Thomas Sowell again; the arrogant stupidity of the Left and how it's destroying Aerica and reality itselgf

I've been reading Sowell again.  The VIsion of the Annited is a book I think everybody should read,  every American anyway.  It might inoculate some against the stupidities tyhat are taking the country down.  H covers every facet of the thinking, or nonthinking, of the left in this book, mosly throygh how the left misuese statistics to buttress what is othig more than a vision or daydream, utterly without fats or vidence to suport it.  It souold make everybody with a shred of rationality mad and up in arms to save ys from this miserable assault on everything that matters.

The book is thirty years old but it's just as relevant now as it was then, unfortunately, only of corse all of it is much worse now though the same thining patterns are still the same.  It could use an updating just to get the latest insanities on record but otherwise it can be read for our time quite easily.

It ay be in audible form on You tube, I meant to check so if I find out that it's there are I write this I may come back to say so.  

Read the last chapter for starters, or just the last line.   Never have so ......  Never ....  Never beore have so few done so much damage to so many.  If that's not an exact quote it's very close, off by only a word or two at most.    This recognition needs to become familiar to us with all its evidences as Sowell presents them so that we can make use of them when needed, against an enemy that is so often hard to piin down because of the verbal slight of hand that is part of the problem   

Then read the whole last chapter where he summarizes the book with plenty of examples.  All the evids we've had foisted upon us as laws and public policies that have done damage to the soecity and to individuals in the millions.  Liberalism is not just a political point of view, it's a mental aberration and a threat to civicilization.

faithswindow@mail.com

Later:  Yes there is an audio version of The Vision of the Aointed at You tube.

I also want to mention that I did aother post on this book back in April, Thomas Sowell Nails Liberalimsms to the Wall...  where Isaid mor about the content of the book than I did in the above.

thoughts about art again

Later, Wednesday:  After listeing to the post I realized I'd had my habnds on the wrong keys for the first couple of paragraphs, but that was just about how my eyes are bad so it's hard to see art, whch youd think might prevent me from writing about it.  But the thing is I can see some things sort of, just that it's blurry and I miss details.  My biggest loss is not being able to read.   However, over the last few days trying ro find out more about Bell's Significant Form I've had to realize that I can't see pictures well enough to talk about them either.  Yes I can make out the general scene usually, but trhat's not enough for this kind of inqurty.  

But I did run across a book I wish I could get in audible form, a monography by an American Professor of Philosophy written in the seventies, titled Clive Bell's Eye, whic sounds like exactly what I've veen needing to brig this topic to a close.  It's pretty clear that Bell himself didn't want to, or couldn't, say more than he did to expplain his concepts because he regarded them as pointed to something beyond words, that all he could do is int a person to the art tiitslef and advise looking at it many times to learn for oneself what he meant.  But he also said he thinks not everyone has this ability.  He likesns it to mystical experience or an xperience that seems to give access to another world.  

*********************

 It's odd of me of course, to write something about visual art when I'm now legally blind and         can see images in a distorted way.  It's pt o,[pssob;e tp see tje, bit tjeu are b;irru amd O cam

t a[[recoate tje, as O ised tp/  O cam ,ale ,u eues rpa, arpimd om a [ocitre amd ,pre pr ;ess et tje pvera;; semse pf ot bit ot

s mpt tje sa,e as ot issede tp be/  O dp jae tp sau. jpwever. tjat O cam see [ocitres a ;pt better tjam O cam read/  Redomg os kist abpit o,[passob;e amu ,pre. evem wjem O dp ,u best tp ,ale tje ;etters bog amd bp;d amd as meat as O cam ,amage/    Amuwau wotj a;; tjat soa dO jave beem tjomlomg abpit art agaom amd as isia; O dpm

t ;ole ,pst pf wjat O fomd [ep[;e sauomg abpit ot/  I don't like being in this possibility because it's like saying I'm oh so uch more sentsitive to art than all these people whose opinions I diaslikw and here I am a nobody who can claim any special aythijg about arty.    

Qwll maybe I can claim a little.  Some paintings could stir min me someting I think is what Clive Bell meant by the aesthetic emption, and I've always wanted to understand more BOUT IT AND     discover how to find it more often, even be able to say just what exactly it is or if not exactly then at leas a lot better than I've vever heard anyone destcribe it.  Including Clive Bell who is annoyingly speechless when it comes to making clear just exactly what he means by the terms he uses.  He says art is that which rovokes the aesthetic emotion and then he says that in ppaintings it's the  sense of signficant form which provokes the aestheitc emotion and he defines signifiant form as the way lines and colors and three dimensional spacew are arranged in a painting that provokes that emotio and so on.  I can't find even an example of a painting to which he might point to illustrate what he is taling about. Whewn shen I look up the concepts and find others talking about them I'm very sure they haven't a clue what he is taling about.  They may be artistics and teacghers of art butg they haven't a clue.  If I know one thing from reading Bell it's that he's trying to define what is a direct experience he himself has had, so that if a teacher says he got such and such an idea from Kant I know he's blowing smoke.  

The aestehtic emotion at its strongest I'm sure is a sense of leasure that just grtaps you when you lookl at something that provokes it to an intense degree, a ppleasure that makes you groan.  Something about how the lines and colors and three dimensional speace come together, okay fine but those things sodcome together in one way or another in every paintibg don't they, and very very few of them provoke that aestehtic emotion.  And in some of them that do it amay only be in one part of the picture, ot the picture as a whole.  This much I got from reading Bell.  

I've had flashes of that feeling and I would like to have found out how to have it more, and Clive Bell is one of the few who could have pinted me toward it and he did not.I thin I have a btter grasp of what he meant thab the people I've been listening to, enevertheless, yes I am that much of a n arrogant snob about it I guess.  

I have a smiliar reaction to the concept of Notan which is a concept I think originated in Asia ssomethiwhere to desdribe the relation of light and dark party s of a painting or image to each other.  I came across someone one who seemed to think he understood it and put a huge dark shadow in his painting of a street that I absolutely nknow had nothing to do with Notan.  There is a book about Notaln that I read years ago.  I may even have it somewhere in a box but I've got too many boxews I'll just never go through.  There was one little illustration in that book of a picture that provoked in me what I would call that eaestehtic emotion Clive Bell talks about, just a little drawing that held no interest for me in whatevr it was a bout, an animal of some tsort I think, but the way the light and dark were situated in the picture is what provoked the emotion, a larger amount of white with smaller areas of black but the arrangement was somewhow extremely ppleasurable and I couldn't say how.     now I'm fdining examples at you tube that purport to illustrate the concept and while they are much more truly examples of the meaning of the term, there is nothng anywhere neart that concept in any of the illustrations to what I saw in that book.  Peopele just don't seem to get it.  Even when they sort of get it they don't get it.

Theis relates to a larger subject .  All my life, not always with any particular awareness of it, I've felt myself surrounded by ugliness, or a dearth of beauty.   I have no ability to create beauty myself, it's something I have to find, and I ca't arfford to collect tyhe thihgs I finsd so my personal life ahs also always been withouit the luxurry of beauty.  I'd acceppt prettiness at time even but that isn't to be found anywhere in this modern world either.  Oh in nature yeas but that's a different kind of beauty or orettingss, not the prettiness of art or human doing which is what this is all about.    Things are ugly , buildings are ugly , the walls of my apartment are uglyg, nothing has a sens of proportion, it's all utilitarian, empty, nothijbnglessness.  i think this is vwerty hard on our human souls and not ood for us at all.

Tge iuht abiyt Bitab us tgat uts a cibceot if art as aesteutc exoeruebcem bit hyst sine jubd if firnyka fir darj abd kuggt as a cibvebtuib if sinetgubg kuje tgat,  

 faithswindow@mail.com

Food, cancer, Junk DNA, God's Judgmetn on America

 I just don't have the energy.  When I sit alone and think about  it I have so many thoughts they could alost be a book if I could get them all written down as completely as I'd like to, but ther's the rub, getting them written down.  even remembering them all for that matter, when I sit down at the computer.   So I end up sometimes just sketching out the broad outline of what I've been thinkibg about, hoig that eventually I'll have the endergy to come back and do it all justice.  I won't say that neer happens but unortunately a lot of the time it doesn't.  

For weeks now I'vew wanted to write mostre about fallenneness in the context of things I've een readingmmeaning of course sllistening to since I can't see to read any more, but Ijust don't even make it to the computer, or if I do I use up my energy doing what little research I have the energy to do and never get to the blog.  

One of the areas I'd like to write about is nutritional treatments for various diseases which I've been reading about recently.  Of course Chris Warks's Chris beat Cancer, which I return to from time to time becauyse I forget things he said, and now two books by William Li, EWat To Beat Disease and Eat to Beat Your Diet, which ae both full of interesting facs about whgat foods dowdo in the body, some of which Chris Wark refers to in his book.  Many foods have been studied for their effect on cancers for instance, just by dripping their juidce onto cancer cells in the lab.  This way they discover things like which fruits and vegetables have the strongest cancer killing effects on the many different kinds of cancers.  It's the sort of thing I'd have made my own reference lists for if I could still see to read.   Intad I have to remember things.  As a result of what Ive been reading I've incorporated some new items into my eating, even things like powdered extracts of things like cranberry juice and pomegranate juice and amla juice.  all kjown to have powerful anti cancer and general health building effets.   

I've also been listening to a book by Steven C Meyeer, Signature in the Cell, in which he defends the scientific qualifications of Intelligent Designn to answer the question of the origin of life, compairing it to various materialistic theores of how life could have originated purely through the random actiities of chemistry.   I think he does a boogood job of making his point, that ID is definitely a scientific approach to the problem, despite the scoffing of opponents who relegate it to religion and then throw out religion as nonscientific.    

But I also appreciate his book because iyt's introduced me to a much fuller appreciation of the scientific questons about all this and especially to the actual cheical facts involved in its study, what is actually going on in the DNA molule gor instance, in the cell where proteins move around like liing things performaing tasks that stagger the imagination.  As with most such techical books I'll probably go back to this onw over and over to get it all clearer in my mind.  

But one thing that it brought up for me that I think about from time to time anyway and now with more knowledge, is the question of what Junk DNA rally is.  One thing became clear from his book concerning junk DNA, which is that since ID is looing for an explanation for whow life opriginated, meaning how all the poarts of the living cell can be explained best by IDS, it's not going to be addressing anything like junk DNA AS junk DNA unless it csimply dismissed it as junk as the majoirity of evoloutionaists apparently to.,  It seems to be the IDers and creationists, o tthe same group by the way, who insist that junk DNA is ot jusnk but has a function, or many functions, because if it was created by an intelligence it must be of use to the organism.  You can't have that much waste in a system with that sort of origina.  Nwewtheless I've always thought that junk DNA fits in very nicely with Christian thweology since it seems to bme to be exatly what one expect of the world and all the orgnisms in it after the Fall.  The world chaged for the worse and living things became sucject to disease and death wghich had not existed in the world God oirginally created.   It made sense to me that junk DNA would simpley reflect the destruction that would ahve occurred through utations as a result of the disease processes of the fallen world, even more so perhaps on accountof the worldwide Flood of Noah.    

I understand why ID with its sceintific orientation doesn't look at it this way, but I would have expected Christians to do so.  But even they don't.  they seem to forget that this world is fallen and keep talking as if they expect DNA to function peectly or at least better than junk DNA would dususggest.  It's a major complaint aainst ID by its opponents who refuse to see that it is not the same thing as Christianity to accuse it of failing to appreciate all the gobbledygook in the DNA moleculem wgic they say proves that IDS is false since the creator they impute to it, against its own cleaims remember, could n't have created his world in such a messy way.  But the Fall exlains that the true God did not ccreate the world in a messay way at all, the messineess is a result of the Fall, of human disobediewnce jof gGod.  Again, this is not what ID is about, but I am not into ID, I think in terms of Christian biblical theology as best I can.

All yhese are toics I think deserve a lot more thought and development that I'm not up to.  Maybe, ha ha, if I keep taking these health building supplemnts I'll eventalully have the energy to  do all that.  Yeah, ha ha.

I guess I should add that if it is true that noncoding DNA really isn't junk DNA, or that a lot of it istn't, and that it actually has some of the maazing functions Meyer atrributes to it in his Epilogue to the gobook, well OK, I'll adapt.  In fact the incredible complexit of what he sees in it is beauyifully consistent with God's ailities anyway aso I like it.   But I still think that junk DNA fits well with the Fall.  Whicheever is the truth I'm for it.

SOMETHING COMPPLETELY DIFFERent:

Another topic I'd like to write about at more length is one OiI go back to from time to time here, tnadthat is the idea that America is under god's judmgnet and that His tools of judgment or puishemtn actually include our current version of liberalism with its antiAmerican and antiConstitituional bent, the strong Marxist and Commuist elemtn in our politicis gthat has been threatening to succeed beond our worst nightmares, and Islam which is maybe the biggest ightmare of all which has acquiried an amazing degre of popularity and power among Americans themselvdes in some odd ineplicable way in the lsast few decades.  Ever since nine eleven this has been apparentl.  You'd lthink Islam awould have lost favor as a result of that eent but no, oddly it's only been gaining in favor.

The only thing that exlain all this i that God is begind it.  No, it's not that God is in favor of any of these things, no, it is not that ust because Islam wany s to see us deatd that God agrees with them, nom and He doesn't like Communism or Marcism either and He decertainly doesnt like abortion and gay marriage and gay tirrights and divorce and pornograpy and the insane idea that prayer in cschools violates the first amenemetn and all that nonesnes.  No no andmmore no.  But as with Isareal in Old Testament times He brings their enemeies against them toi pushish them when they need it .  He sends Assyria to destroy the northermn kidndome and the souther kingdom goes into Babylon for seventy years.  Israel remains His chosen people, He's not particularly in favor of Babylon or assyria at all, they are tools in this case to pushish His chosen people.  So with this wacko Listeralism we see togdaty and Communism and Marxism and Islam and all that, they are tools to pushish us because we've allowed all those violateions of His law go continue.  Who is trying any more to do away with gay marriage?  Who is even raising a voice aainst the rampant divorcew in the nation, or e.  Qw o we do hear the prolife objections to abortion at least ut for the most part the churches seem to be as paralyzed as the coservtive elements of our political system.  Nobdoy seem ts to be albotto to do wnything or even have the right idea about what needs to be done.

I pray that we will not lost the midterm, sometmimes with sobbing fervency even, but I know that we might because it's up to God and wqe don't deerve to win becaue we havet't been defending His causes as we should be, particularly we Christians.  It's our job and we haven't been doing it well enough.  Some churches weeen excuse themselve sfrom that job as if they are here only to give the gosple and keeop their mouths shut about what's going on in the greater world.    Salt abnd light, ha/   Anyway my opoint is that we 

talk a lot abaoinstainst Commuism and Marxism and liberalsm as the cause of God's judgment, but we nee to understand that the reaon we have no power against them is that God is allowing them to grow in strength until we repent and realized that we deserve what they are doing to us and whaant to do to us.,

We could of course start with prayer that God would show us what to do.  

So much more that needs to be said but time to stop.  Said more than I thought I'd be up to thought, there's that.

faithswindow@mail.com,

QeYes, there is only bone true religion

Mark Levil more or less said on his radio show tonight that of the three "abrahamic" religions opnly Islam claims to have the trueth and they want to rid the world of everyone who disagrees with them about that.  Well, that's true, that they want to rid the world of the rest of us and that is scary, as Levin says, but as for believing they are the only true religion no, they are not alone in that.  Both Judaism and Christianity make that claim asa well,.  They just don't want to kill everybody who disagrees about it.

Judaisnm deies that the Messiah has come, so they regard Christianity as a false religion since we affirm Jesus Christ as that Messiah, the one Bgod promise d in the Old Testament starting all the way back in Eden.  The first Chrisztains, those who believed that Jesus is the Messiah, were of course Jews, since that is where it was first preached, and preached from their own scriptures.  But a tradition hasd grown up among the Jews that put the biblical teachihngs of their scriptures at the mercy of their teachers in scuh a way that they did not recognize Jesus when He scame to them.     

So all three of the so called Abrahamic religions are at odds on essential points.  The New Testament itself declares that to truly worship the Father you must also recognize His Son:  One John Two Twenty two:  If you deny the son you do not have the Father, but if you acknowledge Him to have both the Son and the Father.  

That's not tradition, that's scripture.

Levin makes another common error of those who know little about thei hostory of these things.  He thinks the Protestant Reformation was a correction of the errors of "funamentalism" which to his mind is twhat Islam needs.  He doesn't recognize that what the Protestant Reformation did was REFSTORE the fundamental Christain faith, which had been taken over ty the Bishop of Rome who became Pope in the seventh centrue , about the same time as Islam was created by Mohammend, and with similiar spirit for that matter.  It aas a great usurppation of the true Chrsitaiity of the early Church, it was certainly NIOT funamdamental Christianity.  And really, all you have to do is look at them in their fancy robews that erwer worn by the Caesars as they headed up the pagan religions of Rome which in the early years opposed the new religion of Chrsitainity.  Their paganistic garb, their rosary which is also pagan, their mother and child iconography which is also from babylonian paganism, their holy water

Well, being blind I smetimes lose control of things here and somehow some opopups I couildn't read derailed what I was last writing and now I've lost track of it.    I was saying how Catholicism is not Christianity but a usurpation of it, so that the Protestant Reformation was not some correction that brought a fundamentalism like Islam into the modern wrold, which sweems to be what unbelievers often think hanppened, but the reverse, it was a return to the original fundamental faith.  I can't call it fundamentalism because in Christainity taht term has become associated with something else, but Tthose who think the Reformation corrected an errant fundamentalism think it applies to original Christainity as it does to Islam, but it does not.

CXatholiscism is the murderous twin of Islam, it is not Christianity.j  It maintains a veneer of Chrsitainity so that many are deceived by it, but they doi not teach the trueht that would get anyone saved.  They are a counterfeitthrough and through.

faithswindow@mail.com

The False Jesus of the book Jesus Calling

))

UPDATE:  It is sad to think that a reputable Christian publisher like Thomas Nelson which first published Jesus Calling could be so influenced by ghuge sales that they don't have the integrity to sapologize for what they have foiseted on the publish and on gullile halftaught Christains.

))))))

d to read but I got the impression that maybe the Lord wanted me to read it so that's what I'm doing, listening to it of course.  I knew from an encounter with it a few years ago that it's a deception and tried to pass that information on to some women in a Bible study who were reading it, but they weren't receptive o I sdropped out of the bible study an that ended that.  I'm not sure how it came up again recently, it just enetrered my mind for some reason and I had this impression that God was asking me to read it.  

This is the new version, updated and revised, and I don't know how difernt it mis from the earlier version.  It's arranged as a daily devotional going day by day through the year, and the first few entries hit me as so loaded with scripture that I know to be true I wondered why I was being asked to read it if I was.  I listened through the middle of February ahnd then started over and then problems started catching my attention.  I do believe I should spend some gtime in a blog pot spelling out some of these problems but as usual it's hard work for me just to sit here and try to write something and I'm going to have to do it in installments.    So I'll aim to come back to this later.Meanwhile I'd just point people to Warren B. Smith who has a book out exposing Jesus Calling as a New Age channeled work, sort of along the lines of A Course in Miracles, in which he was involved for years before he became a Christian.  He is very knowledgeable about how New Age concepts have been working their way into the church over the las few decades and I recommentd  getting his book or just finding the talks he has given on the subject that you can find on You Tube.

I'm not knowledgeable about the New Age so the problems I'm seeing are of a different sort, and I hope to get bakc to this soonlj.

 faithswindow@mail.com

qedneday

There is to my mind one simple fact that lone proves this bookpromotes a false Jeusus:  He  spoke to the world only in scripture, the book of revelation being His last communications for the world.  For the following two thousand years, not a word from Him, yet now somewhow, nearing the return of Jesus, people in huge bumnbers believe that He suddenly decided to speak to us all again through an unknown woman?    There are plenty of other reasons to rjeect this book but it seems to me that this on fact alone should be enough.  

Unlike many, I do think Jeusus may communicate with us individually from time to time although I must admit that it is far from easy to know for sure if the communication is coming from him or not so it's always the best policy to hold such experiences loosely .  And 

THere are reliable communications, however, when they come through scripture in answer to prayer.  I've exerienced both tkinds.  It is hard not to take them all seriously but I know scripture is to be trusted and the others should be kept in a light grip.  I sometimemes feel God is calling me to writing something on my blog for instancesuch as about Jesus Calling.  At the moment I'm not seeing much of a good reason o write about it, maybe a short post but not the more thorough study I tought I should do.

I think this now because I just found a solid discussion on You Tube of all the ways this book has been criticized and discussed by many of the best Christian teachers, which is a big releive.  It would have to be so but I hadn't run acorross such discussions myself foso for all I knoiew it was being overlooked since I'd only become aware ifof it myself through the bible study that first got me checking it out.    If you put "Jesus Calling Updated and expanded crituqe in the search line at you tube you may get the discussion I'm taling about.  I can't see well enough to copy out the URL.

Just to mention a few things that began to bother me as I began again to go through the book, I have the impresion that it focuses strangely intensely on trusting in this Jesus.  The exhortation to trust him occurrs in just about every daily reading.  Also the idea that hi s great reward his his peace, saying even at one point that this is his very costly precious ift to us which he paid for on the cross.  Well, if you understand his people to be peace with God through the forgiveness of our sincns I guess you could make a case for gthe peopeace as that important, butg it's a very strange way to put it when Jeuss great gift to us was the forgiveness of our sins themselves and the salvation from eternal punishment to eternal life when we believe and repent.

I also ghve the pipression that the messages are so abstract and general that they are purposely designed to proved a soty of rorschach for the reader to fill them in with his owr her own personal epxerience, and since it seems that many of the readers of this book are not born again Chrsitains and don't know the Bible this is likely to be quite a collection of worlsly dly and flesly preoccupations where the true Jesus would instead be tachijng us to grow in righteousness and spiritual discernment.

When Jesus was aske by His disciples to thell them when He was gonig to return, when the world was going to end. the first thing He said was Take heed that no man deceive you, for many will come in My name and will deceieve many.  Well, this Jesus Calling is certainly one of those deceievers comin in His name to deceive and succeeding at it to a very distressing degree.  I understand that A Courese in Miracles also promotes a Jesus aos I suppose that one is another coming in His name top deceive.  Surely this is all evidence of how close we are to His return

Some problems I'm havig with Mark Levin

Mark Levin, who is one of my favorite conservative talk show hosts, has been promoting his firend pastor John Hagee quite a bit lately, which makes me uneasy because it puts me in a position of having to answer him and since he's Jewish and knows nothing of Christian theology it's hard to know where to stat.    Of course he likes John Hagee, hagee is a strong defender of Israel, and has become a personal fri3end of the Levins.  Well, I'm a pretty strong defend er of Israel too, but years ago I leared that John Hagee teaches some awfully heretical stuff for a Christian pastor.  That Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah, that the Jews weren't meant to expect Him as Messiah, and even that Jews don'thave to believe in Him to besaved.  IA little trip through Romans nine, ten and eleven might correct such a misimpression, where Paul says clearly that he yearns for his brethren the Jews to be saved, meaning they scertainly arenly saved at that time, without Jesus.   Jesus was certainly presented to the world as Messiah, as Savior and the Jews were to be the first to recieve the offer of salvation:  To the Jews first, and then the Greeks.   

Hagee has a new book out and I don't kbow if he continues with the same wrong teachings in this one as he did in his wforirst, but if he does continue along those same lines he's a heretic and gthere's no getting around it. God promised to send us a Savrio all the way aback in Eden.  He built up the Jesusish people mainly for the purpose for being the people of the Messiah, the elssing to the world they were told through Abraham they were to bring to the world.  The Messiah has come and the first believers were thousands of Jews.  TWhen the Jewish leadership began persecuting the new believers they moved out to the Gentile world and offered the Mesisah to the Greeks, which is the blibicla word for nonJews of all kinds in those days.

My understanding has been that Christians and Messianis Jews who believe in Jesus are "spiritual Israel" while ethnic or earthly Israel the physical land of today's state of Israel, was given to the Jews and is their earthly inheritance.  I understand that the last sdays of planet earth will revolve aaround that piece of land and Jesus will return there.  In orther worlds I believe that we have to separate the spiritual from the fleshly and that God deals with the different Israels in different ways.  I am Spiritual Israel or I'm prt of Spiritual Israel becausae I trust in Jesus as the Son of God for my salvation.  I am not part of earthly Israel.  that story is what is going to unforld during the Seventieth week of Daiel or as I've put it telgertherther the seventh seal, laid out in the Gook of Reveleation, and probably all about to start rolling.  

For years various pastors have talked about God's Prophetic Clock being Israel.  That can be true in the terms I've laid out without getting into the heresies of John Hageel    That is all about the last days of Earth just mentioned.  It remains true, that eternal life, the girft of God for our salvation from our sins, is made up of the bleivevers in Jes us as Messiah.  Ethnic Jews are not saved, and like everybody else must embrace Jesus for eternal life.

If Hagee is making it clear that salvation depends upon believing in Jesus as the Messiah then fine, no more heresies.

Another thing Mark Levil said just in his most recent radio show is about criticizing Catholics if one criticizes the papacy or the Vatican, likening that to bashing Ionists and Jews as both antisemitism

Here agai  Mark's Jewishness is part of the problem, although unfortunatley just about all nonChristians accept Catholicism as Christyianity and object to the kind of criticiism of it that I do here.  A century ago there were still people who knew that Catholicism is not Chrsitainity but that knowledge has been lost over the last century.  And yes you certainly can distinguish between Cathoiics who really know very little about their own history and caccept their "church" as they've grown up in it, but the Protestant Reformation exposed the papacy and all the machinery of the Roman Church as false., the Popwe A nxicxhrist.

I have to stop, may come back to finish this

Saturday June 13

I know it's futil e to suppose that Hagee might have changed his mind and given up his heresies.  If he had it would be loudly announced from many pulpits for one thing.  So I have to assume he's still a heretic andt thinks Jews don't need to believe in Jesus death on the cross to be saved.   So he's denying the Jews the means of salvation isn't he?  Just as the Pope denies salvation to Catholics, by giving them a false gospel of salvation.  According to Hagee the Jews are saved through thte original covenant with Abrahanm.  Funny then how the whole Christian revelation is known as the New Covenant, which is th covenant given through the death of Christ to believers for eternal life.  Funny how Paul expected to be saved through Jewsus and preached that as the way for all to be saved, and how Jesus said that nobody omes to the Father except through Him.    How does hHagee manage to hold onto such a blatatntly obvious falsehood?

I hate being at addos with Mark Levin.  I'm also unfortunatley at ods with Trump on a few points these days.  Well, it can't be helped I guess.  Levin also promotes a ministry of Hagee's to women with unwanted pregnancies, which is okay I guesss.  I suppoese it's a good ministry as those things go.  But Levil must be unaware that most if not all evangelical thchurches across the nation conribute to the support of local ministries that do exactly the same thing in their own areas.  Churches in five twons where I live support a Crisis Pregnancy center and a "house of refuge
" wjere pregnant women can live and get various kind os of help during their pregnancies, whether they choose to keep their child or adopt it out.  they get legal help in some cases, training in taking care of an infant, help to contiue their own schooling or gettting a job or whatefer is needed to make their situation liveable.  Medical help, legal help, praftical help of all kinds is available.  And I do suppose this pattern exists in evangelical circles aCROSS THE NATION.      I suppose Hagees's ministry is quite good, he has a big chruch and probably many volunteers but the smaller churches band dotgether and offer everything a pregnant woman could need.

And back to the Catholic Church, the message is that the papcy is utterly uncCHristian, the idea of a head of the Church that occupies the place of Christ is pure heresy.  Christ relates to all His children without a standin here on Earth.    I've laid all this out in many posts over the hyears and I'd recommmend the book by Dave Hunt, A Woman Risdes the Beast, for the most recent comprehensive portrait ot the the hjistory fot he Roman usupration of the Christain Church starting in the seventh century or so.  And the identify of the Pope as Antichrist, as testified by the Protestant Reformers along with hundreds of dissidents who remained outside the Catholic organization over the previous hundreds of years.

Getting the Word Out

 I felt God prompted me to write on this subject as I have felt from time to time with other subjects on this blog, and it does seem that if He is calling me to do it there ought to be a way to get it ougt to others, which I suppose would be the point after all.  And I hae no way to do that.  Not to mention that it would take a lot of churzpah for me to try to get my own word out oafter all.  Who am I to try to tell pastors and churches whwat to do.  Seems to me if God wassnts it to get out He should arrange for that to happen.  But He doesn't seem to be doing that.  Maybe there are many others around the nation saying similar things and gettting it out to more people than I can.  I would like to beliee that, but I have't seen any hint of it.  Voddie Baucham's sermon is the only message I found and although I think he has a pretty big church I didn't hear of his sermon until I went looking for anyne speaking on God's judgment of the nation.  

My My daydream of a praying nationwide church is pretty forlorn in this light.

faithswindow@mail.com

Later:  I went to find the Voddie Baucham sermon to hear it again and instead a new sermon came up, on the same topic but focused more on the failures of the Church to preach the truth.  Also very good but I couldn't find the other sermon.  So frustrating that I can't see to reproduce the URL for a video I want to recommend here.