This is Brannon Howse talking about Rick Warren, using his own words.
Brannon Howse - Rick Warren in His Own Words - YouTube
Brannon Howse - Rick Warren in His Own Words - YouTube
Rick Warren in his own words
- Thread starter superdave5221
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
according to some though, Rick Warren is just going along making decisions, some good, some not good.
if he teaches false doctrine, that's not necessarily any indication he has a plan to usurp the Traditional Church.
his associations are just a gentlemen's club.
the fact that he's a world leader is okay, friendship with the world and ecumenism is no indication he is actually talking (planning) with leaders of other religions to take away the exclusive nature of Christiantiy.
it just is what it is.
Movements (the Holy Laughter thing) just happen spontaneously, there's no laughing later in the hotel rooms at the suckers who dumped all their money into buckets, believing God for their miracle.
these things don't happen in real life.
crime is an illusion. unless it's a lone wolf (one criminal acting alone).
other wise it would involve a conspiracy - two or more persons.
if he teaches false doctrine, that's not necessarily any indication he has a plan to usurp the Traditional Church.
his associations are just a gentlemen's club.
the fact that he's a world leader is okay, friendship with the world and ecumenism is no indication he is actually talking (planning) with leaders of other religions to take away the exclusive nature of Christiantiy.
it just is what it is.
Movements (the Holy Laughter thing) just happen spontaneously, there's no laughing later in the hotel rooms at the suckers who dumped all their money into buckets, believing God for their miracle.
these things don't happen in real life.
crime is an illusion. unless it's a lone wolf (one criminal acting alone).
other wise it would involve a conspiracy - two or more persons.
Hey Zone,
Good to see you.
It is interesting that anyone who talks about a conspiracy is marginalized when in fact they are using the very words of people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, the Bush's, and many others in government who have been very candid about their love affair with the United Nations, legal positivism, and the need for a global government.
We need to define some terms here. A conspiracy is a plan that is fomented in secret. What we have here is not a conspiracy, but an agenda. If you explore the writings and speeches of those in power and positions of influence, you see, not a conspiracy, but an agenda that is being executed and completed at a breathtaking pace.
Satan, using the ideologies of people like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Nietzsche, Alfred Kinsey, B.F.Skinner, Betty Friedan, John Dewey, Saul Alinsky, and others, has placed followers at all levels of government, (including the white house), education, science, economics, and the business world. And with the ascendance of the New Age Movement (Oprah), Word of Faith teachers, the New Apostolic Reformation, Eastern Mysticism, and the spiritual left, along with the Roman Catholic Church, he has set his sights on the Christian Church as well.
There is only one way to have a one world government, and that is to have a one world religion. Satan is using Socialists and their Marxist ideologies to produce a one world religion under the antichrist. In order to do this, they must destroy Capitalism and Christianity. The Socialists, have been successful in co-opting our education system, corrupting completely our culture, and creating the conditions necessary for destroying Capitalism, which actually starts with destroying our families and creating doubts about the authority of the bible.
It may be too late to save our culture, but we must labor on to bring those who have not accepted the gospel into the fold. A major hindrance to this is credible evangelists preaching a different gospel from the one that Paul taught. Jesus made more warnings against false prophets and teachers in the last days then He did about wars and rumors of wars.
Ever hear of the Fabian Socialists?
A stained glass window was created and designed by George Bernard Shaw (a Fabian) in 1910. For many years the window was not publicly displayed. It was stolen in 1978 and reappeared in 2005 at an auction. Above the globe in the window is an image depicting a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Jesus said in Matthew 7: 15-16, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruit".
The fruit Jesus is talking about is their teaching. There have been many false prophets even in this forum.
If we really care about the unsaved, we must protect them from the wiles of the false teachers.
Eph 5:11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
Eph 5:12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
Eph 5:13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
Eph 5:14 For this reason it says, "Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you."
Eph 5:15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise,
Eph 5:16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
Eph 5:17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
Good to see you.
It is interesting that anyone who talks about a conspiracy is marginalized when in fact they are using the very words of people like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama, the Bush's, and many others in government who have been very candid about their love affair with the United Nations, legal positivism, and the need for a global government.
We need to define some terms here. A conspiracy is a plan that is fomented in secret. What we have here is not a conspiracy, but an agenda. If you explore the writings and speeches of those in power and positions of influence, you see, not a conspiracy, but an agenda that is being executed and completed at a breathtaking pace.
Satan, using the ideologies of people like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Nietzsche, Alfred Kinsey, B.F.Skinner, Betty Friedan, John Dewey, Saul Alinsky, and others, has placed followers at all levels of government, (including the white house), education, science, economics, and the business world. And with the ascendance of the New Age Movement (Oprah), Word of Faith teachers, the New Apostolic Reformation, Eastern Mysticism, and the spiritual left, along with the Roman Catholic Church, he has set his sights on the Christian Church as well.
There is only one way to have a one world government, and that is to have a one world religion. Satan is using Socialists and their Marxist ideologies to produce a one world religion under the antichrist. In order to do this, they must destroy Capitalism and Christianity. The Socialists, have been successful in co-opting our education system, corrupting completely our culture, and creating the conditions necessary for destroying Capitalism, which actually starts with destroying our families and creating doubts about the authority of the bible.
It may be too late to save our culture, but we must labor on to bring those who have not accepted the gospel into the fold. A major hindrance to this is credible evangelists preaching a different gospel from the one that Paul taught. Jesus made more warnings against false prophets and teachers in the last days then He did about wars and rumors of wars.
Ever hear of the Fabian Socialists?
A stained glass window was created and designed by George Bernard Shaw (a Fabian) in 1910. For many years the window was not publicly displayed. It was stolen in 1978 and reappeared in 2005 at an auction. Above the globe in the window is an image depicting a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Jesus said in Matthew 7: 15-16, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruit".
The fruit Jesus is talking about is their teaching. There have been many false prophets even in this forum.
If we really care about the unsaved, we must protect them from the wiles of the false teachers.
Eph 5:11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;
Eph 5:12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.
Eph 5:13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.
Eph 5:14 For this reason it says, "Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you."
Eph 5:15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise,
Eph 5:16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil.
Eph 5:17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
Last edited:
R
well i have actually been trying to think of a new term...the problem with 'conspiracy theory' is that the conspiracy theorists always equivocate...pointing to something like watergate and then saying 'see real conspiracies do happen'...when really they are making claims about something much bigger and older and more sinister than watergate or anything else in legitimate history...
lately i have been leaning towards a term like 'accusatory postmodern historical deconstructionism'...which unfortunately is much more of a mouthful than 'conspiracy theory'...but it has the extra benefit of highlighting the philosophical methodology behind these views...whether acknowledged or not...
lately i have been leaning towards a term like 'accusatory postmodern historical deconstructionism'...which unfortunately is much more of a mouthful than 'conspiracy theory'...but it has the extra benefit of highlighting the philosophical methodology behind these views...whether acknowledged or not...
that's pretty broad.
do people worship fertility gods today?
can people be said to actually worship or serve money, as though it were a god?
do some people even consider Jesus a form of god of wealth and prosperity?
there's a lot more that can be said there, but:
what about more recent history?
what does rachel consider legitimate history?
what's the criteria for determining what's legitimate?
that word legitimate doesn't even apply next to the word history
history is either accurately recorded/taught or it isn't.
do you mean what you consider to to be legitimate investigation of historical events/trends, etc?
also, i'd love to hear how you came up with this:
"accusatory postmodern historical deconstructionism"
what would be the slang or lay def. of that?
do you mean modern terms to refer to ancient tricks; techniques used by certain groups to maintain power, etc?
because we could do that.
what's historical deconstructionism? is that Historical Revisionism?
......
who did 9-11, rachel?
do people worship fertility gods today?
can people be said to actually worship or serve money, as though it were a god?
do some people even consider Jesus a form of god of wealth and prosperity?
there's a lot more that can be said there, but:
what about more recent history?
what does rachel consider legitimate history?
what's the criteria for determining what's legitimate?
that word legitimate doesn't even apply next to the word history
history is either accurately recorded/taught or it isn't.
do you mean what you consider to to be legitimate investigation of historical events/trends, etc?
also, i'd love to hear how you came up with this:
"accusatory postmodern historical deconstructionism"
what would be the slang or lay def. of that?
do you mean modern terms to refer to ancient tricks; techniques used by certain groups to maintain power, etc?
because we could do that.
what's historical deconstructionism? is that Historical Revisionism?
......
who did 9-11, rachel?
Last edited:
R
the foundational assumption of postmodernism is that objective truth does not exist...
the deconstructionist approach to history goes one step further and argues that everything commonly accepted as objective truth in history is in fact propaganda...
the methodology that follows from that is to 'deconstruct' historical record...rejecting the commonly accepted objective facts...and then teasing out a new 'truth' from the historical record by means that almost invariably boil down to seeing exactly what you want to see...
by applying this term to what is usually called 'conspiracy theory'...i am pointing out that this is exactly the approach conspiracy theorists have taken towards history...although they are usually not willing or able to see or acknowledge the strong influence of postmodernism on their worldview...
i added 'accusatory' because the 'new truths' that the conspiracy theorists find in history through the methodology of deconstructionism always involve sinister motives on the part of one or more people or groups...
here are two examples showing the key role played by postmodern deconstructionism in conspiracy theory...incidentally both of these conspiracy theories were presented side by side in the 'zeitgeist' movie...
...anything commonly accepted as objective truth is in fact propaganda
...the commonly accepted explanation of the 9/11 attacks is propaganda
...instead my favorite bad guys did 9/11 to further a sinister agenda
...anything commonly accepted as objective truth is in fact propaganda
...the formerly commonly accepted acknowledgment of the bible as divinely inspired is propaganda
...instead my favorite bad guys fabricated the bible the further a sinister agenda
the deconstructionist approach to history goes one step further and argues that everything commonly accepted as objective truth in history is in fact propaganda...
the methodology that follows from that is to 'deconstruct' historical record...rejecting the commonly accepted objective facts...and then teasing out a new 'truth' from the historical record by means that almost invariably boil down to seeing exactly what you want to see...
by applying this term to what is usually called 'conspiracy theory'...i am pointing out that this is exactly the approach conspiracy theorists have taken towards history...although they are usually not willing or able to see or acknowledge the strong influence of postmodernism on their worldview...
i added 'accusatory' because the 'new truths' that the conspiracy theorists find in history through the methodology of deconstructionism always involve sinister motives on the part of one or more people or groups...
here are two examples showing the key role played by postmodern deconstructionism in conspiracy theory...incidentally both of these conspiracy theories were presented side by side in the 'zeitgeist' movie...
...anything commonly accepted as objective truth is in fact propaganda
...the commonly accepted explanation of the 9/11 attacks is propaganda
...instead my favorite bad guys did 9/11 to further a sinister agenda
...anything commonly accepted as objective truth is in fact propaganda
...the formerly commonly accepted acknowledgment of the bible as divinely inspired is propaganda
...instead my favorite bad guys fabricated the bible the further a sinister agenda
ya i know.
what does that have to do with objective truth in History.
surely you're not suggesting everything we are taught as history or current events is TRUTH, objectively proven?
oh....i see.
i don't know that group you're talking about.
i know much of what is recorded in history actually happened the way it is recorded.
that sounds like a conspiracy.
to claim everything recorded in history is just propaganda.
since when is common acceptance of anything proof it's genuine?
at one time people commonly accepted (with suppoosed proof) that man evolved from monkeys.
at one time it was commonly accepted as fact that Nazis made soap out of the fat of jews.
both of which are lies.
as in, Nazis made soap from jews' fat? made lampshades from their skin?
did they do that rachel?
or did someone have the courage to tease out the real truth from the historical record (recorded on film; taught in schools; taught as fact) and they found what nobody wanted to see - a complete fabrication.
is this the kind of thing you mean?
or that there were exterminationist camps with gas chambers on German soil?
the thin that was proven; taught, and common accepted as historical fact?
did conspiracy theorists deconstruct history just because they don't believe anything recorded in history?
or were the commonly accepted historical records forced to be revised by holocaust experts who now acknowledge there were none.
well, i can't speak for anyone else, but speaking for myself:
RUBBISH.
fallen man has no sinister motives?
does fallen amn form societies or groups or criminal gangs?
did Bernie Madoff act alone?
that film is a load of rubbish.
for suckers to get bogged down in the trap of CT.
answered
sorry rachel. i couldn't help it.
the fact you accept the Official Version of 9-11 answers most of this issue anyways.
ONLY americans as a mass believe the official narrative.
i wonder why that is?
your explanation of Silverstein's pull it (call of the FD - there was no FD working that building) is already debunked.
ya....everybody's current favorite bad guys:
[video=youtube;4PGmnz5Ow-o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4PGmnz5Ow-o#![/video]
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well < click
i don't know anyone like this.
uh....i reject this applying to myself, though i know it applies to postmodernism.
seems you're trying to make links that aren't there
this is just silly and if it's supposes to tie up your argument/thesis, and make a ridiculous argument sound reasonable it proves what a feeble argument you have.
not to mention it is suspiciously like the deluded thinking of the reject-all-known-truthers you're describing (who may exist - though are likely either on Meds or in institutions).
love you though.
zone
what does that have to do with objective truth in History.
surely you're not suggesting everything we are taught as history or current events is TRUTH, objectively proven?
oh....i see.
i don't know that group you're talking about.
i know much of what is recorded in history actually happened the way it is recorded.
that sounds like a conspiracy.
to claim everything recorded in history is just propaganda.
since when is common acceptance of anything proof it's genuine?
at one time people commonly accepted (with suppoosed proof) that man evolved from monkeys.
at one time it was commonly accepted as fact that Nazis made soap out of the fat of jews.
both of which are lies.
as in, Nazis made soap from jews' fat? made lampshades from their skin?
did they do that rachel?
or did someone have the courage to tease out the real truth from the historical record (recorded on film; taught in schools; taught as fact) and they found what nobody wanted to see - a complete fabrication.
is this the kind of thing you mean?
or that there were exterminationist camps with gas chambers on German soil?
the thin that was proven; taught, and common accepted as historical fact?
did conspiracy theorists deconstruct history just because they don't believe anything recorded in history?
or were the commonly accepted historical records forced to be revised by holocaust experts who now acknowledge there were none.
well, i can't speak for anyone else, but speaking for myself:
RUBBISH.
fallen man has no sinister motives?
does fallen amn form societies or groups or criminal gangs?
did Bernie Madoff act alone?
that film is a load of rubbish.
for suckers to get bogged down in the trap of CT.
answered
sorry rachel. i couldn't help it.
the fact you accept the Official Version of 9-11 answers most of this issue anyways.
ONLY americans as a mass believe the official narrative.
i wonder why that is?
your explanation of Silverstein's pull it (call of the FD - there was no FD working that building) is already debunked.
ya....everybody's current favorite bad guys:
[video=youtube;4PGmnz5Ow-o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4PGmnz5Ow-o#![/video]
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well < click
i don't know anyone like this.
uh....i reject this applying to myself, though i know it applies to postmodernism.
seems you're trying to make links that aren't there
this is just silly and if it's supposes to tie up your argument/thesis, and make a ridiculous argument sound reasonable it proves what a feeble argument you have.
not to mention it is suspiciously like the deluded thinking of the reject-all-known-truthers you're describing (who may exist - though are likely either on Meds or in institutions).
love you though.
zone
Last edited:
[video=youtube;mdDp_jlgC9M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdDp_jlgC9M[/video]
Bush jokes about Weapons of Mass Destruction
knowing they lied about WMD to take us to war.
funny hey? ha ha.
.....
Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said
Posted: 02/05/2013 3:07 pm
Colin Powell , United Nations , Iraq , Video , Iraq WMD , Colin Powell Iraq , Colin Powell Wmd , Iraq Weapons Of Mass Destruction , Politics News
Colin Powell made his Iraq presentation at the United Nations ten years ago today, on February 5th, 2003.
As much criticism as Powell has gotten for this -- he calls it "painful" and says, "I get mad when bloggers accuse me of lying" -- it hasn't been close to what he deserves. That's because there's no question that Powell was consciously lying: he fabricated "evidence" and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false.
We know this because of some good reporting and what's seeped into the public record via one of the congressional investigations of pre-war Iraq intelligence. The record is still incomplete, because Congress never bothered to look at how Powell used the intelligence he received, and the corporate media has never taken a close look at what happened. But with what's available we can go through Powell's presentation line by line to demonstrate the chasm between what he knew and what he told the world. As you'll see, there's quite a lot to say about it.
PUBLIC CERTAINTY, PRIVATE DOUBT
On that February 5 in front of the UN Security Council, was Colin Powell certain what he was saying was accurate? He certainly was:
POWELL: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
Later, regarding whether Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, he said:
POWELL: [T]here is no doubt in my mind...
That's in public. What about in private? According to Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, here's what Powell was thinking at the time:
WILKERSON: [Powell] had walked into my office musing and he said words to the effect of, I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops in Iraq and march from one end of the country to the other and find nothing.
Jonathan Schwarz: Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said < click
Jonathan Schwarz must be an 'accusatory postmodern historical deconstructionist'
Bush jokes about Weapons of Mass Destruction
knowing they lied about WMD to take us to war.
funny hey? ha ha.
.....
Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said
Posted: 02/05/2013 3:07 pm
Colin Powell , United Nations , Iraq , Video , Iraq WMD , Colin Powell Iraq , Colin Powell Wmd , Iraq Weapons Of Mass Destruction , Politics News
Colin Powell made his Iraq presentation at the United Nations ten years ago today, on February 5th, 2003.
As much criticism as Powell has gotten for this -- he calls it "painful" and says, "I get mad when bloggers accuse me of lying" -- it hasn't been close to what he deserves. That's because there's no question that Powell was consciously lying: he fabricated "evidence" and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false.
We know this because of some good reporting and what's seeped into the public record via one of the congressional investigations of pre-war Iraq intelligence. The record is still incomplete, because Congress never bothered to look at how Powell used the intelligence he received, and the corporate media has never taken a close look at what happened. But with what's available we can go through Powell's presentation line by line to demonstrate the chasm between what he knew and what he told the world. As you'll see, there's quite a lot to say about it.
PUBLIC CERTAINTY, PRIVATE DOUBT
On that February 5 in front of the UN Security Council, was Colin Powell certain what he was saying was accurate? He certainly was:
POWELL: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
Later, regarding whether Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, he said:
POWELL: [T]here is no doubt in my mind...
That's in public. What about in private? According to Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, here's what Powell was thinking at the time:
WILKERSON: [Powell] had walked into my office musing and he said words to the effect of, I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops in Iraq and march from one end of the country to the other and find nothing.
Jonathan Schwarz: Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said < click
Jonathan Schwarz must be an 'accusatory postmodern historical deconstructionist'
Rev 13:3 one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed
they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"
Rev 13:5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.
Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone
whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Rev 13:9
I haven't done a lot of study in Revelations so I may be barking up the wrong tree, but this sounds like a one world religion and a one world government to me.
they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?"
Rev 13:5 There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, that is, those who dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.
Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone
whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Rev 13:9
I haven't done a lot of study in Revelations so I may be barking up the wrong tree, but this sounds like a one world religion and a one world government to me.