He likes to say how the Reformation was needed and so on but he never says clearly exactly what abourt it was needed, and then he goes on to say how it didn't help anyway because it was just as dulalistic in its thinking or even more so than the cathjolic Church had been as if dualistic thinking was the reason for the Reformation. GGroannnnn.
So I'll just say it to get it said. The reason for the Reformation, although it started out to be a long list of complainst s about corrupt practices such as indulgences, as per Luther's statement he nailed to the door of the Wittenberg Church, it turned out to be about basic theology and particularly thye fact that the Catholic Church teaches a false view of salvation. The Reformation as expressed by all oits leaaders, showed that salvation is by faith alone WITHOUT WORKS, but the Catholic Church still teaches that works are needed, and has had on its books, in the Counsil of Trent deckisions, a long list of curses or anathemas singling out all the tenets of the Protestant Reformation for cursing. Fodder there for another Inquisition any time the Roman Church may again have the poloitical posewer to do so, to persecute and murder more dissidents, as if fifty million durin gthe Middle Ages wasn't enough already.
Does Rohr ot know these things or is he being disingenuous? I vote for the later. latter
Later: Back to the so called universal Christ which is absoluite nonesssense but I can't seem to let this stuff go. He says that the Latin on our money which says E Pluribus Unum and means Out of many, one, the one part means Christ. Huh? Weird and here I thought it meant something about how America is a melting pot, meaning that we transform a great diversity of different kinds of peoples and their cultures into one American culture, which used to work but doesn't so much any more thanks to Marxism and the substitution of multiculturalism for the melting pot, an entirely different concept that produces nothing but doconflict and division.
Anyway here he goes aain with his ridiculous idea of the Universal Christ which he says began at the Big Bang while Jesus of course only began two thousand years aGO. BUT ACTUALLY jESUS AS cHRIST OR gOD INCRARNATE HAD NO BEGINNING BECAUSE hE IS gOD, gOD THE sON WITH gOD THE fATHER AND gOD THE hOLY psIRIT, ALL THREE gOD IN THREE PERSONS. tHE bIG bANG IS THE BEGINNING OF CREATION, NOT gOD WHO PRECEDED THE bIG bANG BY FOREVER. sO HE'S ALREADY CONFUSED.
hE NEVER EVEN MENTIONS THAT THE WORD cHRIST MEANS aNOUINTED. ANOINTED, i REPEAT IT BECAUSE i THINK i MISSPELLED IT THE FIRST TIME, ANYWAY, tHE aNOINTED, WHICH IN hEBREW IS mESSIAH. aNOINTED, mESSIAH, cHRIST. wHILE CERTAINLY ALL CREATION WAS THE WORLK OF jESUS cHRIST, IT WASN'T THE WORK OF cHRIST BUT OF THE sON OF gOD WHO BECAME cHRIST. wAS ANOINTED TO SAVE THE FALLEN HUMAN RACE THROUGH FAITHT IN hIM, WHICH WILL IN THE END ALSO ENTAIL SAVING THE ENTIRE CREATION. bUT cHRIST IS A SINGULARITY, THE TERM REFERS TO AN ANOINTED PERSON, IT'S NOT A PRINCIPLE THAT APPLIES TO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF hIM. hE IS THE cHRIST. jESUS cHRIST MAY NOT BE A FIRST AND LAST NAME BUT IT'S HOW SCRIPTURE SPEAKS OF hIM IN ALL THE GOSPELS AND LETTERS, OR IF THERE ARE ANY EXCEPTIONS i DON'T KNOW WHICH AND THEY WOULD ONLY BE A MATTER OF INAPPLICABILITY, NOT SOME OTHER MESSAGE. aNYWAY, jESUS is THE christ. the christ. \
BUT OF COURSAE rOHR KNOWS NOTHING OF THE TRUE SALVATIOHN. hE TAKES ALL THE TRADITIONAL cHRISTIAN WORDS AND REDEFINES THEM INTO SOME KIND OF SYMBOL.IC MEANING, DEPRIVING THEM OF THEIR TREUE LITERAL MEANING.yES cHRISTIANITY IS TRANSFORMATIVE, IT MEANS WE ARE BORN AGAIN BY BELIEIVNG IN hIM, NOT WHATEVER BIIZARRE MEANING HE GIVES TO THE TERM. wE AREN'T SAVED BY LEARNING NOT TO THINK DUALISTICALLY OR WHATEVER STRANGE MNOTION HE HAS ABOUT THAT, WE ARE SAVED BY BELIEVING IN jESUS' DYING ON THE CROSS FOR US ALONG WITH hIS LIVING A PERFECTLY SINLESS LIFE FOR US. iF WE BELIEVE IN hIM AND PUT OUR TRUST IN hIM THEN WE ARE SAVED WHICH MEANS WE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. wE ARE NOT SAVED, WE DON OT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, IF WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT hE LIVED AND DIED FOR US. fOR US TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. lITERAL ETERNAL LIFE. nO SUCH CONCEPTS HAVE ESCAPED rOHR'S LIPS THAT i HAVE HEARD AND i'VW HEARD AN AWFUL LOT OF HIM BY NOW.
HIS ISN'T BOUND TO ONE HISTORICAL STORY THAT HAPPENED IN iSRAEL, HE SAYS. yIKES. HE ALSO SAYS SOMETHING REALLY STRANGE ABOUT HOW SUPPOSEDLY SOME PEOPLE THINK gOD ONLY ENTERED CREATION WITH THE BIRTH OF jESUS. sO STRANGE i DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO ANSWE RIT DIRECTLY. nO, GOD 8IS SELF EXISTED, hE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, hE NEVER BEGAN TO EXIST, hE HAS ALWAYS ALWAYS EXISTED, AND THAT MEANS THE fATHER, TTHE sON AND THE hOLY sPIRIT, ALL THREE HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED. gOD DID NOT BEGIN WITH TIME, TIME IS CREATED BY gOD, hIS CREATION BEGINS WITH TIME, BUT gOD PREEXISTGS TIME, A AND THAT MEANS ALL THREE fATHER sON AHND hOLY sPIRIT. sO WHEN HE SAYS THE cHRIST GEGBEGAN WHEN TIME BEGAN HE'S PUTTING hIM IN THE CATEGORY OF A CREATED THING NPOT TREATING HIM AS gOD hIMSELF. bUT THE cHRIST IS gOD hIMSELF, AS IS THE sON OF gOD. aND NOW jESUS TOO PARTAKES OF THE DIVINE NATURE HAVING BEEN CONCEIVED BY THE hOLY pisRIT. hE IS gOD AND mAN BUT ALL DIVINE IN THE UNITY. iHOPE i HAVEN'T WRITTEN MYSELF INTO A HERESY HERE. cERTAINLY jESUS REPRESENTES US HUMAN BEINGS FOREVER AND WE NEVER BECOME DIVINE. aNGELS NEVER BECOME DIVINE AND NO CREATED THING EVER BECOMES DIVINE. bUT THE MYSTERY OF THE gOD mAN IS NOT EASY TO COMPREHEND SO IT WOULD BE EASY TO GET IT WRONG.
bUT rOHR GETS EVERYTHING WRONG. i STARTED OUT GIVING HIM SOME CREDIT WAY BACK THERE BUT NOW i DON'T THINK HE GETS EVEN ONE THING RIGHT, i CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ANYWAY.
DAY nOV 3
nOW i FIND HIM GOING ON ABOUT SOMETHING HE CALLS THE TRUE SELF VERSUS THE FALSE SELF. hE SAYS THAT WHEN jESUS TOLD US THAT IF A GRAIN OF WHEAT FALLS TO THE GROUND AND DIES IT BRINGS FORTH MORE BUT IT MUST DIE THAT WHAT HE REALLY MEANT WAS THAT OUR FALSE SELF MUST DIE SO THAT THE TRUE SELF CAN LIVE OR SOME OT THE FORE. qELL WHLE jESUS WAS NO DOUBT TALKING ABOUT DYING TO SELF AS WELL AS LITERALLY DYING IN OUR BODIES, AND ABOUT hIMSELF DYING ON THE CROSS TO SAVE US, THERE IS NOTHING IN ANYTHING hE SAID TO JUSTIFY rOHR'S NOTIONS.
fOR ONE THING rOHR THINKS IT'S WRONG OF US TO THINK OF jESUS AS THE ONLY cHRIST. hE EXTENDS THE cHRIST TO eVERYTHING, ALL CREATED THINGS AS THE fIRST iNCARNATION. THE WAY HE MISAPPROPRIATES TERMS IS STAGGERING. tHERE WAS ONLY ONE INCARNATION. iT REFERS TO GOD hIMSELF BECOMING mAN. nOTHING THAT IS CREATED WAS INCARNATED, IT WAS MERELY CREATED, MADE BY gOD, MADE BY jESUS. bUT THERE WAS ONLY ONE INCARNATION, THE BECOMING HUMAN OF gOD hIMSELLF, gOD THE sON.
hE QUOTES cOLOSSIANS ABOUT HOW WE ARE HID IN cHRIST TO REFER TO THE TRUE SELF THAT IS REVEALED WHEN THE FALSE SELF DIES. oF COURSE HE HAS DENIESD THE fALL AND HAS NO NOTION WHATEVER THAT ONLY BELIEVERS HAVE THE hOLY sPIRIT, ONLY BELIEVERS ARE BORN AGAIN, WE ARE CHANGED WHEN WE BELIEVE. BUT TO rOHR EVERYONE IS INDWELT BY THE hOLY sP8IRIT. sO pAUL IN cOLOSSIANS IS ACTUALLY SAYING THAT WE BELIEVERS ARE HID IN cHRIST BUT rOHR IS SAYING ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE. tOTAL MAGLING OF THE TRUTH.
hE'S ALSO SAYING THAT THE FALSE SELF IS TRIBAL AND RACIST AND HE PRETTY MUCH CHARACTERIZES ALL cHRISTIANITY THAT WAY. aLTHOUGH WE ALL RECEITE THE CREED ABOUT ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH, A TERM THAT BELONGS TO cHRISTIANITY AT LARGE THAT WAS STOLEN BY THE rOMAN cHURCH SO THAT NOW PEOPLE GET CONFUSED IF YOU USE THE TERM "CATHOLIC". aLL IT MEANS IS UNIVERSAL AND THAT IS WHAT cHRISTIANITY WAS ALWAYS MEANT TO BE, UNIVERSAL. iT APPLIES TO ALL HMAN BEINGS. gOD hIMSELF BEAME A MAN TO LIVE A PERFECTLY SINLESS LIFE AND THEN IN OUR PLACE TO GIVE US ETERNAL LIFE. tHAT'S IT.
rOHR ON THE OTHER HAND SAYS HE IS ENVISIONING A UNIVERSAL CHURCH YET TO COME, A CHURCH FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS. uM, WELL, YEAH, IN THE SENSE HE IS UNFORTUNATELY TAKING ABOUT IT, THAT UNIVERSAL CHURCH IS GOING TO BE THE RELIGION OF THE aNTICHRIST. i ASSUME THE PAPACY WILL HEAD IT OF CORUSE, AND THE PAPCY IS THE aNTICHRIST AS THE pROTPTESTANT rEFORMERS DISCOVERED. sO THERE IS rOHR DECLARING THAT HIS VISION IS OF THIS UNIVERSAL CHURCH. hM.
mAYBE IT WOLD BE RIGHT TO SAY THAT rOHR'S REDEFINED cHRISTIANITY IS GOING TO BE THE FOUNDATIONAL cHURCH OF THE aNTICHRIST IN THE END. iT'S THE MOST THOROUGH REWRITING OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM THAT i'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED
sO ACCORDING TO rOHR SALVATION IS SIMPLY FINDING THE TRUE SELF, LETTING GO OR DYING TO THE FALSE SELF WHICH IS TRIBAL AND RACIST WHILE THE TRUE SELF IS UNIVERSAL AND LOVING. hM. wELL, TRUE SALVATION, WHICH IS BEING BORN AGAIN UPON TRUST IN cHRIST'S DEATH AND RESURRECTION, DOES IN FACT MAKE A NEW PERSON, A NEW CREATION, AND HAS THE SEENDS IN IT FOR A FAR MORE LOVING PERSON ALTHOUGH WE STILL HAVE THE FALLEN SELF TO CONDEND WITH IN THIS LIFE, WE HAVE TO GROW OUT OF IT MORE OR LESS SLOWLY OVER THE REST OF OUR LIVES. sO AGAIN rOHR JUST TAKES SOME cHRISTIAN TRUTHS AND MAKES THEM MEAN SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, APPLYING THEM TO UNSAVED PEOPLE, WITH APPARENTLY NO GRASP AT ALL OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE TRULY SAVED.
.E ALSO CHARACTERIZED UNSAVED PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO IN HIS TERMS HAVEN'T YET "GOT IT" AS ALWAYS STRIVING TO BECOME WORTHY OF SALVATION. bUT THAT IS OFCOURSE EXACTLY WHAT THE rEFORMATION DID AWAY WITH, THE WHOLE IDEA OF WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS. tHAT WAS lUTHER'S SPIPHANY, THE MOMENT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT HE COULD NEVER BECOME HOLY ENOUGH AND DIDN'T HAVE TO, THAT JESUS HAD DONE IT ALL FOR HIM. bUT THAT OF COURSE IS NOT THWAT rORHR IS SAYING. rOHR IS SAVYING TGHAT WE ARE ALL SAVED, IT IS OUR TRUE ESELF, WE JUST AHVE TO REALIZE IT. yIKES.
wELL, NEXT IN THE VIDEO LINEUP i HAPPEN TO BE WATCHING COMES A WOMAN TALKING ABOUT rOHR'S CONCEPT OF THE uNIVERSAL cHRIST, SAYING AT FIRST SHE THOUGHT OF THE TERM AS TAKING SOMEHING FROM cHRIST AND APPLYING IT TO OTHER RELIGIONS, BUT NOW SHE SEES THAT HE IS DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, FINDING THE cHRIST WITHIN EVERYTHING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AS IF THAT MADE ANY KIND OF IMPORTANT DIFFERENT. iF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE HERETICAL NATURE OF THIS WOMAN WHOEVER SHE IS, SHE TEHN GOES ON TOE QUOTE tEILHARD DE cHARDIN AND THE HERETICAL FALSE GOSPEL OF tHOMAS. oNE OF THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS. aH WELL.
aGAIN, HOW ODD IT IS THAT THE VERY TERM cHRIST IS MISAPPROPRIATED IN SUCH WAYS AT ALL. iF YOU GIVE A P\MOMENT'S THOUGHT TO WHAT THE TERM MEANS THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY YOU CAN USE IT AS THEY DO. tHE aNOINTED oNE. tHE mESSIAH. tHE cHRIST. oNE BEING ANOINTED BY gOD FOR THE GREAT TASK OF SALVATION. yOU CAN'T HAVE TGHE cHIRST in EVEWRYTHING, THAT MAKES NO SENSE CONSIDERING WHAT THE TERM MEANS.
ii THINK rOHR MAKES A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR THE fALSE pROPHET, THIS DRAGONISH TWISTER OF TRUTH BY SUCH A LAMBISH SORT OF PERSONALITY, MEEDK AND MILD, TWO LAMBS HORNS. BUT HE HAS TO POINT TO THE aNTICHRSIT. AMBYE HE ALREADY HAS. aND HE HAS TO DO SOME MIRACLES. wELL, THAT KIND OF DISQUALIFIES IHIM AT LEAST AT THE MOEMJNT.
jUST ONE MORE THING. rOHR TALKS A LOT ABOUT HOW WE IN THE WEAT HAVE THIS OR THAT IDEA, THE IDEA FOR INSTANCE THAT WE KNOW WHO gOD IS AND WHAT gOD IS LIKE WHEREAS FOR INSTANCE THE bUDDHISTS SIMPLY CLAIMED A HOLY IGNORANCE AS HE CALLS IT, SAYING THEY DIDN'T KNOW. hERE AS IN ALL THESE POINTINGS TO THE wEST AS THE SUPPOSED AUDTHOR OF VARIOUS NOTIONS rOHR FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS THE bIBGLE THAT GIVES US OUR KNOWLEDGE. tHE BIBLE TELLS US WHO gOD IS, THAT'S ITS PURPOSE, THE bIBLE TELLS US WHAT SALVATION IS, WE DIDN'T MAKE IT UP, IT'S IN THE bIBLE. wE CAN HAVE CERTAINTY ABOUT SOME THINGS BECAUSE THE BIBLE HAS THAT CERTAINTY AND GIVES IT TO US. jOHN SAYS HE WROTE HIS GOSPEL IN ORDER TO PERSUADE US TO BELIEVEW BY PROVIDING US THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH WE CAN BELIEVE. hE WROTE ONE OF HIS LETTERS TO ADSSURE US THAT WE ARE SAVED, iF WE MEET HIS CRITERIA WE CAN KNOW THAT WE ARE SAVED, THIS ISN'T SOMNETHING WE HAVE TO MAKE UP OR SPECULATE ABOUT, jOHN WRITES IT OUT FOR US, THE bIBLE TEACHES US ALL THESE THINGS.
No end to it yet I guess. Now he's talking about how Buhism came up with a very refined observed understanding of the self as if that's what Christianityshoud have bene doing. But of coruse that has nothing to do with what Christainity is all about. Boddhism couldn't do anything to save us but they did deveop a refined psychology as it were. Yes a psychology. Psyche means what we mean by the sould. Fallen human beings have a soul. What they don't have is the Spirit which communicates with God. We have a sort of broken spirit that communicates with the spirit realsm, meaning the real of the demons, but not with God. We have to be born again in order to communicate with God because it is that faculty of communicating with God that we lost at the Fall and being born again restores it to us. But Bddhists don't get bgorn again. they can only operate in the realm of the self or soul or demonic, they can't know God.
Saturday: now I find him saying more about the meaning of Christ and he gives the cofrect definition of it as Messiah and Anointed but then says it means "sacred" and that it applies to matter and spirit ottogether or some such. He also says that Christ is ternal but then he goes on to say it began at the Big Bang so I gues s he's confused about the meaning of eternal. Anyuway Anointed means appointed by God, it does not mean "sacred" and you can't applyu it to anything other than Jesus who was appointed by god to be our savior and anointed to signify his being the chosen one.
He also laughs at the apple as if tht's the meaning of the story of the Fall, the lowly apple itself. No, Mr. Rorhr, the apple is there perhaps to show that a very small sin has huge consequences. Any disobedience at all rends the fabric of all creation. You are foo You misss the whole poinmt of the apple.
Then how he sees everything flowing out of the dance of the Trinity, whichmakes it all he says the body of CChrist and sacred. Oh dear oh dear. No, the creation was made by god,k 9it is not God, it is separate from god, made not begotten, while we sayof Jesus Christ that He was begotten, not made.
We,k he says, meaning the Church I suppose, Catholic church at least, have taken it upon ourselves to define what is sacred. Well, no WE haven't. The thing he misses over and over and over, or ignores really, is that it is the Bible that tells us what all these things mean and the Bible is God's own revelation to us. We don't decide anything or when we do we become heretics as he has become because he is the one making everything up. He claims to take it from the bible butg only by twisitng it all out of shape can he claim such a thing.
And he's teaching a lot of people this heresy.
g this read aloud I found of course all the typos and they are many and some pretty bad but I also found myself saying something I need to correct: I meant to say that we all repeat the creed about the one catholic church and I forget how it is worded but instead I said holy apostolic church and that is not what I meant. We call ourselves catholic, the Christian Church is catholic and the Roman Church stole that term, misappropriated it to itself. Oh it will certainly be universal in the den end of course, when it heads up the final worldwide universal religions of the Antichrist.
Eventually he gets around to all of it perhaps if you can stand to listen long enough. I finally find him talking about the atonement, the understanding of salvatgion and redemption that I'm calling orthodox, that all Protestants beleive, and he calls it a late development. Really? Doesn't scripture say Christ died a ransom for us? Doesn't scripture say we are crucified with Him and now Christ lives in us? Doesn't scripture say over and over and over, check out John at least but all of them say it, BELIEVE and be saved.
And aren't we told in no uncertain terms in the Letter to the Hebrews that without the shedding of blood are no sins purged? We can't be saved without a sacrified and that sacrifiece is clearly built on the model of the animal sacrifiecs of the Old testament, which in themselves couldn't atone for sin but show us to the sacrifieces of sacrifice of Christ which can purge us from our sins. And throughout the New Testaemtn we find the phrase about how our sins are forgiven by the shedding of blood. What is that but the atonement, and it's in scripture, it's not a late addition.
Sins forgetven through his blood, I think that's the phrasing. Through His blood our sins are forgiven.
I doS keep feeling I have to get this said because otherwise his heresies are just going
Well, he keeps going on and maybe I should try to keep answering him but it's wearing me down. He says where Paul keeps using the phrase In Christ that means it's about the universal Christ and not about Jesus Christ and he refers to Ephesians and Colossians for examples, but if you read the first chapters of those two books it's pretty clear it seems to me, VERY clear, that it all refers to Jesus Christ. We are in Christ meaning in Jesus Christ when we believe and those who do not believe are not in Christ, nor is anythign else in creation in Christ, only the believers who are to bethe Sons of God as the first chapter of the gospel of John says.
But this is indeed very wearisome and this is an awfully long post. I'll try to bring it to an end with the remark that his kind of thinking must be attractive to many people because it sounds so sophisticated, whereas the simple gospel of Jesus Christ sounds puny to him and he conveys that denigrating valuation of it. Oh just the ordinary gospel of christ, nah. Naaaaaaa. But if this is the case then I've got to say he's failing at his objective to cut down the ego because such sophstication builds up the ego in all those who find it so complelling and the simple gospel of salvcation through Christ so puny.
Sunday the fifth. Hoo boy. Another Rohr rewriting of scripture. Guess what, now we have a "vulnerable" God, and in the scenario that includes this new version of God guess what, the violence of the crucifixion no longer fits. Yes, it's violent, the crucifixion and in this newer truer scenario golly gosh it just doesn't fit. If there was any doubt left about whether or not one could eke out a message of salvation from his heresy, her's the proof that you can't.
This is in a video of Rohr titled An Evening With Richard Rohr.
And I just watched Jan Markell's latest, and may do a bpost on it but since Rohr is transforming religion it seemed to belong here to point out that the Great Reset of Kalaus Schwab is transhumanist and in keeping with Jesus saing that it will be like the days of Noah, which included the hybridization of human beings in the angel human breeding that produced the Nephilim, they are planning to create a new human being . genetic technologyh and Ai and all that.
As Rohr says such things as "poor litle old Jesus" and "vulernable God" and "god is like Santa Clause, making a list of who's god and bad" and so on it hit me that this deserves him the identity of the dragon with the Names of Blasphemy on its heads. These notions of god are blasphemy. And again he says a lot of things that come straight of the bible are false, imputing them to the early church fathers instead or theological tradition. But the wrath of God is in the Bible, we didn't make that up.
Oh, here he says it in so many words what he means by the crucifixionn. Certainly not our salvation, not His dying in our place that we might have eternal life, but the "image" of the crucified, or "God's solidarity with human pain." Really, all this shouldbbe understood to be blasphermy . That's what it is. Blasphemy, a falsification of God, , lies about God. a Trivialisation of God.He mischaracterizes and trivializes God but also mischaracterizes what believers are taught from the Bible. He makes the mistake of concluding thta because the Trinity isn't in the Bible through that very word that it's not in the Bible, but it's there in many separate verses that characerize the concept completely
He claims thesacrificial meaning of the cross, the substitutionary atonement, is no longer in force, because the letter to the Hebrews says there is no more sacrifice for sin. Odf course completely misreadeing that. Then he says that if God can't love His creation unconditionally there's some kind of problem here. He can't demand the shedding of blood to make us lovable. He is so twisting eerything I cnan barely make sense of it. Anyway he's dcompletely done away with the atonement. Having done that there is no more salvation for anyone who accepts his way of looking at it. Amazing though how he takes every orthodox point and trashes it completely. He denies it all. Yes he knos the orthodox point of view, I keep listening and discovering that he does, and yet he trashes it all in favor of his preferred rewriting of it. It turns my stomach.
