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.