Thursday, March 13, 2014

Senate Intelligence Head accuses CIA of Undermining US “Constitutional Framework”


Steve Finnell said...


Many, who profess to be Christians, claim the Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven. If men would simply believe that the Bible is the only inerrant source for truth they could not reach that conclusion.

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins;for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."(NKJV)

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ you will die in your sins. No man-made creed book can change that fact. To reject Jesus as the Messiah is the clear path to dying without forgiveness from sins.

John 4:25-26 The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming" (who is called Christ). When He comes, He will tell us all things." 26 Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He."(NKJV)

It does not matter how many Bible commentators or self-proclaimed Bible scholars believe Jesus is one of many ways to heaven, Jesus is the only Messiah.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (NKJV)

One way Jesus.

Acts of Jesus Christ....12 "Nor is salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."(NKJV)

Pope Francis says atheists who do good works can go to heaven. Billy Graham proclaims that you do not even have to know the name of Jesus to be part of the body of Christ. Joel Osteen say he does not know if unbelievers will be lost or saved because he cannot judge. These professing Christians are not alone in their views. How sad is that?

PEW FORUM OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE: 57% of the evangelical church believes there are many religions that lead to eternal life.



Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Huh, not sure what Jesus and Bible marketing have to do with the linked article about CIA vs Senate Intel Committee; except that both rely on flat earth anthropocentric rule of phallic force social contracts.

Working for an intelligence agency (military or civilian) in a country whose social contract is based upon flat earth anthropocentric rule of phallic force jurisprudence must be extremely difficult (understatement of the century). Not to say that I agree with all they do, I don't. I just try to see the whole context, as opposed to simply the flat earth left vs right wing blame game context.

You are required to provide the political leadership of the country with intelligence: i.e. the closest estimate of reality regarding local, national and international security matters. So if you are honest (which is the mantra of the cia), that estimate of reality will not be a flat earth estimate of reality, because the earth is not flat, no matter how much the citizens, jurists, lawyers, politicians, corporatists and everyone else in your country want that to be true.

So you tell the politicians that 2+2=4. In the case of Iraq, it may have been: world is close to peak oil, we need to liberate some of iraqi oil fields to keep stock exchange from crashing; Middle East needs some culling, and nobody else has the stomach to do it; our military is getting potato soft, need some combat experience).

Ouch say the politicians: citizens will never agree to doing what needs to be done to maintain their lifestyle, and will refuse to amend their american lifestyle. Better make up some other more palatable 3+5=42 story.

Citizens, media and every whine bag in town (who adamently refuses to breed and consume below carrying capacity limits) love the cia and intelligence agents, when those agents are involved in doing some alleged 'illegal' act, when those acts are in support of their flat earth ideology; and when not; then they consider intelligence agents to be the most evil persons ever to have walked the earth. Such hypocrits.

How many intelligence agents would enlist, if the flat earth social contract was honest with them, about what they were required to do? Very few, if any. That any do, and that they manage to maintain some amount of dedication towards providing honest intelligence, when it appears all politicians and the public want is bullshit the public flat earth anthropocentric verbal diarhea, does not cease to amaze me.

Why do these men and women choose to be politicians and citizens punching bags? Beats me. I still don't have an answer to that question.

When you have a social contract that is founded on flat earth 'innocence indulgences for sale' jurisprudence, the lines between 'innocent' and 'guilty' don't exist. They are bought in the same was as innocence was purchased in Europe under the Catholic Church; prior to Martin Luther's 95 Theses on Indulgences, and the subsequent Reformation of the church.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

The only difference was that the Catholic Church sale of indulgences was blatantly honest and totally transparent. It was not hidden; you could openly purchase your Innocence for Sale Indulgence from the Church. In flat earth duhmockery's Innocence for Sale indulgences are still available; but you purchase them covertly and there are many covert ways to purchase them, not least of which is the ability to purchase Senators and Congressman who simply write laws which -- if they were honestly titled -- would clearly publicly declare which group of individuals had purchased themselves their Innocence for Sale Indulgences: such as "Innocence for Sale Indulgences to Billionaires for socializing their externalities and raping the countries resources for their own greed" and so on.

In such a system of jurisprudence, I wonder if it would not be more fair to give citizens who are accused with criminal acts, the option of 'flat earth court and jury' or 'coin toss court'. If they go to the coin toss court, they can just toss a coin, to decide their guilt or innocence.