sO HE SEEMS TO BE TREATING THE CROSS AS A PICTURE OF SUFFERING, AS IN SUFFERING HUMANITY.  wE ALL SUFFER AND THAT'S THE POINT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  iS THAT WHAT HE THINKS THE GOSPEL  IS?  

tHROUGHOUT THE GOSPEL OF hjOHN, FROM ONE CHAPTER TO THE NEXT, jESUS IS WUOTED SAYING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THT YOU MUST BELIEVE ON hIM TO BE SAVED OR TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.  bELIEVE ON hIM.  bEFORE hE GOES TO THE CROSS IT'S JUST BELIEVE ON mE.  bELIEVE THAT i AM THE mESSIAH SENT BY gOD.  iF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT i AM hE YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SINS.  tHAT'S THE NEGATIVE FORM OF IT BUT i DON'T THINK THAT'S IN THE FIRST PART OF THE GOSPEL OF jOHM, NOT SURE WHERE IT OCCFURS.  bUT hE DOES SAY IN THERE SOMEWHERE, bEFORE aBRAHAM WAS, i aM, CLAIMIN GOOTO BE gOD.

i DON'T THINK i HEARD rOHR SAY ONE THING ABOUT BELIEVING IN cHRIST AS mESSIAH OR gOD OR ANYTHING ELSE.  nOR HAS HE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT OUR BEING CRUCIFIED WITH cHRIST ON THE cROSS.  i AM CRUCIFIED WITH cHRIST SAYS pAUL.  dOES rOHR SEE THAT AS GOSPEL TRUTH?  

sINCE THE cATHOLIC cHURCH ANATHEMATIZED THE pROTESTANT UNDERSTANDING OF SALVATION THEY MUST DO THEIR UTMOST TO AVOID ANY SUCH FORMULATION SO HOW COULD THEY EVER BE SAVWD?

oH WELL, CAN'T AVOID rOHR YET i GUESS

 oH GOOD GRIEF.  rOHR POPPED UP AGAIN, OF COURSE, AND i STARTED LISTENING.  a TALK CALLED tHE sECOND hALF OF lIFE.  aND OF COURSE i KNOW THAT ANYTHING HE SAYS ABOUT DEATH IS GOING TO BE A HORRENDOUS DECEPTION BECAUSE HE THINKS EVERYBODY HAS THE hOLY sPIRIT AND IS SAVED DESPITE BELIEVING NOTHING HE NEEDS TO BELIEVE TO BE SAVED.  sO i CRINGE AT THE VERY TOPIC HE IS ADDRESSING.  

THEN HE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT AW, HOW SUPPOSEDLY jESUS AHND tAUL BOTH DESPISED IT.  dIDN'T HAVE MUCH GOOD TO SAY ABOUT IT.  aS IF THERE'S SOMETHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH THE LAW, RATHER THAN, OF COURSE WHAT pAUL SAID, THAT THE lAW IS hOLY, AND WHAT jESUS SAID, THAT hE DIDN'T COME TO ABOLISH THE lAW BUT TO FULFILL IT.  bUT rOHR MANAGES TO IMPLY THAT THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH lAW THAT MUST BE TRANSCENDED.  wELL, NO, IT'S JUST THAT pAUL AND jESUS BOTH KNOW THAT WE COULD NEVER OBEY THE lAW BECAUSE WE ARE BORN FALLEN, UNABLE TO OBEY, AND IN FACT BORN IN SIN ALREADY ANYWAY SO ALREADY UNDER THE lAW'S CONDEMNATION.  tHAT IS WHAT JESUS HASD TO SAVE US FROM, AND THAT IS WHAT pAUL IS ALWAYS TEACHING ABOUT.

hE WANTS TO RIB tEXAS FOR HAVING THE tEN cOMMANDMENTS IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT BUILDINGS.  oH GROAN.  hAVE YOU EVER SEEN A COURTHOUSE WITH THE EIGHT BEATIUDES IN FRONT OF THEM, HE ASKS?  oH GROAN.  tHIS GUY COULD GIVE ME AN ULCER WITH HIS UTTER CRAZINESS AND STUPIDITY.  

tHEN HE SAYS THE BEATITUDES ARE MANY LEVELS ABOVE THE lAW IN MATURITY.  oH GROAN.  yOU CAN FIND THE BEATITUTDES IN THE oLD TESTAMENT AS WELL AS THE nEW, THEY JUST GOT CONDENSED IN THE nEW.  mAYBE i'M EXAGGERATING A BIT, BUT THE lAW STILL JUDGES US, IT'S WHY WE ARE ALL GOING TO hELL.  tHE lAW DIDN'T STOP JUDGING US WHEN jESUS CAME.  tHE lAW WAS REVEALED IN THEoLD tESTAMENT AS THE LAW THAT RUNS THE UNIVERSE ESSENTIALLY.  iT STILL RUNS THE UNIVERSE.  jESUS HAD TO die TO SAVE US FROM ITS CONDEMNATION, IT NEVER STOPPED OPERATING.  hE CAME TO FULFILL IT BECAUSE WE HAVE NO HOPE AGAINST IT.  iT JUDGES US INEXORABL;U

tHE BEATUTIDUES COULD PERHAPS BE UNDERSTOOD AS THE POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS WHILE THE lAW OR THE tEN cOMMANDMENTS TELL US WHAT WE ARE JUDGED FOR, THE BEATITUDES GIVE US A ROLE MODEL FOR BLESSING RATHER THAN JUDGMENT.  i KNOW i'

 BEING A BIT SIMPLISTIC HERE BUT WHAT rOHR IS SAYING IS JUST DEMENTED.

aaGAIN, jESUS died TO SAVE US FROM THE lAW.  THE lAW NEVER STOPPED OPERATING, IT IS STILL OPERATING.  iF YOU DO THOSE THINGS YOU WILL BE PUNISHED.  yOU WILL DIE WITH THEM ON YOUR CONSCIENCE IF YOU DO NOT REPENT AND BELIEVE IN cHRIST.  oF COURSE THEY BELONG IN FRONT OF A COURTHOUSE.  iF YOU DON'T STEAL, LIE, COVET, MURDER OR COMMITADULTERY YOU WILL NOT END UP A CRIMINAL.  

lATER:  ok NOW HE JUST SAID NONDUAL THINKING IS BEING ABLE TO TWO TWO OPPOSING IDEAS IN MIND AT THE SAME TIME, OR TO BE ABLE TO TOLERTE A CONTRADICTION.  wHAT ABOUT THAT IS ANYTHING BUT ORDINARY GOOD INTELLIGENT THINKING?  hOW IS IT ANY KIND OF SPECIAL FORM OF THINKING?  sO AL HE MEANS IS HE WANTS EVERYBODY TO BE LESS DOGMATIC ABOUT OUR OPINIONS AND TRY TO GET ALONG BETTER WITH PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS.  gEE, WHAT A CONCEPT.    hE'S NOT ADDRESING SOME CONCEPTS SO FAR THAT ARE SIMPLY IRRECONCILABLE THOUGH.  tHERE ARE CERTAINLY THOSE.  yOU CAN'T BE BOTH FOR AND AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.  iT'S EITHER A GOO THING OR A BACK THING.  yOU EITHER HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T.    aND AGAIN HE'S CLEARLY A LIBERAL, THINKS cHE gUEVARA AND nELSON mANDELA WERE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE WORLD.  yIKES.  

sO WHAT HE IS SAYING IS TRIVIAL AND OBVIOUS IN THE END.  bUT THEN HE SAYS HOW IT IS NECESSARY TO START DUALISTICALLY AND HAVE THAT CLARITY AND THEN TRY TO FIND THE NEUTRAL POSITION OR WHATEVER IT IS TO BE CALLED.  bUT THEN HE GOES ON THE CHARACTERIZE WHAT tRUMP SAID AT cHARLOTTESVILLE AS AN EXAMPKLE OF THE WRONG KIND OF NONDUALISM, OBVIOUSLY NEVER GRASPING THAT HE ID nd\ot SAY THAT THE NEO nAZIES WERE GOOD PEOPLE.  gOOD grief i'M SO SICK OF THAT ONE WHEN ALL IT WAS WAS A MEDIA SUBTERFUGE IN WITHHOLDING THE WHOLE SPEECH SO NOBODY KNEW HE ACTUALLY CONDEMEND THE NEONAZIS.  good grief.

nOW i'M AFRAID i'M RANDING IN A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF DUALISTICN G THINKG HE HATES BUT i'M NOT SURE i CARE.

rOHR fINALE i HOPE

 wELL i THINK i'VE FINALLY HAD ENOUGH OF rICHARD rOHR.  i NEVER GOT A CLEAR SENSE OF WHAT NONDUAL THINKING COULD POSSIBLE MENAN AND i END UP THINKING ALL IT MEANS IS EIGHTER JUST REFUSING TO TAKE SIDES OR JUST REFUSING TO THINK AT ALL.  hE NEVER DEFINES IT IN ANY POSITIVE WAY HE JUST TREATS DUAL THINKING AS SOME KIND OF EVIL THING THAT ALWAYS PRODUCES JUDGMETNALNESS AND VIOLENCE.  wELL THAT IS SIMPLY FALSE, OR SO i HACE CONCLUDED.  tHINKING IS DUAL, THAT'S JUST WHAT IT IS YOU, YOU CAN'T THINK IN ANY OTHER WAY.  

aND OF COURSE rORH R HAS LIBERAL POLITICAL VIEWS.  HAT'S NONDUAL ABOUT THAT?  iT'S NOT.  iT'S TAKING SIDES.  

iF i HAD THE ENERGY i COULD MAKE A VERY LONG LIST OF FALSE DEFINITION S OF BIBLICAL CONCEPTS FROM rOHR.  hEVEN THE LAMB OF gOD, NOT THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB OF THE GOSPEL BUT SOME WEIRD IDEA ABOUT HOW A LAMB IS A MEEK THING.  tHIS IS ALL EVIL TO THE CORE.  aND IF YOU READ cHRIST, WELL IF YOU LISTEN FOR INTANCE TO THE GOSPEL OF jOHN IT SEEMS TO ME YUOU FIND jESUS SAYING ONE DUALISTIC THING AFTER ANOTHER.  yOU CAN'T DO OTHERWISE.

i FINALLY FOUND SOME OF cHRIS pINTO'S RADIO PROGRAMS ON yOU trUBE, NOTHING RECENT UNFORTUNATLEY, AT LEAST NOT YHET, ALTHOUGH SINCE THEY AREN'T IDENTIFIED VERBALLY WITH A DATE i DON'T KNOW IF i'D EVER HAVE ANY SENSE OF WHEN IT WAS DONE.  i HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT FROM ITS INTERNAL INFORMATION.

tHIS  ONE BY cHRIST pINTO IS ABOUT THE SOCIALISTIC VIEWS OF cATHOLICISM, ITS ANTICAPITALISM.  wELL OF COURSE, THEY ARE GOING TO OPPOSE ANYTHING THAT FURTHERS PROSPERITY IN THE WORLD ESPECIALLY FROM A pROTESTANT POINT OF VIEW.  cATHOLICISM IS JUST PLAIN EVIL AND WE'RE NOW SURROUNDED BY IT.  oF COURSE VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE ANY SUCH IDEA ABOUT THSESE THINGS AND WOULD THINK OF WHAT i'M SAYING AS SIMPLY HATE SPEECH.  tHEY HAVE NO IDEA.  tHEY HAVE no IDEA.  tHEY MAY BE COMPLETELY CONSERVATIVE, ANTImARXIST AND ALL THAT AND HAVE no IDEA THAT THE cATHLLIC cHURCH IS PROBABLY THE DEEPEST LAYER OF THESE INFLUENCES IN THE WORLD.

cHRIS pINTO IS JUST NOW TALKING ABOUT HOW SOME CARDINAL SPENT A FORTUNE ON A HOUSE, AND THAT THE SOCIALISTIC VIEWS OF THE cATHOLIC cHURCH IS SIMPLY THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT .....  LOST TRACK   IT'S THE SYSTEM OF THE mIDDLE aGES AND HE SAYS THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO GET BACK TO.  tHE SYSTEM OF THE dARK aGES SUPPORTED BY rOME.    aND NOBODY KNOWS THIS.  sO IT'S ALL GOING TO SNEAK UP ON THE WORLD IN THE gREAT tRIBULATION AS THE aNTICHRIST pOPE TKAES OVER.

i WIS COULD LISTEN TO pINTO ON HIS OWN WEBSITE BUT i CAN'T ANYW MORE, i CAN'T SEE WELL ENOYUGH TO KNOW WHAT TO CLICK ON

wELL, LET'S ADD SOME TERMS HE USES ABOUT DUAL AND NONDUAL THINKING.  EITHER/OR IS A DUAL TERM OF COURSE.  aND THE HE SAYS THINGS LIKE IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE IT'S ALWAYS A MIXTURE.  aND THAT JUST MAKES ME ROLL MY EYES.  sINCE WHEN IS IT NOT DUAL THINKING TO RECOGNIZE SHADES OF GRAY?  wE ALL ALWAYS THINK IN TERMS OF MIXTURES AND REALLY NOT THAT OFTEN IN TERMS OF STARK OPPOSITES.  aND SOMETHING ABOUT A NEED FOR CERTAINTY A LUST FOR ANSWERS.  wHAT?  i DUNNO, ALL THIS SOUNDS JUST PLAIN STUPID TO ME.  bUT ALSO, HERE NOTE THAT HE'S ALWAYS DEFINING WHAT HE MEANS BY DUAL, AND REALLY APPARENTLY CAN'T DEFINE NONDUAL THINKING.  mAYBE DUZ IT REALLY CAN'T EXIST IN ANY MEANINGULFFUL WAY?bLECH     aNYONE WITH A MIDDLING INTELLIGENCE THINKS OR CAN THINK IN PARADOXES ALL THE TIME, BLECH.  tHAT'S PART OF THINKING.  bLECH.  i READ THE cLOUR OF uNKNOWING WHICH HE TAKES TO BE SOME SPECIAL REVELATION OF NONDUAL THINKING.  wHAT?  sO THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN'T KNOW.  wE'RE NOT SO STUPID AS NOT TO KNOW that MUCH.  bLECH.

aND THEN THERE IS THE FACT THAT HE EQUATES JUDGMENTALNESS AND VIOLENCE WITH DUAL THINKING.  bUT OF COURSE HE'S THROWN OUT THE REASON FOR IT IN THROWING OUT gENESIS tHREE, THE STORY OF THE fALL AND oRIGINAL sIN.  nO IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH DUAL THINKING WHICH ;DOESN'T HAVE TO BE JUDGMENTAL AND VIOLENT AT ALL AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  aLL THAT IS THE RESULT OF OUR FALLEN NATURE.  

sI \\\sO NOW i'M GETTING SO ANNOYED WITH THIS HERETIC IT'S DEFINITELY TIME TO stop.

\

Rohr Goes Onss of it All

I keep thinking I'm finished with Rohr but then I go on listening.  I did want to find out what he thinkis about sin and salvation though.  He uses the term redemption in a very odd way but the term salvation hadn't come up in anything I'd heard.  So Isearched on it and a talk came up titled The Christian Meaning of Enlightenment.  Which is of cours a term from eastern religion which he's also into, as was an earlier Monk, Thomas Merton.  So he stats out defining enlightenment using the term light from scripture.  Eve ntually he gets to salvation.

The first thing he says is that Catholics are taught that salvation is a healing that occurs after death that finaloly makes you right with God.  I'd never heard that one before.  I know Catholics don't teach the gospel of salvation so that Catholics are very likely not to be saved no matter how much they may make Jesus their exclusive focus, and that's pretty sad, but exactly what they are tuaght I haven't known.  

He goes on showing that the term salvation is presented in scripture as past, present and future, just as Protestants teach, having already occurred, occurring in the present and still future.  By grace ye have been saved.  gOD HAS BEEN PLEASED TO RECONCILE ALL THINGS TO hIMSELF.   

i JUST WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO THE WHOLE THING AGAIN, TAKING SOME NOTES.  i'TS HARD TO TAKE NOTES ON HIM, SINCE EVERY FEW WORDS USUES MEANINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH cHRISTIANITY.  oH THE TERMS ARE cHRISTIAN BUT THE MEANINGS HE GIVES THEM AREN'T.  iT'S AS IF YOU ARE STARTING OUT WITH A RECIPTE FOR PAELLA AND AS YOU FOLLOW IT YOU CHANGE EVERY INGREDIENT FROM ONE THING TO SOMETHING ELSE UNTIL WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS BEEF STROGANOFF.  oR YOU ARE MAKING TIRAMISU AND END UP WITH A BLACK FOREST CAKE.  tHE TERMS, THE INGREDEITNS ARE THATT DIFFERENT.    tHIS ISN'T cHRISTIANITY AT ALL BUT WHAT IS IT?  wELL YESH, A HERESIY OF SOME SORT THAT CALLS ITSELF cHRISTIANITY, BUT IT'S GOT BITS OF PSYCHOLOGY IN IT AND BITS OF bUDDIHIMS AND BITS OF WHO KNOWS WHAT, MAYBE TSTUFF HE MADE UP HIMSELF.

trtO hIM THE lIGHT OF THE wORLD ISN'T JUST cHRIST HIMSELF IT'S A PRINCIPLE WE ALL PARTICIPATE IN.  sAME WITH THE INCARNATION, IT ISN'T JUST jESUS WHO INCARNATED, BUT THE WHOLE CREATION WHICH WE ALL PARTICIPATE IN.  tHE PA...  PHONE RANG SO LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT.  oH WELL.

oH THE INCARNATION IS WHE WHOLE CREATION.  yES AND PARTICIPATION IS SOMETHING WE SOMEHOW LEARN TO DO THROUGH CONTEMPLATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE ALREADY SAVED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE ALREADY HAVE THE hOLY sPIRIT AND SO ON.  wHAT A BUNCH OF NONSENSE BUT i THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE'S SAYING.  aND HE CALLS jESUS TGHE FIRST NONDUAL THINKER OF THE wEST, A BIG COMPLIMENT OF COURSE, BUT cHRISTIANITY ITSELF IS DUAL AND THAT'S A NON NO, THE CAUSE OF ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD.  oH DEAR WE MUSTNLT MAKE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN iSRAEL AND hAMAS i GUESS, NOT THAT HE MENTIONS THIS ONE, OH DEAR OH DEAR OH NO OH NO,  .  tHERE ISN'T A GOOD SIDE AND A BAD SIDE, WE MUST STOP THINKING THAT WAY.    

rELIGION IS TRANSFORMATIVE HE SAYS, TAT'S THE WHOLE POINT AND DUALISM PREVENTS THIS TRANSFORMATION.  wELL cHRISTIANITYH is TRANSFORMATIVE, WE ARE TRANSLATED FROM THE KINGDOMS OF THIS WORLD TO THE kINGDOM OF gOD THROUGH THE DEATH OF cHRIST.  tHAT SORT OF TRANSFORMATION IS NOWHERE IN rOHR'S PLAYBOOK.  tRANSOFMRATION HASSOMETHING TO DO WITH RECNOGNIZING AS i SAY, THE ABOVE .  hE HAS NO CLUE THAT IT'S ALL ABOUT jESUS, HE ACTUALLY DENIGRATES THE ROLE OF jESUS, REDUCES HIM TO A MESSENGER OF THE TRUTH.  aND NOT THE TRUE TRUTH OF COURSE, SOME OTHER TOTAL WEIRDNESS.  i SUPPOSE THIS IS GOING TO END UP AS THE RELIGION OF THE aNTICHRIST IN THE END BECAUSE OF COURSE IT COMES OUT OF cATHOLICISM ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T WEVEN AFFIRM MUCH OF CATHOLICISM.  

oH cATHOLICS.  iF ONLY i COULD SAY THIS RIGHT AND GET A BUNCH OF THEM TO SEE THE TRUTH AND FLEE SUCH ABSOLUTE NONESENSE.  

i HAVE A BUNCH OF NOTES BUT i'M NOT TOING TO GET TO MOST OF THEM.  bUT AT THE END HE SAYS cHRISTIANITY HASN'T TRANSFORMED THE WORLD AS IT SHOULD.  wOW DOES HE NOT KNOW HISTORY.  cHRISTIANITY TRANSFMORMED THE WEST HAND OVER FIST THROUGHOUT THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA.  tHERE WOULD BE NO ORPHANAGES OR HOSPITALS WITHOUT chRISTIANITY, NO mAGNA cARTA, NO dECLARATION OF iNDEPENDNECE OF cONSTITUTION OF THE uNITED sTATES, NO CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS  cHARLES pURGEONS' chURCDH ALONE FOUNDED SIXTY SEVEN OF THOSE.  nO RED CROSS, AND YES, NO CAPITALISM EITHER i SUPPOSE ALTHOUGH THAT IS THE ONLY ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT MAKES AN ENTIRE SOCIETY PROSPEROUS RATHER THAN CONCENTRATION THE WEALTH IN THE TINIEST OF UPPER ECHELONS.  aND THE lEFT DOES NOT GET THAT AND MAY NEVVER GET IT.    i WISH i COULD WRITE WITHOUT SO MANY MISTAKES BUT EVEN IF i SHOWOW DOWN AND TRY VERY HARD i GOOF IT UP AT EVERY TURN.  iT'S LIKE i WANT TO WRITE A PARTICULAR WORD BUT A DIFFERENT WORD GETS WRITTEN.  sOMETHING WRONG WITH MY POOR HEAD.

yES ALL cREATION WILL BE SAVED, BUT NOT ALL HUMAN BEINGS.  lEARN THE TRUTH YE FOLLOWERS OF A HERETIC LIKE rOHR.  oH i'LL TRY TO COME BACK TO THIS.

Reading it Straight from Revelation rio

 I've been shaking off my preconceptions about the Book of Revelation based on the Pre Trib eschatology and just trying to think it through as it presents itself to me.  When I do that I find first of all that the Sixth Seal of Revelation Six sounds like the beginning of the Great Tribulation, its announcmeent.  Now I'm finding it hard to understand how we have been supposed to understand it as coming in the middle of the tribulation sequance IF that sequence IS to be understood as the seventieth wek of Daniel.    

Certainly the seals must represent God's judgments on the world, that's the whole point.  Jesus qualified to open the book that unleashes this judgment on the world because He died to restore us to our pre fallen state.  The Creation iself is redeemed in that act.    Well I'm going to get into territory I don't understand well enough if I keep going in this direction so I'll stop it at this point.

But that is so clearly a beginning point, a very dramatic beginning point, not just a switch from an earlier form of llighter judgment to the outpouring of Godd's wrath, or so it seems to me as I read it.  A great earthquake, the sun going black, the mooon turning to blood, stars falling from the sky, men hiding themselves for fear of the wrath of Him who sits on the throne and the lamb.  It's hard to see this drama coming as a sort of puncutation in the middle of the Tribulation as I've been trying to do, it is so clearly a beginning.  

The first five seals COULD occur within the last week of Daniel but I keep thinking that since they don't have to, it makes sense that they might not have, but represent god's judgments over the milennia since Christ's death, resurrection and ascension.  I've had a problem with the martyrs under the alter in the Fifth Seal for some time.  If all those first seals occur within a very short time period, two or three years, it's hard to fit all those martyrs into that framework.  And I don't understand how we can separate out sdifferent groups of martyrs.  The Middle Ages produced milions of martyrs under the hand of the papacy, fifty million proto Protestants plus seventeen million Jews and others.  It's hard to see them as having been absorbed into the Rapture, which of course they must have been if the Pre Trib story is correct, while some other group is formed within a few years of the Tribulation as if they were some special group of martyrs.  

But mostly I'm concerned with the fact that the Sixth Seal seems so clearly to be announcing the Wrath of God, and it is the first mention of it in the opening of the scroll.  That makes the Seventh Seal the Wrath itself, and since it opens in Chapter Eight with a half hour of silence in heaven it seems pretty clear that here we are hnow for the first time in the time period of the Wrath, and that nothing before it really fits that designation.  

The first four seals do seem to describe pretty ordinary events on earth throughout history.  The firth seal does seem to refer to the martyrs of the first two millennia.  And point to martyrs yet to come.  to join the mm.  And if they are to join them that wmeans the REapture can't have occurred yet.  This does make quite a garbled mess of the Pretrib system but I can't help it.

So from Revelation eight on we are in the period of God's Wrath which I take to be THE Great Tribulatgion as described by Jesus in Matthew twenty four and foreshadowed as well in the book of Daniel among other scripture messages.  

In Chapter eight we get the first four trumpets of the seventh seal which destroy trees and affect the sun and the waters of the earth.  In chapter nine which I have to study more we get the fifth and sixth trumpets which are also called the first to three woes, locusts that stin g like scorpions and I forget the rest.  Now we are up to the last tru mpet of the last seal and in chapter ten an angel comes down to assure us that with this final outpouring God's wrath will come to an end.  

I'm not sure how to put together the next few chapters s far as the timetable is concerned.  In eleven we get the measuring of the temple with the trampling of the outer court by the Gentiles for forty and two months.  Then we get the preaching of thte two witnesses for the same period of time though referred to as a thousand two hundred and sixty days.  After this we get the announcment that the last trumpet is about to sound, the third and final Woe and when it sounds there is jubilation in heaven as we hear that God' now possesses the kingdomes that had belonged to the earth before the judgment.  

But first we are apparently taken back to the historical context, if that is the right way to look at Revelation twelve as we see Israel giving birth to the Messiah and the dragon who is Satan trying to devour her child the Messiah who is to rule the world, and her being protected for that same three and a half year period we heard about in chapter eleven.  But I strt to lose my sense of things in this part of it.  

I d do still have to note that after all the judgment THEN we hear the announcement of the marriage suppoer of the lamb and that for me just blasts the whole idea of the pre trib rapture of the Church to be in heaven durin gall these events, during which supposedly we experience that marriage suppoer.  Perhaps some pretribber can show me how I'm misreading this timing but at this point I'm stuck with it.  I still have NO idea when to think of the Rapture as occuring as I read all this.

Ah well.  I still want to believe the pre trib rapture tna dhtat very soon we will all be snatched off this ever worsening worldly planet.

But I got ahead of myself.  In Chapter twelve after the woman we get the dragon and then in chapter thirteen we get the beast from the sea which has the same seven heads and tten hors of the dragon and the characteristic of rhte fourth empire of Daniel's vision of the four empires in Daniel eseven, plus the information that this represents a man identified by the number six hundred and sixty six.  ]

That is revealed with the arrival of the other beast, the one with the horns olike a mab who spaks like a dragon and causes the world to worship the beast from the sea which is identified by the number  666.  Antichirst and false prophet.  We are being ingroduced to the players in this drama but I'm still have trouble knowing where to place them in the times scheme.   The extreme threat to the saints is emphsized with the description of the beast from the sea, the great patience of the saints, this is apparently part of God's wrath?  ut iI thought for some reason that what the Antichrist does is to be understood as man's wrath and not God's.  So I'm confused about that too.

I grasp who the players are at least, the Antichrist and later the woman who rides the beast in Revelation seventeedn but putting it all together eludes me.

Al well, I'm into the part of Revelation where I need to study a lot more so paerhaps I should end this heare.

Woopsie.    Just had the whimsical thought that a nuclear bomb is going to explose in my neighborhood right now and I won't have to bother figuring out the end times scenario, where the rapture fits into it and all that.

America Against the Good Guys? How Can That be?

 Some subjects are too much for me and that includes the war in Palestaine.  At the moment the most offensive scariest part of it is the response on American university campuses supporting the evildoers against the victims.  We've been in a period f good for evil and evil for good for quite some time now but this goes beyond anything I even thought possible, that they would come out in the open like this and wholeheartedly embrace this satanic evil.  In America.  While our government is working hard to prevent Israel from responding as they should and have every right to, to get rid of this neightoring threat tot ehri existence .  The world is upside doewn beyhond my understanding.

Source of the garbgling

 I do enough garbling on my own without any help, but I've been having the impression that I might be getting some help and just now as I listened back to the previous post I noticed that wone line I'm sure I got right was garbled completely.  I'd written "Phone range" and only a few of the letters ended up on the page.  Like the time I was writing in Word and got a message warning me that someone else was editing that page.  I rthink now that something like that is going on here too.  Only I don't get a warning message

mORE rOHR, uNIVERSAL cHRIST, dRIVING mE cRAZY

  I continue to listen off and on to Ri_chard Rohr, still trying to get a better sense of what he's trying to do although in a way I ought to know enough already.  BBut I did just find him giving a definition of the uniersal Christ.  Finally.  Christ is a name for the collective he says.  Huh?  And it's a collective

Christ is the naming of the eollective.  Those are his words.     Good ness that is willing to carry and include badness.  

I might have lost a word or two in there shuttling back and forth between his page and this one.

The naming of the eollective.  Huh?  He says before this that he's following the Franciscan point of view which is based on the line in Colossions about how all things are recapitulated in Christ.  

All things recapitulated?  I find in Colossions that all things were created by Him  bugt don't find recapitulated.

Anywasy all the gospels give us a singular Christ, not a universal Christ and if one phrase in one of them suggests to the Francisionans something else it's out of syc with the message.  

Willing to include badness?  What on earth does that even mean?  Chirst died to PAY FOR our badness as it were.  His death was a badness though a goodness in its result.  What is this guy talking about?    

Again he goes back to Creation and not the fhe Fall.  We are living in the world of the Fall, we are not living in the world of the Creation.  that was distorted by the Fall and then destroyed y the Flood and everthing is governed by falleness in this world.  The original Creation was perfect, perfectly good.  That is far from the world swe are living in though of course there are sime principles we still hvae from the Creation, the principle of birth and growth which he also mentions for instance.  the image of god is till in us though buried under velils of fallenness as it were.    I'm talking nonsense I fear, trying to cope with this incomprehensible idea of a universal Christ.

In scripture there is no Christ but the Messiah or Anointed One, translated Christ in Greek, chosen by God and sent to save us from our sins.  How you can even get an idea such as Christ is the naming of the collective out of that is so far beyond me I can't even think of a way to bridge the idea from the true idea.

jThen he goes on to say that Christ is the life principle?  Yikes.  How do they come up with this stuff?  By Him were all things made that were made, but that doesn't make Him a life principle, it makes Him the Divine Maker of all things.  

I'm tryihng not to be driven crazy by this.

Oh here we go.  He focuses on the Creation Story because he thinks we were wrong to focus on genesis Three which is the story of the Fall.  He doesn't give umuch of a reason why he rejects the Fall as the place to go to understand our world, it seems to come down to the simple fact that he likes the Creation story.  

he seems to think there was an option.  How could there be?  Original sin or the fact that the first disobedience of God changed everything explains everthing.  It explains our world in a way the perfections of Creation certainly don't.  Creation was perfectly good, this world is both good and gbad, shot through with eviel.  I remember the moment when I understood that original sin explains everything.  It was an extremely satisfying moment forme.  Wow. Yes.  that's why it's all so dangerous and violent and hateful in this world.  Yes.   the Creation story doenas't explain that.

Original blessing he sys.  He likes that.  Well, yeah, but that's not a description of this world or of any of us for that matter.  We're fallen, the world is fallen, we won't have a world free of sin and evil until Jesus returns.

The collective goodness that is willing to carry and include badness.  That's his whole statement.

Huh.  the goodness that is Christ, Jesus The cHRIST, DIED AS RESULT OF OUR BADNESS TO DO AWAY WITH THAT BADNESS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT BADNESS AND TO FIT US FOR A RENEWED CREATION OF ALL GOODNESS.

hERE WE'VE GOT THIS LOVELY CREATION STORY SAYS rORHR, BUT FOR SOME DANGE RESONSON, HE SAYS, WE PREFERRED TO START WITH gENESIS THREE.  GOLLY gOSH WE PREFERRED TO?    oH YEAH THAT'S BECUASE MEN LIKE TO HAVE PROBLEMS TO SOFLVE ACRCRODING TO HIM OR SUOME SUCH NONENESS.   nOT THAT THE ACT OF DISOBEDICNECE SIMPLY CHANGED ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, CHAGNED US, CHANGED THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, INTRODUCED EVIL WHERE THERE HAD BEEN ONLY GOOD, BROUGHT IN DEATH AND DISEASE AND HATRED AND BAD FEELINGS.  nO, WE SIMPLEY ACCORDING TO HIM preferred TO START WITH gENESIS tHREE.

nO HE THINKS IT WAS JUST A CHOICE.  wE COULD JUST START WITH gENESIS oNE BUT STUPIDLY WE STARTED WITH gENESIS TGHREE.  

wE CAN'T JUST HAVE jESUS AS A REMEDY FOR SIN ECAUSE THAT PUTS US IN CHARGE OF HISTORY HE GOES ON TO SAY.  hUH.  wHAT?  

THIS GOES ON AND ON AND i MAY OR MAY NOT COME BACK TO IT.  oNE OF HIS INTERVIEWERS SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT REDEMPTION BEING A RECOGNIZTION OF THE CONNECTEDNESS OF ALL THINGS AND THE UNIVERSAL cHRIST SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT HUMANITY IS OR OSMETHIHG LIKE THAT AND THE IDEA THAT OUR BODIES ARE BAD WHICH WAS NEVER TAUGHT IN cHRISTIANITY BUT IS A GNOSTIC IDEA THAT WAS PERHAPS TAKEN OVER BY THE cATHOLICcHURCH AT ONE POINT THOUGHT i'M NOT SURE OF THAT.

aLL STUFF THAT COULD DRIVE ME CRAZY, REDUCE ME TO GIBBERING, IF IT HASN'T ALREADY.

aND THE MISTAKES ARE GETTING WORSE SO i REALLY MUUST STOP.

bUT HOW THEY COULD TAKE THE WORLD cHRIST AND MAKE IT REFER TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN gOD'S ANOINTED sON OUR sAVIOR FROM SIN ....  HOW?

aN REDEMPTIOMN A SENSE OF THE CONNECTEDNESS OF ALL THINGS?  wHAT?  REDEMPTION IS SALVATION FROM SIN, IT'S TAKEN OUR FALLEN NATURE AND THROUGH THE DEATH OF cHRIST ON THE cHRIST RESTROED US TO SINLESSNESS.  nOT THAT WE'LL GET TO EXPERIENCE THAT UNTIL THE NEXT WROLD BUT THAT'S WHAT IT DID AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ALL THIS OTHER  WHATEVER IT IS.

i'VE GOT TO STOP. 

lATER.  rEDEMPTION IS THE RESTORATION OF THE oRIGINAL bLESSING PERHAPS,.  pERHAPS THAT'S A WAY     wE CAN'T START WITH ORIGINAL BLESSING BECAUSR E OF THE fALL WHICH CHANGED EVR

pONE ANG, LOST IT LL.

BUT FOUND OUT SOMETHING ABOUR THE COLLECCTIVE.  aPPARENTLY HIS IDEA IS THAT SALVATION IS COLLECTIVE.  Quotes variojusus scriptures to that effect.  Yes all of this and that will be saved.  Yes all creation groans for the ultimate revelation of the sons of God.  Yes salvation is bigger than individulas but it is first and foremost individiuals and to leave that out is to miss the whole point.  It is because we are saved, who committed the oirignal sin and caused the whole crdation to fall, it is becvause we are saved that the creation is going to be resotored.  We will not be returns to the returned to the original belssing it's going to be better than that, the Original blessing Plus.  We will no long er be innocent as Adam and Eve were, wei will be good and unable to sin.  

Look, he traidtion got it right.  God made sure that in the end we did not go off track in our understand ing of His word, and of the plan of redemption, any of it.  If we stick to the tradition and seek many counselors and pray and truly want to know the truth we will have it.   I'm sick of those who come along to tell us how tradition got it all wrong.  Well yeah the Catholic Church sure got a lot of things wrong but no, there is a thread that carries the truth and he is taking us off the truth.  He thinks he's following tradition but he's got a very weird idea of tradition, there isn't anything even in the heresies that fittss what he's saying.  he's a heresiy unto himself.

 tHEY HATE cHRISTIANITY WHICH OFFERS THEM ETRNAL LIFE BUT LOVE iSLAM WHICH WANTS TO KILL THEM ALL.

cIBTENOKATUVE PURSUIT HITS BRICK WALL FOR ME

 bEEN POKING AROUND TRYING TO GET A CLEARER SENSE OF THE WHOLE FRAME OF REFERENCE OF rICHARD rOHR BUT i'M GOING TO GIVE UP FOR NOW.  mAYBE i JUST DON'T HAVE THE PATIENCE TO TRY TO GRASP WHAT HE MEANS BY DUALISM OR THE uNIVERSAL cHRIST AND i DON'T WANT TO MISCHARACTERIZE HIS POINT OF VIEW, BUT GOOD GRIEF cHRISTIAINITY IS DUALISTIC, reality IS DUALISTIC i DON'T GET THESE EFFORTS TO TRY TO EMBRACE BOTH AS IF IT COULD BE DONE.  aND OF COURSE i REJECT THIS IDEA THAT cHRIST IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN jESUS, the mESSIAH PROPHESIDED FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO COME AS sAVIOR FOR MANKIND, A SINGLE HUMAN BEING ANOINTED BY gOD FOR THIS PURPOSE, gOD AND mAN IN ONE PERSON.  tHERE IS NO chRIST BEYOND THIS PERSONAL cHRIST.    i GUESS PEOPLE LIKE THE IDEA, FOR SOME REASON THEY DON'T LIKE THE TRUE cHRIST, THE TRUE DUALISTIC NATURE OF REALITY AND SO ON SO THEY DO AWAY WITH IT IN THESE OTHER CONCEPTS THAT TAKE THE TERMINOLOGY AND BLAST ITS JORMAL MEANINGS.

THAT'S WHERE i AM RIGHT NOW.  iT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE ENERGY AND THE MOTIVATION TO DO A THOROUGH JOB ON ANY SUCH CONCEPT OR PERSONALITY LIKE RORH BUT i HAVE TO REMIND MYSELF THAT i'VE NEVER ASSUMED THAT ROLE HERE.  iT'S NOT MY ROLE, i DON'T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A SCHOLAR THAT \\\\\ WHO RADS EVERYTHING AND CAN PUT A DOZEN MOVING PARTS TOGETHER INTO A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF SOMETHING.  i WANT TO TRY TO GET THE ESSENCE OF SOMETHING AND HOPE TO MOTIVATE OTHERS TO PURSUE IT.  

gOOD IS GOOD AND BAD IS BAD AND i JUST CAN'T MAKE SENSE OUT OF ANY ATTTEMPT TO ....  i DON'T EVEN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE TRING TO DO WITH THEM EXCEPT NOT ALLOW THEM TO BE CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATED.    i'M so RELIEVED TO LIVE IN A UNIVERSE WHERE gOOD IS GOOD AND BAD IS BAD AND TO KNOW THAT GOOD WILL WIN IN THE END.  nOTHING COULD MAKE ME HAPPIER.  aND cHRIST IS MY sAVIOR.  wE MADE NO MISTAKES ABOUT THAT.  rOHR HAS US MAKING A MILLION MISTAKES ABOUT ALL OUR ORTHODOX BELIEVES.  oH WELL, DISMANTILING REALITY AND TRUTH SEEMS TO BE THE PROJECT OF THE FORCES OF EVIL TODAY AND IF THEY CAN SEE IT AS SOPHSTICATED THEY'LL O FOR IT.  iN THE PROCESS OF COURESE THEYU MAKE A PATHETIC STRAW MAN OUT OF THEIR OPPOSITION.  tHEY WAY THEY CHARACTERIZE ORTHODOZXY, THE BELIEFSZ OF THE TRUE cHURCH, IS MOST DEPRESSING.  oLD WHITE BEAREDED MAN ON A THRONE IS SUPPOSEDLY OUR IDE A OF gOD?  gOOD GRIEF.  i GUESS HE PICKS OUT A SMALL SEGMENT OF THE cHURCH AND MAKES IT STAND FOR THE WHOLE SO HE CAN DISMANTLE IT AND LAUGH AT IT AND PRETEND IT'S WHAT WE ALL THINGK. 

hE ASO LAUGHS AT THE IDEA THAT EATING AN APPLE IS WHERE IT ALL STARTED, MAKING THAT RENDING OF THE UNIVERSE IN ONE ACT OF DISOBEDIENCED INTO A TRIVIAL SILLINESS.  hE EVEN CALLES IT SILLY.   nO IDEA OF FALLENNESS WHATEVER.  tHAT WE ARE BORN FALLEN, BORN IN ORIGINAL SIN, WHICH MEANS BORN WITH THE SIN NATURE THAT ACT OF ISOBEDIENCE BROUGHT ON US.  wE NEED REDEREDEMPTION FROM THIS, THAT'S WHAT SALVATION IS ALL ABOUT.  THIS SWORLD IS NOT NORMAL.  hE SEEMS NOT TO GRAPS THIS SIMPLE BIBLICAL FACT.  tHIS WORLD IS FALLEN.  oH HE KNOWS IT'S BROKEN AS HE PUTS IT, BUT HE DOENS'[T SEEM TO KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO BE SAVED FROM.  i'M SURE i'M MANGLING WHAT HE WOULD SAY TO SOME EXTENT SO i SHOULDN'T GO ON WITH IT.  sO i'LL JUST HAVE TO LET HIM GO ON DISMANTLING REALITY FOR NOW.  

oH YES.  fORGOT.  hE THINKS IT'S TERRIBLE THAT lUTHER CHARACTERIZED US AS A PILE OF MANURE OR SOME SUCH.  i'M NOT AWARE OF THAT QUOTE BUT IT DOES SOUND LIKE lUTHER'S STYLE.  oF COURSE HE'S TALKING ABOUT OUR FALLEN NATURE.  nOT THE IMAGE OF gOD IN US BUT OUR FALLEN NATURE.  wHICH cALVIN CALLS TOTAL DEPRAVITY, ANOTHER CONCEPT rOHR RIDICLES.  iT'S JUST ANOTHER WAY OF DESCRIBING HOW WE LOST OUR ORIGINAL PERFECTION WHEN aDAM AND eVE  DISOBUYED gOD.    wE LOST OUR CONNECTION WITH gOD, LOST THE ACTUAL SPIRITUAL FACULTY WHICH CONNECTS US WITH GOD, ALL INHERIT A FLESHLY BODY WITHOUT THAT SPIRITUAL CAPACITY, THAT'S WHAT TOTAL DEPRAVITY IS.  nOT THAT WE AREN'T MORALLYH GOOD IN SOME CONTEDXTS BUT THAT WE AREN'T CAPABLE OF THE GOOD WE HAD AT THE cREATION, THAT WAS FULL OF NTHE HATURE OF gOD.

  AND HE DENIGRATES jESUS, "lITTLE HUMBLE" jESUS HE SAYS, AND THINKS IT CRAY THAT IN SOME ART HE IS ELEVATED TO THE ROLE OF A KINGLY gOD.  bUT HE SEEMS TO HAVE READ THE BIBLE, HOW DID HE MISS THAT jESUS WAS ALWAYS BEING CALLED THE ONE WHO SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY, UNLIKE THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, AND IS PRESENTED IN THE bOOK OF rEVELATION AS kING OF kINGS AND lORD OF lORDS, AND WAS ALMOST KILLED A NUMBER OF TIMES FOR CLAIMING TO BE GOD.  sCRIPTURE TELLS US THAT THE FALLEN NATURE H

tHIS WORLD IS A BATTLEGROUND BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL.  i SUPPOSE THAT SOUNDS FAIRYTALEIST TO SOME MINDS.  aND EVEN MORE FAIRYTALEISH THAT WE ARE SENT A HERO TO SAVE US FROM THE EVIL, the cHRIST OR aNOINTED oNE, PROMISED FROM ALL THE WAY BACK IN eEEN TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS.  wHAT ON EARTH WOULD A uNIVERSAL cHRIST DO ANYWAY?  the cHRIST DIES FOR hIS FOLLOWERS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO hELL FOR OUR SINS.  wE THEN RECEIVE hIS NATURE INTO US, gOD IN US THE HOPE OF GLORY, AND WILL SPEND ETERNITY WITH hIM IN A NEW WORLD FREE OF SIN AND EVIL.  yEAH PRETTY FAIRYTALEISH.  bUTG WONDERFULLY TRUEtOO BAD rOHR AND HIS FOLLOWERS WILL MISS OUT ON THAT.  

cONTEMPLATIVE mOVEMENT rICHARD rOHR gETS IT rIGHT IN SOME iMPORTANT WAYS BUT hORRIFICALLY WRONG IN THE END

For some years I've been aware that there is a Contemplative movement going on in some parts of the Church but I haven't done much to find out about it, just hear about it here and there, usually from someone warning against it although I don't take much time to find out what's wrong with it.   Since I was first drawn to Christianity by the Catholic mystics you'd think I'd be more eager to check it out but I don't expect much from it just from what little I've heard so I don't.

A friend who is not a Christian says she has been enjoyuing a Christian teacher named Richard Rohr so I said I'd check him out.  I'd heard of him in connection with this Contemplative movement but couldn't remember much about him.  Well I probably hand't heard anything of his though I thought I had.  

He's interesting.  I'll have to listen again if I think it necessary beause there's a lot to absorb.  My first reaction is that I think I've never heard any presentation that is both so importantly true ahnd so damnably false at the same time.  He does say some very interestingly true things but he says them in a context that is so false at first it just managed to agitate and anger me.   I'm over that but now I have the job, have given myself the job, of gryint to say somethinhg about him that gets at what I think is good and bad about it.  

I'll atart out by saying that what attracticeted me in the Catholic Mystics is just not found in the Protestant Church and that has always been a disappointm,ent to me, because in spite of their theological erros there is a body of trutyh there that I think she should be trying to hold onto.   I find it mostlyu in A W Tozer and nowhere else these days, a genuine Protestant who never loses sight of the foundation of salvation but can also see that we are missing something with that as our exclyusive emphasis.  His book the Pursuit of God, but also The Knowledge of the Holy, both are reminders that God is offering Himself to us as a lover and our respo0nse to Him through regeneration is a passionate love in return.  Or it would be if it were encouraged, but mostly we are just endlessly redirected to the gospel of salvation and maybe some to the teachings for grpwtj om sanctification, but really n othing that would stir up that love in us.  

Scripture itself doesn't emphasisze this, though, and I've wondered about that.  We have Psalm forty two which desribes our panting after God and we have the Song of Sooloomon for two main references to loving God in experience.

There are books out there that by their titles make you think they might lead in this direction, Loving God, Knowing God and that sort of thing but they never evoke that passionate affection for God which is the whole point of it all,   But even the Westminster catechism sayhs it:

baiscally what is the purpose of life, but they say  What is the cheif end of man?  And the answer is To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Glorify Him, magnify Him, worship and adore Him, and enjoy Him forever.

And anyone who is feeling a lack of this might well be drawn to something called Contemplative Prayer although it would lead into theological heresy.  Too bad.  I don't knows if there's antything to be found in that direction if we could do it right, but something that allows us to pursue God in the sway Tozer has in mind is definitely needed.  his books are certainly a start.  

So Rohr does point to the God of Love and he says some true and good things about seeking this God while overall he has us dancing around the pit of Hell.  Quite a feat really.  

In the beginning of his talk, Contemplative Vision Presentation One,  he is talkinjg about God indwelling us and how this is a gift of God, it has nothing to do with moral worthiness.  Golly gosh does that sound Protestant.  But he doesn't seem to know that.  In fact you could say that the entire Protestant Reformation could be summed ug as the revelation that we can't earn anything from God, everythign is a Gift, our salvation is a gift, His indwelling is a girt.   it took Martin Luther some years of struggle before he recognized that theme in scripture and that was the foundation of the whole thing, the overthrowing of Catholicism's works righteousness, the teaching that we do indeed earn our salvation, must have that moral worthiness to be saved.  Yes, Richard Rohr, that is CATHOLIC, but the Protestant Reformation overthrew exactly that and revealed that Catholics ARE NOT SAVED and cannot be saved as long as they think they have to do somethimg to earn salvation.  The first thig that is needed in the recognition that salvation is a free gift.  Sola fide, sola gratia, sola scriptura, solus Christius.  

But Richard Rohr has somje very bizarre ideas about what salvation is, what reception is.  Some strange idea about the meaning of thte Cross.  I guess it is possible to read scripture and know it pretty well and miss the whole point.  Luther did too of course, it was a long struggle for him so there's nothing unusual in Rohr's getting it all wrong although once you do understand it it is hard to see how others miss it.

Rohr thinks we are born indwelt by God, that God is always and equally available to all of us etc etc etc.  He has no nothing whatever that we are born in sin, in fallennness and that isbn't a normal condition, it's what Jesus died to save us from.  We cannot be indwelt by God until we believe that Jesus has saved us from our sins by dying on the cross in our place.   He took our sins on Himself, into His own body and we are nailed to that cross with Him and that is how we are saved.  THAT is the only translformation we are to undergo.  Rohr has some peculiar idea of transformation as what Christ came to do, transform sin somewhoew or totherk which seems to be about being in "solidarity" with sin or with the woundedness of the world or some such incomprehesnsible idea.  What what what?  

If we are saved we know we are IN Chrixt, we known He dided in our place, and we are born again as a result of that recognition.  Regenerated.  We now have two natures, the fallen sin nature and the redeemed saved transformed nature indwelt by God, but until we believe that we do not have salvation or recemption or the indwelling of god and the Holy Spirit.  Rohr seems to have NO idea of any of that.  But then Catholics generally don't.  that was of course the whole point of the Protestant Reformation.

He does same some interesting things about the Trinity, but he thinkis that idea was arrived at by the Church Fathers contemplating the relationship of Jesus to the Father and doesn't seem to know that the Trinity is found in many versis in scr8ipture, verses that affirm that God is One and Yet that Father, Sonm and Holy Spirit are separate Persons, or personas as he rather predantically insisted we understand, and that each one is also GFod , possises all he characteristics of God.  All that is in scripture, we didn't need the Church Fathers to arrive at it by musing on some small part of the Bible.  You can find all this spelled out at Blue Letter Bible.

BUT.  i DO COME BACK TO THE FACT THAT THIS cONTEMPLATIVE MOVEMENT DOES WANT US TO APPRECIATE THAT gOD IS lOVE, AND gOD IS RELATIONSHNIP.  yES THE TRINITY DOES EXPRESS LOVING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE, AND HIS TERM pARICHORESIS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS ok TO EXPRESS THAT i THINK, A "CIRCLE DANCE" OR SOMETHING THAT EXPRESSES THE INTERPRRELATIONSHIPS OF LOVE AMOTN THE THREE.  

but YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF THIS WITHOUT BEING SAVED AND THAT'S THE GIGANTIC HOLD IN HIS THINKING.  wITHOUT THAT IT IS ALL IMPOSSIBLE AND THAT IS THE DANDINCING AROUND THE PIT OF hELL i WAS TALKING ABOUT.  yOU MUST BE SAVED AND then YOU CAN HAVE gOD.  yOU CANNOT HAVE gOD UNTIL YOU ARE SAVED.

but.   i DO CONTINUE TO LAMENT THAT THE ONLY PLACES WE ARE INVITED TO THE LOVE OF gOD THAT PANTS WITHIN US WITHOUT FULFILLMENT AS tOZER RECOGNIZED ....   LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT SORRY.    i LAMENT THAT THE ONLY PATHS i KNOW OF THAT TRY TO LEAD US THERE LEAD US TO hELL INSTEAD, NOT THROUGH THE INVITATION TO LOVE gOD BUT THROUGH THTE FACT THAT THE FOUNDATIONAL GRACE OF SALVATION IS ESSENTIAL TO IT.

i HATE ALL THE MISTAKES i KNOW ARE IN THIS.  aND NOW i HAVE TO STOP.  i THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT COULD BE SAID BUT i'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT IF SO.

Some Corrections

Was Able to use the Read Aloud function to hear the top page of the blog and cringe at how many errors of all kinds I made.  I can't do anything about them beause I can't see, andthe typos though numerous don't seem to be a huge problem, but I've made errors of fact that do bother me and I wish I could change them.  

I did note that I'd referred to the book of Daniel chapter nine when I should have referred to chapter seven as the source of the image of the beast in Revelation thirteen and even seventeen but there are other problems if I can remember them.

One is that in Revelation eleven where John is measuring the temple and is told to leave out the court of the Gentiles I said this would be until the fullness of gentiles was complete, but that's not what is said there:  they are allowed to trample the holy city is what it says,m for fourteen hunndred and njinety days, which is that important time period that is repeated in many ways in Revelation as well as the book of Daniel.  The women of Revelation twelve will be protected for that same period of time, the beast of Revelation thirteen will be allowed to persecute and kill the saints for that same period of time and I forget the other references right now.  

But it's expressed in different ways and I don't remember which form is used in which case:  some places it's fourteen hundred and nintey days, some places it's three and a half years, some places it's a time, time and half a time.  Oh yes the two witnesses testify for that same period of time.  And so on.

I also stupidly put Saddam in afghanistan when I meant Iraq.Or should have.

Qhat else.  Don't know at the moment.

By the say the surgery went well and I thank anyone who prayed for me.  I have a five inch incision at the base of my neck but oddly enough no pain, just tightness.  

What else.  Oh I know there were other mistakes.  Maybe I can come back and add them later if I remember them.  It shouldn't be too hard to add something at the boottom of the post.

mARK lEVIN: sAVING aMERICA nEEDS A bOOST

i'D WRITE YOU A PERSONAL EMAIL BUT i CAN'T DO EMAIL ANY MORE OR GET AROUND THE INTERNET MUCH AT ALL ANY MORE DUE TO BAD EYESIGHT BUT MAYBE SOMEONE WILL PASS THIS ON TO YOU.  

i THINK YOUR NEW BOOK COULD CHANGE SOME MINDS ON THE LIBERAL LEFTIST dEMOCRAT SIDE BUT i THINK YOUR TITLE IS GOING TO BE A BARRIER TO ANYONE ON THAT SIDE GIVING IT A TRY.  cOULD YOU MAYBE CHANGE THE TITLE FOR A LATER EDITION TO AIM IT MORE AT THEM?  aS YOU YOURSELF SAID RECENTLY THERE ARE dE...    THERE ARE dEMOCRATS WHO DON'T KNOW WHY THEY ARE dEMOCRATS, AND i'VE POINTED OUT HERE THAT THERE IS A WHOLE MOVEMENT OF dEMOCRATS WHO LEFT THE PARTY CALLED THE wALKAWAY MOVEMENT, WHICH WAS STARTED BY A GUY WHO WAS SUDDENLY FACED WITH THE FAFCT THAT HE'D BEEN LIED TO ABOUT dONALD tRUMP.  bRANDON sTRAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.  HE RESEARCHED MORE AND FOUND OUT THAT THE LIES WERE JUST ABOUT ALL HE EVER HEARD ABOUT ANYTHING AN LEFT THE dEMOCRATIC pARTY.  sO MINDS CAN BE CHANGED.

i'VE \\\i'VE 

THERE ARE A FEW BLATANT LIES, SIMPLE LIES i'VE THOUGHT i'D LOVE A CHANCE TO TTRY TO GET ACROSS TO SOME LIBERALS/dEMOCRATS.  tHERE ARE STILL PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DON'T KNOW THAT tRUMP DENOUNCED THE NEWOlnAZIS IN HIS cHARLOTTESVILLE SPEECH SO THEY STILL THINK HE SAID THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE WHICH OF COURSE HE DIDN'T SAY.    tHERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO STILL THINK THAT HE MOCKED A GUY'S DIABILITY WITH THAT ODD HAND FLAPPING GESTURE HE MAKES, BUT THAT ONE IS EASY TO MPROVE WRONG BY SHOWING VIDEOS OF THE MANY OTHER TIMES HE MADE THAT SAME GESTURE AT PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE A DIASABILITY.  THE GESTURE IS SOMETHING HE DOES TO MOCK A STUPID IDEA.       aND THEN THERE IS GEORGE fLOYD .  tHERE ARE PEOPLE WHO STILL THINK THAT WAS A RACIST INCIDENT BY RACIST COPS.  aLL WE HAVE TO DO IN THAT CASE IS SHOW THE VIDEO OF THE EXACT SAME THING BEING DONE TO A WHITE GUY, tONY tIMPA AND THAT VIDEO SHOULD STILL BE UP ON yOU tube.  I hope it is anyway  Also the videos of the mocking gesture and Trump's speech at Charlottesville.  Democrats who have been deceived by these mdeia deceptions are capable of changing their minds when they are faced with the trutyh.

VByt tgat 

But I didn't wstart tis post to say that.  I want to suggest that Mark Levin might change the title of his book.  To something like

Is This The Democratic Party YOu Signed Up For?  Surprising Facts From the History of the Party that May Change Your Mind about some things.

Not good examples but I'm sure your wife could come up with a good title.

fREEDOMS GIVEN TO CRIMINALS, GOOD FOR EVIL, EVIL FOR GOOD, WHAT ELSE IS NEW

tHE cONSTITUTION CONFIRMS OUR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE TOGETHER FOR A REDERRESS OF GRIEVANCES FROM THE GOVERNMENT, BUT DOES IT GRANT US THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IN FAVOR OF AN ENEMY OF THE uNITERD STATES SUCH AS hAMAS>  dOES IT?  iS THERE ANY WAY TO MAKE ANY OF OUR FREEDOMS APPLY TO THIS SORT OF AB OMINATION LEGALLY?  sHOULDN'T THEY ALL BE ARRESTED AND HALF OF THEM THROWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY?

EneND tIMES dITHERING

nOTE:  i'M HAVING SURGERY TOMORROW AFTERNOON, mONDAY THE 16TH AND WOULD APPRECIATE ANY PRAYERS IF ANYONE SEES THIS IN TIME.  dELICATE SURGERY ON MY THROAT.  tHANKS.

cORRECTION:  vELOW i SAY THAT THE BEAST OF rEVELATION THIRTEEN IS PREFIGURED IN dANIEL NINE.  THAT'S WRONG, dANIEL'S VISION OF THE FOUR EMPRIES OF WHICH THE FOURTH IS THE BEAST OF rEVELATION, IS dANIEL SEVEN.

 I know there are some people who read my blog who get driven crazy by my inability to settle into the pre tribulation pre millennianl eschatologt which is wiatin gfor the Rapture , to be followed by the Day of the Lard on earth while we are in heaven.    There's a lot about it that seems to make wonderful sense and I want to go with it but I just can't settle some questions that nag at me no matter how I try to brush them off.

It's a very nice scenario.  The Church is not destined for wrath and w4e are promised that we will be spared His wrath when it comes on the whole world.  That explains our being raptured off the planet before it all starts.  And then there is the way the last great tribulat8ion fits into the seventieth week of Daniel.  That last week is certainly still dangling unfulfilled and the Day of the Lord fits it like a glove.  

It does look beautifully aranged that prophecy of seventy weeks that actually ended at sixty nine with Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on the donkey.  Beautifully arranged.  Jesus goes on to be crucified after the sixty nine weeks and for the next two thousand years we have the Church being built up apparently apart from the history of Israel which is the subject of the seventy weeks prophecy.  Daniel's people are the Jews and the prophecy is about their future, but that future is interrupted by the Church.  The last week of the prophecy has remained unfulfilled since Palm Sunday before Jesus was crucified.  When it resumes, as it must, it makes sense that we are again back in teh times of the Old testament or Danie'l;s people the Jews.  Hence the Book of Revelation is about the Jews, the finale of planet earth being ended with God's final dealings with His Old testaemtn people.  It all hangs together very nicely.

But but but but but ....

My buts don't challenge that basic scenario, I don't see how it can be wrong, but I nevertheless have lots of questions and buts in my head about how it is understood to play out.

Well, let me not be too hasty, since I may question some of that in the end, I don't know yet.  Nevertheless the way the Bible rounds off with a return to the Old TGestament is enormously satisfying, and that isn't just empty rhetoric, the whole overall plan of Revelation is very Old Testament in its design and characteristics, its imagery.  The beasts that are symbolic of what is being played out all relate back to the beasts of Daneil's vision in Daniel nine.  The tone is not New testament at all, it's entirely Old testament, at least after the letters to the CHurchs in the first three chapters.  It's really a jaw droppingly beautiful way to bring God's story to a close.

But but but but but

Forgive me, I have to stop here.  I'll either come back to this post and finish it or I'll continue it in another peopst.

Sunday the 15th

I hesitate about all this because I just don't want to be in the position of being at odds with te pre trib pre mill people.  I want that system to be true.  I have objected to the pre trib view of the antichrist and still have those same objections, but there are other problems I have with it that ar harder to let myself pursue.  For one thing I haven't worked them out in any satisfactory way, they pretty much remain quesionts, but they do call into question some cetral tenets of the pre trib view and that makes it hard.  But they bother me enough to want at least to toss out some half baed problems with it anyway.

My biggest problem is accepting the idea of two separate groups of saved people.  As I read the Old testament and on into the New all I see is that the people who give themselves to the Messiah are the people of God it is all aiming toward, and that is both Jew and Gentile as Paul makes clear.  The first believers in Jesus were all Jews, okay with the oaccasional Centurion here and there.  The Church was originally Jewish as it was meant to be.  When the Jewish leaders rebelled against Jesus as their Messiah it was taken out into the Gentile world and eventually became far more Gentile than Jewish.  But That to my mind doesn't make it a Gentile Church.  In fact there is no more Jew nor Gentile at all, we are all Christianas whatever our fleshly origina.  

So I have a big problem with the idea that this body of believers gets raptured while there are millions of Jews and Gentiles in the world waiting to be saved during the Great Tribulation.  How can the "times of the Gentiles" be over with the Rapture when there are all those Gentiles out there who will eventually become believers?   Just because the Book of revelation is oriented toward the Jews as God brings His dealings with them to a finale, and they are the evangelists who bring in all the Gentiles, doesn't to my mind make these new believers something other than part of the Church.   A separete Church?  I can't find that in scripture and so far I haven't heard any scribtural justification for the idea from the pre trib people, just an assertion that it is so.

But of course if it is the Church, if all believers are together the Church, the Body of Christ -- and how can He have two bodies anyway?  then the Raptaure can't happen until all the Gentiles AND Jews are saved, ALL ODF UIS AS ONE BODY.  Nothging else makes any sense to me.    Does that mean that we go through the tribulation?  I don't know how to think about all that.  I believe the pre trib emphasis on our being spared the wrath of God so I suppose I have to think of believers as being protected from God's wrath in some other way or believe in the rapture's occuring at a later date.  That is beyond my ability to sort out at this point.

But some other concerns enter into this theme.  I notice every time I read Revelation that God's wrath isn't mentioned until the sixth seal and particularly seventh.  We are told that the saints will go through harrowing times after we are introduced to the beast freom the sea in Revelation thirteen, and it is mentioned again in chapter fourteen.  

That suggests that God's wrath doesn't really begin with the opening of the first seal, but rather with the seventh. or even a later part of the seventh, that I'll have to explore more.    And if so then that is the wrath we are to be protected from.

It also seems to me that the first six seals in themselves do not suggest God's wrath but the sorts of tribulations we always encounter from time to tie on planet Earth.  False Messiahs, wars, famines, pestilences and so on, are all endemic to life in this fallen world.  But of course they are unleashed with the opening of the first seals so something about them puts them in the last days framework, but at least they are the beginning of sorros that jesus talsks about in Matthew twenty four.  The beginning of the end, the precursors to the Dayh of the Lord which is the outpouring of God's wrath.    

Is that the last half of the seventieth week of Daniel?  I think that sneeds some sorting out too.  I'm not even sure the first six seals fit into that last week.  It's nort necessary.  Jesus was qualified to open the seals right after He ascended to the right hand of God or perhaps after the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church.  He could have begun opening them back in John's Day, leaving the Day of Wrath for the last week of Saniel which is yet future.    Just a bunch of things I hae to muddle my way through.

In all tI've also noticed that we don't hear of the marriage supper of the lamb or the giving of rewards to the saints until the end of Revelation, but according to the pre trib scenario we receive them after the rapture while we are in heaven during the great tribulation which is going on in the world while we are there.  I don't reall hearing an explanation of this anyhwayre although it's possible I've just missed it.  In Revelation nineteen or twenty or whichever it is where these are mentioned it sounds future, it's about to happen, has yet to happen, and yuet the raptured saints will already be with Jesus in hjheaven supposedly already having experienced those things.   

I still like the seventieth week of Daniel as the framework for Revelation, and can'[t think how else it could fit into history.  It works beautifully there and so does the return to God's dealings with Isreael rather than the Church.  But that doesn't have to mean that there is a strict separation between Church and Israel, it just means that God is dealing with ethnic or fleshly Israel in Revelation and when they are saved they join the Church which is the Israel of God or spiritual Israel.  Those are the two different bodies as far as I can see, unsaved and saved, fleshly and spiritual.  God can turn His focus to ethnic Israel who were the subject of the Old Testaemtn without treating them as some kind of separate entity from the Chruch.   I've alsways been bothered by this idea that those who reject the t=pre trib scenario are committing something called Replacement Theology when I know that they are simply seeing the Old Testament being fulfilled in the New and it's very hard not to look at it that way in my experience.  The only division that makes sense to me is the division between fleshly and spiritual or unsaved and saved.  Ethnic Israel is unsaved but God is dealing with them anyway in Revelation as He dealt with them throughout the Old Testgament.   But then they get saved they don'[t join some other group than the Church, they join the Church as spiritual born again believers in Messiah.  

I do object strongly to the way the anti pre trib people deny any role at all for Isarel however.  It seems like some kind of mental disorder to deny that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 should just be brushed off as some kind of weird coincidence.  Sorry, God does not operate that way, and god is in charge of it all.  Israel is certainly God's land and He's using it in some pointed way to bring history to a close.  they aren't saved but they will be saved, or "all" Israel will be saved ultimately, but they have a presence in the fallen world as God's people nevertheless and they are the stumbling block He is going to use to make His case against all those who deny Him and violate His commandments.  Revelation whos the way all this is going to play out in the end as the world is brought to justice, the Jews are saved and Jesus returns to rule us all.  

But of course all this stuff I'm raising here amonst to a sort of theological or eschatalogical catastrophe and I don't know how to resolve it all.  All I know is that these questions keep nagging me and I think theyuare important and I don't think pre tribbers are facing them honestly.

I'll be beside myself with joy to find myself going up in the Rapture of course so I can hope I'm wrong about any of this that contradicts such a possibility.

IIt still annoyeds me to hear the pret trib idea that the antichrist has yet to be revelaed and that the reelation will be the removal of the Holy Spirit.   the Reformers revealed the Antichrist scripturally as the Pope, he sits in the temple of God as if he is God himself, takes the titles of God and Christ and Holy Spirit to hismefl and that temple is the people of God who have been defined as thaqt temple in many places in the New testament.  That's what the Reformers said and hundreds beofre them alwaready identified the Pope as the Antichrist, it isn't as if they were the first.    And it is uttery ridiculous to think that Paul would have needed to be so cryptic about the identify of the Restrainer if the Restrainer was the Holy PSirit.  there would be no reason whatever tro keep that identity assecret.   No, it had to be the Caesars who were still in power in Paul'

s time but who woulde be replaced by the Bishop of rome in some important sense when he, the zanTICHRIST, TOOK ON THAT MANTLE OF POWER AND THE SO CALLED hOLY rOMAN eMPIRE CAME INTO EXPISTENCE.  aND FOR PETE'S SAKE THEY MAKEE MARTYRS GALORE OF CHRISTIANS WHO DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO AUTHORITY OVER THEM AND RECOGNIZED THEIR APOSTATE THEOLOGY.  mILLIONS OF MARTYRS OF THE cATHOLIC iNQUISITION, THE pAPAL iNQUISITION.  tHOSE HAVE TO BE THE MARTYRS OF rEVELATION FIVE IT SEEMS TO ME WHO ARE WAITING FOR NEW MARTYRS TO ARRIVE AND JOIN THEM DURING THE GREAT TRIBULTION WHICH IS ABOUT TO COME UPON THE EARTH.  

THE BEAST OF rEVELATION THIRTEEN, THE BEAST FROM THE SEA, IS CLEARLY THE rOMAN EMPRIE THAT HARKS BACK TO THE FOURTH BEAST OF dANIEL'S FISION IN dANIEL NINE.  iT CONTAINS THE EMPLEMS OF THE THREE FORMER EMPIRES IN ITS LEOPARD CHARACTERISTICS, ITS BEAR'S PAWS AND IT'S LION'S MOUTH, THE THREE EMPIRES OF dANIE'SL VISION THAT PRECENDED THE FOURTH GREAT AND TERRIBLE BEAST WHOME WE KNOW TO BE RTHE rOMAN EMPIRE THOUGH HE CDIDN'T KNOW IT IN HIS DAY.  HE COULD ONLY SEE AS FAR AHEAD AS aLEXANDER'S gREECE.    bUT THE BEAST FROM THE SEA IS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS A MAN WITH THE NUMBER 666 AND i'LL JUST SAY IT AGAIN,  THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE CALCULATION OF THAT NUMBER THAN THE ONE EMBEDDED IN THE TITLE OF THE pOPE WRITTEN IN lATIN, vICARIVS fILII dEI.  iT'S THE ONLY NAME IN WHICH THE NUMBERS ARE ACTUALLY A PART OF THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE NAME IS WRITTEN.  yOU CON'T HAVE TO FOOL AROUND WITH NAMES AND LOOK UP THE NUMBERS THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE, THE NUMBERS ARE PART OF THE LANGUAGE ITSELF.  aND THE TITLE ITSELF means aNTICHRIST.  sUBSTITUTE FOR THE sON OF gOD?  oR iN THE PLACE OF THE SON OF gOD?  yOU AREN'T GOING TO FIND A BETTWSER DEFINITION OF THE aNTICHRIST ANYWAYRERE.  aND IT IS ANNOTYING THAT i KNOW SOME PRE TRIB PEOPLE READ MY BLOG AND HAVE SENE THIS ARGUMENT A ZILLION TIMES AND STILL IGNORE IT.  yEA i GUESS i'M SOIME KIND OF EGOIST, BUT i KNOW i'M RIGHT.

mIGHRT NOT BE fRACIS OF CORUSE, HE'S GETTING AWFULLY OLD, BUT i FIND IT HARD TO GIVE UP ON HIM JUST BECAMESE WE ARE SO CLOSE TO THE END, WE ALL FELEL IT, AND HE HAS BETTER QUALIIFCATIONS THAN MOST OTHER PEOPES, BEING A jESUSI AND BEING SELECTED ON THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF mARCH IN TH YHEAR TWENTY THIRTEEN, AND HAVING A SEAGULL, AN UNCLEAN BIRD, SITTING ON THE CHIMSENEW WHERE THE SMOKE ROSE TO ANNOUNCE HIS ELECTION.  aND HE'S A jESUIT, A jESUIT pOPLE OF ALL THINGS.  hE'S ONLY TOO WELL QUALIFIED FOR THE ROLE OF aNTICHRIST, BUT MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE WILL COME ALONG WHO IS EVEN ETERRER QUALIFIED.  wHO KNOWS?

lATER:  i WAT TO TRY TO SAY IT AGAIN.  tHE cHURCH CAN'T replace iSRAEL, THE cHURCH IS MADE UP OF SAVED PEOPLE AND iSRAEL OF THE bOOK OF rEVELATION IS unsaved iSRAEL, FLESHLY iSRAEL, eTHNIC iSRAEL.  tHE cHURCH IS THE BODY OF BELIEVERS, MADE UP OF BOTH gENTILES AND jEWS BUT TRANSFORMED, BORN AGAIN.  eTHNIC OR FLESHLY GENTILES REMAIN UNCHANGED, AND SO DOES ETHNIC iSRAEL OR ALL UNSAVED jEWS.  i DON'T THINK i'M GETTING THIS SAID AS CLEARLY AS IT NEEDS TO BE SAID BUT THIS WHOLE BUSINESS OF TWO SEPARATE BODIES IS WRONGHEADED AND HAS TO BE ANSSWERED IN SOME SUCH WAY.  

lATE sUNDAY:  aNOTHER QUESTION OCCURS TO ME.  iF jOHN WAS WRITING THIS VISION OF REVELATION AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF 70 ad, WOULD HE HAVE PRESENTED THE TEMPLE IN THE VISION AS INTACT AS HE DOES WITHOUT SOME KIND OF QUALIFICATION THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT?  bUT THERE'S NOTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.  iN rEV 11,  i HOPE i GOT THAT RIGHT, HE'S GIVEN A REED FOR MEASURING THE TEMPLE AND TOLD TO LEAVE OUT THE OUTER COURT WHICH BELONGS TO THE gENTILES UNTIL THE TIMES OF THE gENTILES ARE AT AN END.  aND HERE i HAV ETO NOTE THAT SUPPOSEDLY ACCORDING TO THE PRE TRIB SYSTEM THE TIMES OF TEH gENTILES END WITH THE rAPTURE BUT DOESN'T THIS OCCUR YEARS AFTER THE rAPTURE?    aND THE OTHER MENTION OF THE TEMPLE IS WHEN THE aNTICHRIST SETS HIMSELF UP IN IT.  THAT'S THE PHYSICAL TEMPLE, NOT THE TEMPLE AS THE PEOPLE OF GODE IN THIS CASE.  aNYWAY, QUESIONS CONINUE TO MULTIPLY AND i DON'T SEE ANY OF THEM ADDRESSED ANYWHNERE THAT i KNOW OF.

Lies in the Service of Allah

 getting anything straight and true these days is the hardest thing.  We're drowning in lies and ven when we are able for our own sake to sort the truth out we're still enmeshed in the world of lies that surrounds and presses in on us.  

Why is it that the lies abou tthe Middle East are so accepted by so many?  This histgory of the situation with Israel is available enough but the propaganda nevertheless reigns.  There is no Palestinian people.  When the Jews began settling the land in the early twentith century it was a desolate wilderness, traversed by nomads and dotted here and there with individual settlements, but it had no national identity, no political identity.  It was a piece of land belonging to the Ottoman Empire.  There were a few Arabs here and there and a few Jews as well, but otherwise there was no There there.  Mark twain visited the land in the late nineteenth century and declared it a desolate wilderness.  There was no People there.  There is no Palestinian people.

What Happened as I understand it is that when Israel began building up the land Arabs from all the surrounding nations came to work for them and their own populations built up along witht eh Jews.  When the Arabs were about to strike Israel they warned the Arab population to get out of harm's way so they fled and became the refugees that later became the so called Palestinians.  They were never Palestinians, they were different groups of Arabs from different Arab states and had no political identity in Palestine.  But the Arab states would not take them back, it served them politically to keep them in their refugee stateus to be a thornin in the side of Israel and make them into a fake nation of Palestinians so they could make demands on Israel.  

There was never any intention of making peopeace with Israel.  Even the writings of Islam make clear that it is right to lie in the service of Allah, to make treaties and break them at will in the service of Allah, to do anything underhanded that might serve what they think of as the cause of furthering Allah's ultimate goal of subjugating all peoples to himself and ending all other religions.

But instead of he facts being made known to the world, the propaganda prevails, which includes all sorts of invented explanations for the existence of this group of people and their supposed righteous claim to the land, and the nevernending accusation of Israel as the one in the wrong though from the beginning Israel did nothing wrong.  They hired Arabs to work for them.  they paid those who ownded property in the area for whthat propetry, they didn';not just take it as they are accused of doing, and so on and so forth.  

So now we have tghe latest in a \the determination to rid the land of Israel through this outrageous attack by Hamas within the boundaries of Israel proper, killing Jews with a viciousness that can't be explained in any reasonable way except as the product of the religion that teaches them to hate with that degree of furty a people who won't bow to Allah.  they are being compared ot he Nazis.  Well, the Nazis killed millions of Jews but the Nazis kept a personal fastidious distance from the killing while Hamas is able to behead babies apparently without a moment's conscience against it.  

Lies.  Lies that should and could have been exposed years ago, but instead are ruling the day, and firing up protests even in America.  

bIDEN sMEARS maga; o rEILLY sMEARS THE pURITANS

jUIST HAPPENED TO HEAR BOTH THESE ENORMITIES WITHIN A COUPLE HOURSE OF EACH OTHR ON THE RADIO AND AS i PONDERED THEM i REALIZED THERE IS A CERTAIN SYMMETRY BETWEEN THEM.  bIDEN CALLS maga "EXTREMIST" AND o rEILLY CALLED THE pURITANS "FANATICS."  bIDEN WAS MAKING A POLITICAL SPEECH, o REILLY WAS BEING INTERVIE3WED ON A TALK SHOW ABOUT HIS MOST RECENT BOOK, tHE kILLING OF THE wITCHES, ABOUT THE sALEM WITCH TRIALS IN nEW eNGLAND IN THE SEVENTEETNTH CENTURY.  tHERE'S NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO INCIDENTS OF COURSE, JUST MY OWN RECOGNITION OF THIS SIMILARITY OF JUDGMENT BY A PARTISAN OBSERVER.

mY HACKLES WERE UP IMMEDIATELY IN BOTH CASES.  tHE SMEAREING AND NAMECALLING OF THE RIGHT BY THE LEFT IS INFURIATING AND IT'S A DAILY THING NOW.  iT'S SMEARING, IT'S CENSORSHIP, IT'S CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF TRUMPED UP CHARGES, CRIMINALIZATION OF PERFECTLY NORMAL BEHAVIORS, IT'S POLITICAL TYHRANNY AND IT'S GETTING WORSE BY THE MOUR IT SEEMS.  

maga TO A maga FAN IS MERELY THE RECOVERY  OF TRADITIONAL aMERICAN PRINCIPLES, ENTIRELY MAINSTREAM, NOTHING EXTREEME ABOUT IT.  tHE EXTREMISM IS OF COURSE ON THE SIDE OF THE LEFTIST WHO AS USUAL ARE FOLLOWING THEIR RULES OFR RADICALS AND ACCUSING THEIR OPPONENTS OF WHAT THEY THEMSELVE S ARE GUILTY OF.  THEY ARE THE EXTREMISTS, THEY ARE THE DISMANTLERS OF DEMOCRACY, maga IS THE ATTEMPT TO GET US BACK TO A SANER GOVERNING FRAMEWORK, A cONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, AFTER THE lEFT HAS SPE NT DECAADES TEARING IT TO PIEC4ES.   iT ISN'T SYNONYMOUS WITH tRUMP'S POLICIES BUT HIS POLICIEIS CERTAINLY WENT A LONG WAY TO REESTABLISHING THE GREATNESS OF aMERICA AS WE THINK OF IT, THE LOWERING OF TAXES, THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, THE SECURITY OF OUR BORDERS, THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF TRADE PLICIES THAT BENEFIT aMERICA, AND MUCH MORE BESIDES.  tRUMP IS APPRECIATED BY MANY OF US BECAUSE OF HIS AGGRESSIVE AND UNHESITATING ENACTMENT OF ALL THESE BENEFITS FOR THE NATION.  nOT A MERE EMPTY PROMISE, BUT ACTUAL FULFILLMENT.    i DON'T LIKE THAT LATELY HE SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS THAT SOUND TOO FAR LEFT, i DON'T LIKE THAT AT ALL, BUT i STILL RECOGNIZE HOS EFFECTIVE HE WAS DURING HIS TERM IN OFFICE AND AM STILL FOR A REPEAT OF THAT PRESIDENCY.  i ALSO HATED WHAT HE DID WITH covid, HIS PUSHING OF UNTESTED VACCINES ON US WHICH BECAME A TOTALITARIAN WEAPON IN THE HANDS OF bIDEN, AND i WAS DISAPOINTMENT IN HIS INABILITY TO DO ANYTHING TO QUALL THE RIOTING AFTER THE gEORGE fLOYD INCIDENT.  bUT OTHERWISE i VERY MUCH LIKE HIS POLICIES AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CONTINUATION OF THEM, AND i THINK i MUST HAVE \\\\ BE IN SYNCH WITH MOST tRUMP SUPPORTERS.  

\

bUT maga IS BIGGER THAN tRUMP    i'M OFTEN SHOECKED AT THE WAY IT IS CHARACTERIZED BY THE lEFT AS RACIST, AS A TOOL OF WSHITE SUPERMACIEST.  iN ITS SIMPLEST FORM i SUPPOSE THIS JUST REFLECTS THE IDEA THAT WITHO OUR HISTORY OF RACISM HOW CAN WE EVEN TALK OF A ONCE GREAT aMERICA.  iT HAS A MALICIOUS FORM TOO BUT i'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT HE SIMPLEST FORM AS i THINK OF IT.  nOBODY IS PROMOTING maga AS A RETURN TO RACISM FOR PETE'S SAKE, AND SUCH AN IDEA CAN ONLY COME OUT OF THE LAST FEW DECADES OF aMERICA HATING PROPAGANDA FROM THE mARXIST lEFT.    a PSROPEROUS SOCIETY FOR ALL CLASSES, A GOOD SOCIEITY WHICH CARES OUT THE POOR AND THE REST OF THE WORLD AS WELL AS aMERICANS BUT CARES FIRST OF ALL TO ESTRENGTHEN AND PROTECT AMERICANS, A PROSPEROUS SOECITIY, A GOOD SOCEITY, THE SOCIETY O THE gREATEST gENERATION, THAT'S maTGa in my mind and I think also in most others who support it.  America makes mistakes, but America corrects its mistakes.  It may take time but we've made quite a bit of progress and to attack us for those mistakes when we've made such progress is just unconsciousnable, but the Left has no conscience when it comes to destroying america.

Bill O Reilly just came out with a new book on the Salem witch trials and I think I'm going to try to read it if I can get it through the Services for the Blind audio books program.  I've heard more than one interview with him on the radio talk shows about the book but on one of them he called the Puritans a fanatic sect and I bridles.  No, the Puritans wer enot fantasitcs.  The Puritans, like MAGA, were attempting to recover the lost truths of Christianity after a milennium of pagan distortions in the Roman Church and the Anglican Church.  The term was used against them by their enemires but it reflects their concern to return the church to its pure form without all the pagan accretions, superstitions, totalitarianism and all the resto of ti.  No fanaticism at all.  And in keeping with this observation of similarity I'm making, I'd say the fanaticism is on the side of the pagan papaostasy although fanaticism is probably not the right word.  Not fanaticms but power mad tyranny.  

Today's Reformed churches take much inspiration from the Puritan writers of England, they are highly revered theologians.

there is another strand to this simnilarity I'm discovering as I listen to the audio version of Alexis DeToqueville's Democracy in America which I found at You tube this morning.  Wonderful stuff.    How I wish this had been required reading for us in school, even high schoo.ll but certainly college, but in the sixties they took away the courses in American instittuionas and western civilixation under the onslaught of leftist insanity and antiAmericanism.    DeTuoqueville makes it clear that Puritanism was not just a powerfujlly Christian relgionous influence but also a poltiical movement toward democracy and republicanism.  He seems the planting of thte Puritans in New England as the foundation for both democracy and republicanism in the Constitutional governemtn that eventually united the nation.  

and that's what MAGA would restrore against all the distortions =bby the Left.