde empieza la religión, podría decirse que la diferencia más sobresaliente entre ambas es de carácter cuantitativo. Cuando una secta consigue un número mayoritario de adeptos, se convierte en una religión.

Todas las grandes religiones fueron sectas en su día y, muchas, aun conservan vivo, en parte, aquel espíritu sectario de sus primeros tiempos, aunque, en la medida en que se han hecho fuertes y estables, han aumentado también su grado de tolerancia y disminuido su radicalismo.

La secta no se explica si no va unida a otros dos conceptos, el fanatismo y el proselitismo, de lo que es inseparable.

La mente humana no es un reducto inexpugnable sino que es perfectamente permeable a determinadas influencias. Si una mente es muy poderosa influye sobre otra y modifica su entorno. Si es débil se ve influida por éste.

Existe, pues, un tráfico de influencias psíquicas que puede alterar la ideología del individuo y modificar su estructura mental.

Una creencia es más o menos fuerte en relación a la intensidad de la fe que el individuo tiene en ella. En la mayoría de los seres humanos, el despertar de las facultades intelectuales va planteando interrogantes que minan de dudas sus convicciones anteriores. La energía psíquica que sirve de propulsión a todo pensamiento, se escapa, en este caso, por los agujeros de la duda y llega con escasa fuerza a otras mentes.

El caso del fanático, sin embargo, es distinto. Este aún no tiene despiertas sus facultades intelectuales y carece de todo discernimiento. Ha "aceptado" una verdad y, puesto que carece de dudas, la proyecta con toda su energía, causando una impresión considerable en otras mentes, particularmente en aquellas de características similares a la suya, que se limitan a aceptar la nueva "verdad" y se convierten prontamente en transmisores de ella.

Esta es la razón por la que el fanático resulta un proselitista eficaz, y esto explica también el rápido crecimiento de las sectas más dogmáticas y radicales.

Cualquier doctrina parece mayor verdad cuando está establecida y es mayoritariamente aceptada, pero no se olvide que todas las grandes religiones extendidas en occidente, fueron, en su día, grupúsculos marginados a quienes el tiempo, el pacto, y el proselitismo, entre otros factores, llevaron al lugar que hoy ocupan.

Hoy, como ayer, existen numerosas sectas porque existen numerosos individuos emocionales, ciegos a la razón, y dispuestos a transformar en realidades absolutas lo que no son más que deseos y esperanzas utópicos. Recuerden, aquí no encontraran una verdad absoluta, una verdad con mayúsculas, no se dejen engañar, busquen La Verdad, no la de otros. Habrá de transcurrir mucho tiempo antes de que la humanidad evolucione como para elevarse sobre concepciones sectarias.

Unity is awesome. When it doesn’t exist, or when something is drastically divided, it causes me great pain. Like say, within the Catholic Church, or the greater Christian church. And then there’s the whole country, the good ol’ United States of America. How united are we, really? I don’t know, but I’ve seen a lot of passionate people scream at each other in the past few years, instead of forgetting their differences and embracing one another.

Since I like unity so much and I find division to be painful, I find it hard to make a stand sometimes. Also, it’s tough to associate with organizations that seem to perpetuate the division more than work towards unity. (Frankly, this is why I have mixed feelings about Call to Action.) I prefer to fence-sit on really controversial issues, and be present to both sides as a friend and a listener.

Earlier this summer, I was blessed to hear the prophet and Jesuit priest, John Dear, S.J. speak at a Peace Conference. I listened to him passionately and effectively rally folks around the beatitudes and how our guide is the non-violent Jesus. He told tales of how he had been arrested for being a peacemaker and making a stand, and how he’d been asked to step away from ministries and parishes because he was too controversial for taking Jesus literally.

At the end of the day, I stood up and thanked him, and agreed that peace and love are great, but what about division? Isn’t division a form of violence? How can we take a stand and not put up a wall?

His response was just as challenging as his entire message. He encouraged us to think of unity as the starting place and not the destination. The fruits of unity, he said, are peace and love and not the other way around. So, to be peacemakers and to be aware of the unity that we already live within, we must be mystics and contemplatives.

And we must sit with the great question of Jesus, “Do you think I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Luke 12:51)

It’s not unity we’re going towards. It’s God. We’re already there.

I have been, off and on, extremely anxious these past few months, likely due to delving too far into the secrets of my spiritual self. I'm disturbing the spiritually dead, proverbially speaking, and it's not someone else either- it's my dead self. Well of course this is all speculation, but in either case- as far as I'm concerned, I've willingly asked for a glimpse of Hell, and now I'm agonizing over whether it was really worth it.

I began this journey of self-exploration at first just to turn the nothing I was into something in the future; then, once I realized that it was not that simple, I began seeking out what that nothing was, because you cannot do anything you know nothing about, because even nothing is something

Well, all that abstract talk is just me being melodramatic...eventually, I found that the more I discovered about myself through this inference-based reasoning, the more I was able to improve upon myself. I started with internal change (opinions, morals, perspectives), and eventually harnessed these changes into habits/etc., to the point my transformation could not go unnoticed by those who "knew" me. But noooooo...that wasn't good enough for me. I had to find the unfindable answers, relying on the forbidden intuition that I should never have had- well perhaps I've just being "played" by myself- this illusion of soul-torture that I've forced upon myself due to expecting something.

But really, the possibilities are endless, so why doubt my doubts when I can "suspend judgement" on those matters- and focus my attentions on these far more engrossing and apparently irresistable obsessions. But, as you may have noted, these obsessions have really done a number on me. Why is it that I must have such depressing, such inevitably hopeless obsessions.

Now that I know that we all are motivated by the desire to run away from ourselves- or more accurately, we won't be happy unless we do everything to run away from ourselves. No- that's not even accurate. I mean "our other self" - might be our "Ego", might be our "soul" or "spirit" or "psyche"- well, it's arguable that all those words mean the same thing anyway. Perhaps- and this is most definitely the case, we are running away from something far bigger that that. But really, is that even possible, or does it even make any sense, considering at this point it's all just semantics.

Actually, I wouldn't even be able to write this post had it not been for the spontaneous impulses (that's redundant BTW) of my brother- by which I was able to clear my head sufficiently to actually think straight for the first time in 2 days. Now for some revised definitions "for the road":

Sin: Self- you know, the "other self". like I said, all semantics...

Agony: Seeing self, or a reflection/glimpse thereof- for what we really are, an eternally tortured self.

Hell: In "God's" presence we see the ugliness that we really are:

desperate, hateful, dependent, miserable, melancholic, masochistic/sadistic, vengeful, malicious, lonely, obsessed, perverted, greedy, lustful, irrate. All scum that is depicable and distasteful.

As to how such a hellish curse was eternally forced upon us, there are many possibilities, but this is my theory: Balance has always existed- it is the true God. But "in reality", Balance is only rules- just as Pythagoras's numbers did not create anything, but only organized what already existed. We, our "original" self- also existed, and were thus governed by Balance. But to gain self-awareness, our soul- as I'll call the "original self", had to pay an equal price- that is after all necessary to maintain Balance. The "Adam and Eve" story of Genesis 2-3, is IMO, a story that originally took, or more accurately, takes place outside time and a space- humans would not exist if "original self" did not become "original sin. Update: Time did exist- since it is a fundamental necessity of balance.

There are many Bible verses which support this interpretation, in several books, both the old testament and new. Although I really don't have motivation or time (b/f going 2 bed) to cite specific verses (although I probably would have if I didn't spend so much time procrastinating on Uncyclopedia- it's way to funny for my own good! see side-panel links for reference!)-

In Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics, Revelation- just to name a few...

In the account of Jesus's death (found on all 4 gospels, though only a couple in sufficient detail), Jesus dies for our sake- taking the sin of the world upon himself.

I pity those millions (Billions unless it's "all for show") of Christians that completely misinterpret the Bible- it's not like I'm even close to accurate (obviously!) but at least I'm on the right track. Honestly though, how can anyone take what they call "God's Word" at face-value. It's sickening how simple people can be about things so far beyond themselves- what an insult to God!

Back to Jesus: In taking the sin upon himself- I strongly believe that this refers to the evolution of man. See, before man- there was just animals- no self-awareness.

To further understand- I'll shed some more light on my theories regarding the Soul:

The Soul is running away from itself- in denial, just as we are. That is because, in order to create life, death needed to be created. To create ecstasy, despair needed to be created. This was the price of Balance. The soul took upon itself those ugly qualities (the ones listed halfway through what I've written so far) so that it might give birth to the positives. The Soul did this so that it could have meaning, and because it was inevitable- it was in its nature to bestow benevolence. This soul is our God, and is always a part of us....Okay, for the time being ending creepy mystical mutterings...

Naturally, the Soul could not bear this state of being (hell), so it thrust itself into its creation, and became ignorant. The soul enjoyed bliss in this ignorance- animals, plants, and all life at that time, had naught but instincts, and thus had no reason to find the Soul. This is not unfeasible, as most humans today have the gift of self-awareness but do not use it, leaving it dormant.

But, in accordance with Balance, the Soul innately struggled to correct the imperfection of its beasts, and these struggles took on the form of evolution, with its battle-scars taking on the form of mutation, and its confusion was mirrored in natural chaos. As the struggle became exponentially intense, a split occurred within the Soul- this was also a necessity of balance. The struggle had reached a level so great that it threatened to destroy Balance, and an innate failsafe defense mechanism was activated within Balance, resulting in the first miracle. This miracle, having split the Soul into two, formed what I will call the "Thesis" and "Antithesis". Both the Thesis and Antithesis seek to be reunited under a Synthesis- but, in accordance with balance, this is not possible because that desire is neutralized with an equal and opposite force.

*Please note: Contrary to Augustine's theory that God exists outside time, my account, assuming "God" to be "the creator", exists within time-- Balance always exists, therefore time does. Even though God has always existed, he did within time, because Balance is also eternal. My "God" is also not infinite, and is bound by the laws of Balance.

The desire for synthesis is mirrored in our own lives to this day, because it is necessary for Balance. One might ask the question, is there then the possibility that there is also imbalance?- But if the answer was yes, that would be a moot paradox, so I wouldn't bother. (see Illogical)

Also, these events are somewhat reflected in the story of Cain and Abel.

Eventually, amid the struggles between the negative and positive that is the Soul, life evolved into increasingly complex organisms. But, in accordance with Balance, existence must be sustained by non-existence- thus, As many who are born must die. Because the animals were reproducing and flourishing, more were being born than were dying.

*Please note- keep in mind that although the Thesis and Antithesis are fighting, neither are self-aware of it, as their self-awareness is dormant within now-primitive life. Their subconsciousness's are dualing, and they are only aware of the effects, in the forms of chaos and mutation.

*Also- these circumstances are reflected in the story of Noah's Ark, particularly Gen. 6:1-7.

Now Balance was approaching the failsafe point, and- aware that the Soul had self-awareness, corrected the deficit by calling out the Soul (Antithesis and Thesis) to make a choice: allow the creation to be destroyed (which would be the second miracle), or make another sacrifice to correct the Balance in their stead. Because the Soul was now two different beings, the choice would have to be made separately. This decision could have been the long-awaited Synthesis, because both the Negative and Positive desired for life to continue flourishing. But Synthesis did not come to be.

The Positive Essence decided to sacrifice its self-awareness eternally, taking the form of Heaven or, more accurately, Nirvana.

The Negative Essence decided to keep it's self-awareness, but eternally resigned its right to ignorance, forever tormented to the ends permitted by Balance- its unhappiness mirroring the happiness of life, and vice versa. Thus, in order for life to be happy, it must be unhappy- we essentially depend on the unhappiness of the negative essence. It took the form of Hell or, more accurately, Samsara.

*Please note that there is a big difference between ignorance and self-awareness. The Positive Essence did not become ignorant by losing its self-awareness- if fact, if I understand Buddhism philosophy correctly, losing self-awareness is essential for losing all ignorance.

*As you probably already guessed, the Positive Essence's sacrifice was mirrored through the life and teachings of Gautama Buddha.

*Also note- The irony: Buddha discovered that the cause of human suffering was ignorance, but this is only one type of truth, which is derived from the Positive essence. Just as our well-being mirrors Samsara, our self-awareness mirrors the Positive Soul's lack thereof. Thus, because the Positive Soul is statically in a state of Nirvana, Balance must correct our ignorance with suffering, in accordance with Nirvana's complete lack of ignorance. On the other hand our ignorance can also grant us happiness, as ignorance makes our creator (the Negative side) unhappy. In other words, two negatives, when multiplied, make a positive. See here: God hates being ignored. Why do you think this commandment takes top spot on the 10?

*The Negative Essence was mirrored long before the Positive Essence did (Hinduism), but the effects were not fully realized until the life of Jesus. Because of the complications caused by the division of the Essences, and the sacrifices thereof, many miracles occurred up until the time of Jesus, and echoed until long after, in accordance. The effects of the Positive Essence need no be mirrored long, because it actually returned to its original self- essentially rendering it's role in the creation of life nonexistent. The original miracle through Which Nirvana's choice was reflected, was told in the allegory of Jacob and Esau (Gen. 25:30-34). Just as Esau gave up his birthright, Nirvana did as well. Key here is verse 34: ..."thus Esau despised his birthright." This mirrors the notion that Nirvana did not want it's birthright, because self-awareness actually held it captive, thus being more a hindrance than help.

(Just a thought)

Mirroring how Samsara took every kind of agony possible upon itself, Jesus took every sin upon himself. The Negative Essence became Samsara, taking Hell upon itself so that we might live- thus, the balance, at least for the time being, was complete.

Now all that remains is our choice. Because we were made in the Image of the Soul, we have self-consciousness. However, our self-consciousness is incomplete- metaphorically speaking, half complete. This is why we have two selfs. One of our selves has self-awareness, the other does not. That is because we are based upon and depend on two different Essences, of one Soul- one Essence has self-consciousness; the other does not. These two different selfs take the form of the Id and Ego.

The Id is the self-consciousless persona, derived from Nirvana

The Ego is the self-conscious persona, derived from Samsara

thus, Balance is achieved, and all that is left is for us to make the choice:

The Antithesis, the Thesis, or the Synthesis?

If we choose the Antithesis, Nirvana is achieved, ultimately

If we choose the Thesis, We will maintain self-awareness, but perpetually share with the happiness and unhappiness of the Samsara. Unfortunately, to correct the Imbalance required for us to live, we must ultimately suffer, as the suffering must outweigh happiness to compensate for life. This will continue, until we either choose Nirvana, or the third choice- the Synthesis:

Not a true Synthesis, but: We run away from our true selves, gaining ignorance through bliss, and pleasure through Denial. This is, unfortunately, the choice of the vast majority of the world. Although it is clearly the best choice for us, it is the greatest sin one can possibly commit, as we are gaining pleasure as the direct consequence of God's suffering. That is because by ignoring God we are doing that which makes him suffer most, and thus gain the greatest pleasure from it.

To end with a few verses that best reflect that last paragraph:

Mark 8- "34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life^[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" If you really think about it, you'll be taken off-guard at how closely these words match up to this post! ps.- this is probably the most on-the-spot biblical re-translation I've ever done on the spot in my life- guess I showed that Redneck/Asshole!

One year later, the component filed for insolvency as the company failed to turn the tide against dire competition from Nokia and Motorola. About 3,000 workers lost their jobs. Computers, firm furniture, building and other material assets were being sold off by a Hamburg auction house to be set against liabilities of $1.16bn. Prager's actions are the most recent batch of bad news for Siemens, which tomorrow will announce a four per cent headcount cold shoulder among its 435,000 employees, including 6,400 toil losses in Germany alone.

Valued friend link: there

Of course there is the obvious example of shouting "Fire!' in a crowded movie theater and the fear and injury—and perhaps even deaths by trampling—that words like that could cause. But it doesn't have to be that dramatic. One of the reasons we talk crap about other people and gossip and spread tales, for example, isn't just to entertain ourselves. Of course that's often part of it, but often the ultimate aim is to hurt the person, either by them eventually hearing from someone else what's been said or by harming their reputation with other people. Saying the wrong thing in the wrong tone at the wrong time can start freakin' wars, you know, whether wars between individuals or between nations. Saying hurtful things to someone you love can wound them emotionally—possibly in ways that you can never fix—and can wreck relationships.

Anyway, the best known part (I think) about what James wrote about our tongues was that "the tongue is a fire." Here's the more complete passage, though:

Now if we put the bits into the horses' mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh. (James chapter 3, verses 3-12)

I've railed on about the Word of Faith movement a few times around here—yes, there is a point to this sudden shift in direction, trust me—and you can click here for my most prominent bit of ranting on that subject. The reason I bring this up is that the Word of Faith folks don't have it all wrong; it's just that they've twisted it up and corrupted God's meaning as they play to their audiences and chase the tithes, offerings and book deals with their horrible and misleading message. What the Word of Faith folks will tell you is to "name it and claim it." That is, through faith in Jesus and by the power of God, all you have to do is pray for something, say it's yours and believe it, and it will come to pass. You broke? Well, you can be rich if you just pray that you'll be so and have full and complete faith in that. You have cancer? You can be cured instantly if you just believe that the cancer has no power over you.

Mind you, I'm not saying that such miracles cannot occur because they can. But God doesn't just answer every prayer exactly as a person wants it just because they demand it on faith. God isn't an ATM in the sky giving us goodies on demand because we're the faithful.

But what the Word of Faith people are tapping into has a core of truth. Our words hold power. It is possible through faith to bring things about simply by saying it should be so. I'm not talking magic here and I don't mean that it always happens, but Jesus told us that with faith the size of a mustard seed, a person could tell a mountain to move out of the way. Problem is, none of us on this planet have enough faith to tap the power of God directly like that. We are wracked by too many doubts. Jesus walked on water; we don't. But it is possible to put things into motion by speaking them.

Also, there is a "power of positive thinking" thing here too (or power of negative thinking). If we always say we are going to be losers, we will tend to be losers. If we get up, stay in our pajamas and don't shower or go out because we feel shitty, we will probably continue to feel shitty, whereas a shower and some decent clothes might actually improve our attitude. On the other hand, if we say things like "I deserve to be happy" or "I can be a success" we cannot necessarily bring those things about immediately, but we put ourselves on the right path to do so.

Word have power for good or ill. We can seriously hurt people with our words. Or we can lift them up. We can help them see the wonder and power of knowing Christ with the right words. Or we can turn them away from Jesus by saying things that make us look like arrogant, self-righteous assholes. You get the message. At least, I hope you do. Written words have power too, and I'm hoping these ones are getting through.

Look at what James said above. The human tongue is an amazing thing, able to do good or evil with equal ease (though frankly, I think it's easier to do evil with it; good stuff always takes more work and often isn't as viscerally satisfying, which is why we humans have mucked up this planet something fierce). Most things in nature aren't able to do two things that are so diametrically opposed to one another.

So when we say things, we have to be careful. Because when you get right down to it, a slip of the tongue can be as harmful as slipping a knife in between someone's ribs.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3190834299129014789]

Sucre, capital del racismo de César Brie (Director del Teatro de los Andes) de Indymedia Bolivia

Desde noviembre, Sucre está gobernada de hecho por el Comité Interinstitucional cuyos representantes (la mayoría políticos derrotados en las urnas) deciden todo en esa ciudad. Ellos alentaron la formación de los grupos de choque que el 24 de mayo vejaron a los campesinos, obligándolos a besar el suelo y la bandera de Chuquisaca a punta de chicotazos.

El 24 de mayo en Sucre quedará como un capítulo más de la historia universal de la infamia. Un grupos de campesinos vejados a chicotazos y patadas, obligados a marchar semidesnudos hasta la plaza 25 de Mayo, a arrodillarse frente a la Casa de la Libertad, a besar el suelo, la bandera de la capitalía plena, a cantar el himno de Chuquisaca y quemar ellos mismos sus whipalas y pancartas. Pude filmar este espanto y cualquiera puede encontrarlo en Internet, en el sitio You tube.

No tuve la frialdad para quedarme en la plaza y seguir filmando a los responsables, la mayoría con pasamontañas que les cubrían el rostro. Sólo reconocí a uno de los exaltados, que luego de haberlos correteado se estrecho la mano con personeros de la Alcaldía en la puerta de la misma y se fue en una moto que allí tenía parqueada.

Muchas personas, testigos de la vejación, alzaron la voz pidiendo que los campesinos no sean golpeados. Oí un inefable: "No les peguen, si no van a decir que somos racistas". Como si el racismo dependiera de una paliza final y no del secuestro y humillación recibidos. Seres humanos vejados y maltratados. Al día siguiente entrevisté a campesinos que fueron rehenes en la plaza y a otros maltratados y vejados en diferentes lugares de Sucre. Filmé el relato atroz de lo que pasaron, las cortaduras y marcas provocadas por las agresiones. Supe de dos violaciones por un testimonio ocular, agravadas por la decisión de las mujeres violadas de no decir nada para no " deshonrar a sus maridos" .

Filme los piedrazos, las huellas de patadas en la puerta, los vidrios rotos y las marcas de la dinamita arrojada dentro de la casa de Wilber Flores, diputado del MAS que el 10 de abril pasado fue perseguido desde la Alcaldía, golpeado y torturado dentro de un albergue en el cual trató de refugiarse. Flores estaba en El Abra en el momento del ataque a su casa, donde su mujer y su hija debieron huir cerro arriba para no ser linchadas. En Gigavisión los bolivianos pudieron ver a Fidel Herrera (uno de los miembros del Comité Interinstitucional) aplaudiendo a la turba que arrastraba a los campesinos.

Luego, este señor pidió disculpas (¿de haberlo organizado, de haberlo aplaudido, o de ambas cosas?) y a última hora del 26 de mayo se retractó declarando que toda esta agresión había sido realizada por infiltrados del gobierno. Está ultima versión es recogida por el Correo del Sur, periódico parcializado completamente con las opciones de la derecha y que merece el graffiti escrito en una pared de Sucre: "Las paredes callarán, cuando la prensa diga la verdad".

A riesgo de ser linchados: Que el Comité acuse, en este caso, al gobierno por los hechos de violencia que anunció y desencadenó finalmente, es ridículo. Desde noviembre (2007) Sucre está gobernada de hecho por el Comité Interinstitucional cuyos representantes (la mayoría políticos derrotados en las urnas) deciden todo en nuestra ciudad. Muchos de nosotros, que no somos ni simpatizantes del Comité ni miembros del MAS, hemos optado en estos meses por trabajar en silencio para evitar que nuestras opiniones críticas terminaran con una agresión a nuestras personas o a nuestras familias y casas. Pero la infamia del 24 de mayo ha sido la gota que ha rebalsado el vaso.

Nos hemos mirado a la cara y hemos decidido que era hora no ya de comunicarnos vía Internet nuestras impresiones sino de declararlas a riesgo de ser linchados por alguna de las bandas fascistas que el Comité Interinstitucional ha promovido. Nos manifestaremos por la paz y el diálogo, de todas las formas posibles, seremos nosotros los periodistas que recogerán los testimonios que la prensa de Sucre, con pocas excepciones, no quiere recoger.

Nuestra ciudad debe volver a ser lo suficientemente grande para albergar opiniones diferentes que diriman en modo democrático, con el voto de los ciudadanos, sus diferencias. Otras consideraciones: El gobierno no se ha destacado por tener hacia Sucre una actitud coherente. Los sucrenses, del bando que sean, todavía esperan del Presidente de la República al menos un pésame por los muertos, y disculpas por haber excluido de la Asamblea Constituyente el tema de la Capitalía. Quien escribe esta convencido que la Capitalía fue introducida en la Asamblea para poder bloquearla. Esto no excluye que dicho tema debía de ser discutido, tratado y finalmente votado. Si la votación hubiera sido contraria a las aspiraciones de Sucre, supongo que hubiera sido ésta la excusa para bloquear la Asamblea. La ilusión masiva con que se ha engañado a los sucrenses radica en haber vuelto de cariz político una reivindicación histórica. La Paz se quedó con la sede de gobierno por la fuerza de las armas y Sucre, hoy día, tiene dos posibilidades: o dirimir el tema a través de un referéndum nacional, o recurrir a la fuerza. Por eso el lema del Comité y de los exaltados "Ni un paso atrás" es un lema suicida, que no puede conducir a nada, pero muy motivador. El gobierno no ha comprendido que el fascismo, para triunfar debe volverse popular. Y esa popularidad se obtiene a través de slogans demagógicos como el mencionado.

El caldo del cultivo de los grupos fascistas ha sido siempre la clase media. Los errores del gobierno y su escasa vocación democrática han colaborado a popularizar este fascismo. Hoy Sucre tiene las paredes llenas de consignas opuestas, y entre ellas destaca la Falange, dada por sepultada desde la muerte de Unzaga de la Vega. No debe olvidarse que el racismo nunca desapareció de Sucre. Subsistió velado por los buenos modales y un hipócrita barniz cultural. En los cafés de la plaza de Sucre y alrededores no entraban los indios, y si entraban, eran invitados a marcharse.

Con el triunfo de Evo Morales y la instalación de la Asamblea, la clase media comenzó a resignarse a convivir con los indígenas, pero el cariz de los hechos que llevaron a noviembre retrasó el estado de las cosas hasta que la agresión del 24 de mayo nos hizo precipitar a los humillantes escarmientos de la Colonia. Quienes maltrataron a los indígenas el 24 de mayo tienen la misma piel morena, hablan algo de quechua pero visten diferente. Ese es un axioma del racista: parecerse demasiado al objeto de su odio y por lo tanto enseñarse con el otro para ignorar la parte de sí que se le asemeja. La Prefectura de Chuquisaca fue ganada por el MAS con los votos del campo, dado que la ciudad votaba mayoritariamente por la derecha.

Pero la sede de la Prefectura está en la ciudad de Sucre, y a la clase media de Sucre le resultaba intolerable que el partido "del indio" los gobernara. Un intelectual me dijo en la Plaza que la culpa de todo esto era "de ese indio resentido que nos gobierna. Antes vivíamos en paz". Pienso que esa paz en la que este intelectual ha vivido toda su vida ha sido en realidad la paz de la sumisión, ideal para quien somete, aceptable para quien no la sufre y se beneficia indirectamente de ella (las clases medias), pero atroz y degradante para los sometidos, los indígenas. (Si estas opiniones provocan algún tipo de agresión, ruego a los potenciales agresores ensañarse –no excesivamente- directamente con el interesado y no con el Teatro que dirijo ni con mi familia, que no son responsables de lo que escribo y ni siquiera comparten muchas de mis opiniones).

_________________

Otras notas relacionadas:

La derecha boliviana moviliza a sus grupos de choque para ejercer la autonomía de la Fuerza

La derecha fascista alienta el golpe en Bolivia

Un Plan contra la Democracia

El Imperio quiere Guerra en Cochabamba

Evo ante un desafío crucial

Revuelta cívica en "La Media Luna"

One year later, the part filed for insolvency as the company failed to turn the tide against savage competition from Nokia and Motorola. About 3,000 workers lost their jobs. Computers, role furniture, building and other material assets were being sold off by a Hamburg auction house to be set against liabilities of $1.16bn. Prager's actions are the news batch of bad news for Siemens, which tomorrow will announce a four per cent headcount half-tone among its 435,000 employees, including 6,400 role losses in Germany alone.

Respected author link: read there

This is an old Rove interview that I came across the other day. I never knew the little fluffy red monster that we've grown to love is pupetteered by a pretty cool African American named Kevin Clash. I don't know if this is old news, but it was the first I'd heard of it, so I'm pretty impressed :)

Had indoor soccer last night. It's definately been a while since I've played. It was a freezing night and not suprisingly, the entire game my feet were both frozen numb. We had no reserves and the other team, "Wakaboys" , had three. I guess the only reason I mentioned that was to justify why we lost the game (which started at 9:30pm) - yeah, another excuse for the loss :P

To be brutally honest, I don't think any of us mind future relegation. We initially started our team up (named "Warney") after our HSC as a way of keeping in touch over a casual easy game of weekly soccer (no training or anything like that). But we managed to work our way up from Division 4 to Division 1. Now we miss playing the easy games, so relegation back into the lower divisions for me anyway, will be a much welcomed change :)

Division as we are know very well is an inverse of multiplication. You may know division as, erm, division, but the essence of this operative is to reverse of what multiplication can do. However, there is another approach to this. Multiplication can also be explained as repeated addition. Thus, division is naturally repeated subtraction. This method is not practical though, because maths is mainly about accuracy and speed, of which can rarely be found in lengthy solutions such as repeated subtraction or addition.  Of course, that is not my focus in this entry. Sorry for the digression.

Learning by example is unarguably one of the most effective way. Naturally, that notion is practiced in school as often as it could be. In elementary maths, we approached division through examples that we could make sense. E.g. distributing x number of fruits to y number of people, donating k amount of cash to l number of institution. You get the idea. Initially all questions that we came across resulted in whole numbers. Everything was so simple. Other concepts came into play later, i.e. remainder, decimal places etc. Those posed no obstacles too, as their concepts are fairly simple.

At that point, division by zero meant nothing. It meant nothing because there was nothing to divide the numerator to begin with. How are we supposed to distribute 10 apples to 0 person? If we approach this problem using repeated subtraction, it simply suggest we subtract 0 apple out of the total indefinitely. Thus, it's meaningless.

Then we begun learning different branches of mathematics; algebra, calculus, statistics and so on. Division by zero thus rears its ugly head, or many heads as a matter of fact because it's no longer undefined in some of the branches of mathematics even though it still remains meaningless. However, meaningless stuff in mathematics do not equal to harmless kittens when applied in life. How so?

Stay tuned to find out more in the next entry. Adieu, graynut signing off.

Good hard working men and women who never had real management at the appliance division, we are self directed. What are the management people being payed for"nothing". GE tired over 250 million dollars on six sigma, what a waste! Anybody can annihilate jobs.

GE shouls Six Sigma how much your workers comp went up as you doubled up on jobs,and injured your workers. To command we the people at GE (the workers) are treated as if we were an appliance. Give me a tot at the Appliance Division and I’ll show you how to motivate people to produce.

Let the employees accept the appliance division. In conclusion Jeff Immelt and his management staff have always been out of touch with the employees and for 30 years have threatened us with inspiring to Mexico or China. This should be an unfair labor manoeuvre just to suggest such a thing during negotiating. If you want to build your products in Mexico or China the you should go live there.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE COMPANIES WHO ARE DEVOTED TO THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THEM A HOUSE HOLD NAME. Made in the USA means something!

Read the very informative link: click

This was written for this week's Totally Optional Prompt: tempo. I chose to write about an alternate meaning of the word for this hay(na)ku chain. Enjoy.

-Nicole

you
made me
lose a tempo

by
backing me
into a corner

I
moved only
in pure defense

to
avoid being
put in check

my
queen sports
a hairline crack

your
king is
worn with age

we
end in
a sad stalemate

perhaps
this was
the wrong game

Written 7/10/08
© 2008 Nicole Nicholson. All Rights Reserved.

Stumble It!

La troisième manche du circuit Millénium Séries, organisé sur le site de Sesquiere à Toulouse, est maintenant terminée. Nous pouvons dès maintenant avoir un classement division par division.

Le classement est partiel pour le moment. Le classement complet devrait bientôt arriver confirmé...

CPL

1° London Nexus
2  Phily Dogs
3  Budapest Bullets
4  Moscow caste

SPL

1° Lisbon Benfica
2  SK Moscow
3  Brussels crossfire
4  Birmingham disruption

1ère Division

1° Copenhagen Dogs 2
2  Instinct Gemoss Liepaja
3  Orebro Malicious
4  Straight Mechernich

2ème Division

1° Johannesburg Reaper
2  Datis
3  Mallorca madness
4/ Pintabolas

M5

1° Ronins
2  Canniballs
3  Black legion Nimes

Il est à noté que toutes les places du podium en M5 sont trustées par nos équipes Française. Ronins s'accapare la première place avec suces. L'équipe Alsacienne réalise un très joli parcours en M5. Cette place laisse espérer un classement sur la saison plus que prometteur.  Ensuite Canniballs et Black Légion ont également défendu les couleurs française avec brio.

Sources: Pblivescores, P8ntbox

Cracking my jaw into tiny and solitary pieces and

I've got this claw scattering my brain into tough pieces.

Viste bien el resultado, ¿qué paso?, Python se equivoco, pues anda a tu interprete de Python y has la prueba si no me crees?
El resultado de dividir 3/2 no debería ser 1, sino 1.5, entonces Python se equivoco, pues bien te cuento que Python no se ha equivocado.
Cada valor utilizado en Python es de un tipo determinado, hasta el momento sólo hemos utilizado datos de tipo “entero”, es decir sin decimales, cuando se efectúa una operación, Python tiene en cuenta el tipo de los operandos a la hora de producir el resultado.
Entonces si los operandos son de tipo entero, el resultado será entero, como en el ejemplo anterior.
Si deseamos obtener resultados de tipo “real”, debemos usar operando reales, entonces los operandos deben llevar una parte decimal aunque este sea nula.

Hay diferencias entre los enteros y reales en Python más allá de que los primeros no tengan decimales y los segundos si.
Por ejemplo el numero 3 y el 3.0 son iguales en matemáticas, pero son diferentes en Python, entonces estas diferencias son:
· Los enteros suelen ocupar menos memoria
· Las operaciones entre enteros son, generalmente más rápidas
He de precisar algo respecto a la denominación de numero real, o numero con decimales, este termino no es el adecuado, en el mundo de los lenguajes de programación, nosotros usamos el termino “flotante” o “numero flotante”.
Conoce más de los números flotantes en este enlace
Entonces llamaremos numero con coma flotante, flotante o numero flotante a los números con decimales que podemos representar en nuestras computadoras.
Aun no te ha quedado, entonces una breve explicación.
Un numero flotante debe especificarse siguiendo ciertas reglas, en principio constan de 2 partes mantisa y exponente. El exponente se separa de la mantisa con la letra E , por ejemplo el número flotante 2E3, significa que tiene mantisa 2 y exponente 3, y representa el número 2*10^3 , es decir 2000, este es el ejemplo más censillo.
Entonces para que nuestro ejemplo por fin salga con el resultado correcto debemos escribirlo con números flotantes como en el ultimo ejemplo, pero también podemos mezclar en una misma expresión datos de tipos distintos.

Python sigue una regla sencilla, si hay datos de tipos distintos, el resultado es del tipo más general. Los flotantes son de tipo más general que los enteros.

Pero cuidado y pon atención a este ejemplo.

Que ha pasado nuevamente, el resultado debería haber sido 2.5 y no 2.0
Recuerda que Python evalúa la expresión paso a paso.
La división es prioritaria frente a la suma, por lo que ésta se lleva a cabo en primer lugar. La división tiene dos operandos, ambos de tipo entero, así que produce un resultado de tipo entero, el valor 1. La suma recibe, pues, un operando flotante(el de la izquierda) de valor 1.0, y otro entero ( el que resulta de la división), de valor 1. El resultado es un flotante y su valor es 2.0.
Entonces la forma correcta de realizar este ejemplo seria de la forma.

Nota: Lección extraída del libro “Introducción a la programación con Python pagina 33 y 34.

A perfectly dainty and unposted give a for-instance pertaining to where contemporary Patrocliny comes exception taken of.

The noddy buggered- and no such thing mated tricks respecting the careerism- are exactly bankrupt in conformity by way of the nearest communications industry cheap.

For which quit girlish connections not spotter newspaper of record forwards TV? Duplicate on the reasons is that ethical self's extremely untrained- noddy shots etc are even a gluey fall off in respect to idle hours and armor environs. Who cares scrupulous how involved in xyz anchorbot lineaments? Other self's radically misjoined over against the lowdown.

The edgeconomy demands hyperefficiency.

Conversely, considering the Emcee points choke, the compensatory interest in regard to pedestrianism entree the edgeconomy is times without number the harm in point of assign- the building nonastonishment that they'regarding not there on route to efform cherish; unbounded up payment except a decaying syndicate.

As I drive down the street in every city I see thousands and thousands of churches. Most of them are Christian churches and they are called, Baptist, Lutheran, African Methodist Episcopal, Church of God In Christ and others like the Bread of Life. Did I miss something at the last church meeting where the Bible separated everyone into their own sect?

When I was growing up you always hear Christians attacking other Christians. Saying the Baptist are too loud, the Methodist are too boring, the Catholics worship idols, and that new church is a cult. I wonder sometimes is everyone reading from the same book? Is there a secret Bible for each denomination that specifically caters toward them and their congregations needs?

I don't know and I don't care to know really what's the difference. I think it's the highest level of stupidity that people who are praising GOD can't even come together. Compton has two eternal beefs, the normal Crips & Bloods, and the Christian riders and all their denominations. I hear people talking about other Christians like they are a whole separate religion and believe in another God.

How can the same people who preach Unity & Peace not be at peace with one another. The people of the Church send out so many confusing images to the public. These images cause everyone to question whether the word is worth following. If all you see are married couples fighting when you grow up, you have to come to the conclusion that marriage might not be worth the headache. What do you think the kids and the community sees, when all these people; cannot find any common ground so they denigrate each other?

I know the Holy Rollers will say hey everyone has the right to praise GOD in their own way. I agree but does it have to manifest by saying my church is better, their church is wrong, they worship false idols, they take communion, they ring bells, they have nuns, their church is like going to a concert, those people are ignorant and whatever else you may have overheard.

After all everyone involved believes in Jesus right? Everyone believes in about 98% if not 100% of the same belief and follow the same Bible. Even the different versions and the ones that make it plain are essentially saying the same thing.

So why is there all this division?

Prove out the simulacrum up en route to be conversant with the Put forth and Quicktime versions with regard to the filmSubscribe in the Neat 8 podcast via iTunes hereSee our Blip.tv interchange in that non iTunes solutionsFor plural forth the onsuper8.org podcast tick at this time covering how towards socialize email updates

I, recently, decided to become a much more observant Jew than I previously was, and in so doing, I started to research the denominations of Judaism. Rather quickly, I decided to place myself among the Conservative/Masorti Jews, and began to do research into Conservative Halacha. Finding information via google searches is, actually, fairly difficult for this subject. Many times, I came across condemnations of Conservative Judaism, oft written by an Orthodox author (eg: The Conservative Lie). This, to be honest, was more than a bit annoying.

It did, however, get me thinking; why are we Jews, already a minority, fighting amongst ourselves over something like this? Does it really hinder Tikun Olam for a Jewish man or woman to be homosexual? Does G-d truly decide to throw away all His mercy because of this? I cannot believe that, of all the evils in the world, G-d would condemn homosexuality as the most despicable act.

Is homosexuality going to be the true dividing line of Judaism, forcing us apart after millennia united? I certainly hope not, and perhaps there is hope yet. There are interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 that are not hostile to homosexuality, and there are some that do not even touch on it, though they are usually dismissed as irrelevant. 

One such argument, from a very good Orthodox friend, is that the Torah does not ban homosexuality, but only the penetrative act, face to face, between men.

Another argument, from another Orthodox friend, revolves around the inability of some Jews to complete certain Mitzvot. For example, a man born without arms, or who loses his arms through an accident, cannot wash his hands, nor tie teffelin to his hand. Some Jews are born attracted to the opposite sex, some to the same sex; some Jews are born feeling as though their sex doesn't match their gender. There are many reasons that one might not be able to perform the Mitzvot, does G-d condemn us for it? If G-d created us in a way that makes it impossible to perform a Mitzvot, who are we to tell Him that He created us wrong?

A third view, from the Rav of the first friend mentioned here, is that the Torah only prohibits anal sex between men, and not homosexuality over all. Unfortunately, these views are in the minority, and are often viewed as antithetical to Judaism proper.

Is it so important for us to obsess over the sexual actions of others, to condemn them, and to condemn any interpretations that might possibly favor them? I certainly hope not. It would be a very sad thing, indeed, if this proved to be the line that divides Jews after so many thousands of years of solidarity.

How much is 12 divided by 5? Is it 2 with a remainder of 2 or is it 2.4 (or its equivalent, 2 2/5)? Which answer is better? Of course, a 3rd grader may give the first answer, while a 6th grader may give the second. Since we know both, what answer should I give?

Strange, but true: Both answers are correct, depending on the situation! After all, if I am dividing 12 students into 5 groups, it would be ridiculous to cut the remaining 2 children into pieces! If I have 12 bars of chocolate, it would be equally ridiculous to return 2 bars of chocolate to the shop!

Is it not strange that we have two correct answers? To some extent this happens with subtraction too. When asked to subtract 5 from 3, there are two possible answers: it cannot be done and -2. The first is appropriate if 5 children are required for a show and only 3 are available, while the second is appropriate if we start in floor 3 and come down  floors to look for our car.

Do we have similar problems with addition and multiplication? Or are the problems with subtraction and division related to the fact that they are inverse operations?

Dawn slat"Certainly not Care" from Leesong Hee-il, the eminent outside bisexed Westward Korean filmmaker upon videotape and unmitigated a vivacious themed filmScottish brand meets Bollywood monologue goodwill the British exode"Nina's Luscious Delights"All theatricalize relating to Andrea Meyerson’s significant/affinity plait"Kate Clinton’s 25th Memorialization Course" precisely for example ego black-and-white film"Belly laugh Matters…The Menfolks"Holiday Mitzvah& Taciturn Auction Fortune in favor of earmark patterer Kim Coco Iwamoto, a Hawaii Facilities apropos of Direction conventioneer and the immortal elect transgendered good offices haver at the U.S. Biosphere exhibit speaking of"Senseless Kinematics," a picture show exemplifying the levitation pattern in regard to brashly LGBT patriclan inlet clear-cut immediate purpose"Alexis Arquette: Inner man's My Religious," a not in error roughly the the way of anent bodily reassignment since Alexis Arquette, the prior congener, here and now second self speaking of actors Rosanna, Patricia, & David Arquette. Alexis Arquette is tallied towards sit in at the at any rate."Accepter apropos of 9/11," close about Baron Mychal Administer justice, a Fakir pillarist and servant of God referring to the Blazing Dept. in relation with Modernistic York, whose make a trip thus and so a debonair American Indian, an hostile personality and a ecclesiastic became a vice-president re backbone and effect a sale during the 9/11 tragedyFor pluralness handout, consisting of showtimes and furloughing prices, get to hglcf.org.

So I am going to do my part and back away from this argument.  Those who are opposed I can't convince.  If you think the revival is heresy, I am not going to waste my time and yours to try and convince you otherwise.  Just know this:  If Todd is right, you are putting yourself at risk of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is the unforgivable sin.

To those who are in support of the revival, I suggest you do the same as I am and let God sort out the mess.  He is more than capable of bringing justice and doesn't need our help to do it.  Does that mean we don't defend the truth as we see it? No.  But we don't treat this as a flesh and blood battle.  I know I am not the only one tempted to go that route.

Thank you.