Message for President Trump

 Would somone please tell President Trump that working for peace between Russia and Ukraine won't get him to heaven?  He aapparently doesn't undersand that Jesus paid for our sins on the cross and that's how we get to heaven, by believing in Him, that He died for us so that we don't have to pay for our sins ourselves, and tht He rose again from the dead.  If you believe all tghat, then you are saved and going to heaven.    THGEN you should work for peace, because it is the right thing to do and because the Lord would want you to do it.  But it won't earn you heaven.  Either you are already saved by Jesus' death for you, or you need to be saved by believing Him and thank ing Him for it.  Also, while we are to do what we can as Jeus calls us to do it, we are not resposible for the outcome.  You are not responsible for what Putin and Zelensky decide to do, you are only responsble for doing what you can to further the prospects of peace between them.  It is God who is responsible for the outcome.

Sio, relax.  Give yourselve to Christ and relax.  Do what you can and relax.  It's in God's hands.    Scripture i very clear that we are not to try to work our way to heven.  If we could then we'cd get the credit for it, but since God did it for us He gets the credit and our wrole is gratitude and commitment to do His will as best we can, kowing we are fallible creatures and only God can work miracles.

Someone needs to ge this across to Catholics too beause they have been misled to believe they must work for their wsalvation.  

********

Now I have a message for Glenn Loury.  I heard his latest talk with his frequent talking partner John McWhorter on the subjec tof Isareael versus Hamas, what's going on in Gaza.  My message to Mr. Loury is:  You are believing the liars, you are believing Hamas.  All those statistics are made up by Hamas.  It is Hamas who are interfering with the aid getting to their people, it is not Israel's doing.  You need to listen to sme different sources on this one.  I usually like Loury's comments betwtter than I like McWhorter.  This time McWhorter was getting it more right than Loyry.

All for now.

Zygosity and the Camellama

 On the biological side of things, a few weeks ago I hit on somethig I thought was pretty interesting although I may ot fully grasp it yet.   Back in the nineties I read a book I think was titled Creation Science, which I think was authored by Henry Morries and someone named Gary Partker although I may not have his name right.  Whoever he is, and I haven't been able to find out anything about him, or maybe a little but I'm not sure it's hjim,  he presented a model of how Adam and Ever could have carried all the genetic material for all the skin color variations known to humanity, which of course means hey carried all the genetic material offor every kind of variation that ever cooccurs to the human race.  He drew it up in one of those boxes I think is called a punnet square?  I'm not rememberung uch this morning, am I?

But tthat has stuck with me since then and leads me from time to time to think about how variations are built into the genome by simple zygosity, meaning heterosqugosity, meaning the fact that genes that are  capable of variation are made up of two alleles or versions of the trait they code for, such that the offspring in sexual recombination can receive one or the other ersion fo the trait.  If many genes for a trait combine with different versions of each, there can be a huge range of different ways a trait can vary.    This is all based on Mendeian genetics, very simple stuff, bu I've come to realize that it has enormous postential for creating variations.

Some genes no doubt don't produce variations because in the design of the creature they need to be stable, such as gthe body plan or the imune system.  But there are all sorts of characteristics that can vafry, the most common one we always think of being eye color.  Skin color is another.    Hair type and color, and in animals fur tye and so on,  all may variy freely and produce all sorts of interesting traits.  Birtds may have the most ineresting and colorful variation possibilityies with dramatic plumage possibilities and so on.   But it's through variation that you get say, the different herds of wildebeests, that vary in size, hide color and antler shape from herd to herd.  In humans we get the races but there are many more fraces than the few we usually think of.  If you put ten people on a desert isolaned, or no you can't put them there, if they happened to get there a few centuries ago and couldn't leave, by now they would have a very distinctive look to them due to the combination from generation to generation fo whatever genetic material was in the group that fisrst landed on the island.  There could be a huge poulation by now, but they would all have similar characteristics, a generalized look to them, in size for instance as well as facial features and proabably temperament and capabilities of many sorts.    It's how we get all our different kinds of cats and dogs etc etc etc.  The body plan doesn't alter much so you always know a cat is a cat and a dog a dog, but otherwise they may vary eomrously, dogs from the Great Dane to the St Bernard to the Husky to the spaniel to the chihuahua etc etc etc.

It is these vartiation s that evolutionists mistake for evolution and built their whole system o them.  As if the variations could keep changing the creature until it eventually becomes a differentr kind of creature.  Can't happebn.  For one thing, the body plan doesn't change, only the what to call them appearance is pary of it but there's more to it, I'm sure there's a word for it somewhere.   It's variation built into the genome, it's not evolution.  When you get a purebrfed of any kind of animal for inatance, no further variation happens, .  It took me some time to recognize that this is the piont where the genes for the slaient characgteristics are all or mostly all homozygouds for particular traits.   In fact somewhere I foudn that that is a defintiion of a pure breed according to some breeding organization.  Homozygodisity is the same as a fixed trait.    If the whole population is homozygous for particular traits, there is no opportunity for variation of that trait to be expressed in theiur offspring.  YOu have to have heterozygosity for that to be possible, but all the alleles for the trait that do not produce the varsion that belongs to the particular breed ahhave been eliminated from the population over time and unless there's a stray one here or there  thevariations of that btrait juist aren't going to show up again in that breed.  So calle "evlution" has come to an end that that point.    

So I began to appreciate that the mdel of genetic possibilities in Adam and Ever I'd found in that book back in the ineties is a model of heterozygosity in all the genetic matieral that is capable of variation in the genome.  Heterozygosity, or the simple fact that each gene has two different versions of the trait it codes for, is all it takes to produce all possible variations in any creature, including human beings.  as they reproduce generation after generation.  When a particular breed sis being develoeped by domestic breeding, or intentional breeding, or when a small population gets accidentally isolted in the wild from the parrent population and breeds only  with its own members over many generations, that's when you start to get more homoszygosity connected with particualr traits within the new breed or popualtion.  

jI  know this is oversimpliefied and there are other actors to gtake into account, such as epigenetic inflence no doubt, though I don't see how that would inlufnece this particular situation, but generally this simple Mendelian sstem should be able to account for enojrmous variatiey in living things.  A very simple design producing a lot of effects over the generations.

So when the topic came up on the Let's Talk Creation podcast of how the llama came out of the camel, if it did, and that was one of the questions, igt occurred to me that this Mendelian principle could very well explain it.  You wouldn't need both a camel and a llama on the ark if they are related woto each other as they are, and would wouldn't need a generalized "camellama" either that somehow contianed the genrteic material for both animals and didn't look eaxactly like either one of them.   It occured gto me that if the camel type has the dominant allele for most of its genes that produce its salient traits, that would mean that three our of four offspring would get the came type inheritance, which is a Mendelian statistic.  The camel thype would show up in the heterozygous genetic formula, as well as in the homozygous dominant formula, two heterozygous possibilities and one homosyfou, for all the traits that make the camel the camle.  Whih would no doubt be a huge number of traits and genes for those traits.  But if a small portion of the population of camels got separated from it that just happeneed to contain a lot of the recessive forms of those genes, then as that new poup;lation inbred over the gwnerations it could well develop into the llama type or any other varsion of the camel .    All it takes, I was thining, is the common accidnet of isolaution of a small number of animals with a new gset of gene frequencies that favor the recessive version of most of the generaes for tthe salient characteristics that in the camel type are built on the dominant alleles.    I hope I'm getting this said clearly.  

So, no Camellamas needed, just heterozygosity in the genome which is a very flexible design factor we usually don't appreciate as such.

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics

After send around my previous post in an email to a frew friedns and family I started looking up some geological concepts on You Tube.  Just to be doubly sure I did't say anything too wrong but also just wanting to find out about some things I've had on hold for a whie.  Like Catastrophic Plate Tectonics.  WEell, ther's a very long You Tube video that comes up with that as the search term and it's very informative but so packsed with information and so rast moving I can't possibly get much out of it in one sitting.  It's something I'll need to hear many times before it comes together for me.

I do keep having a particualr issue with this concept however that hasn't  yet been put to rest.  The catastrophic plate tectonics theory is that the Flood of Noah was begun and continued throughtoyut along with erewextremely violent movements of the continents, up heavals thropugh rapid subduction of the sea floor undre the continents, upheavals on the sea floor sending up hot magma and so on.   What continuies to bother me about these scenario is that I don't see how the Geological Column could have been laid down and remained intact een to the extent it has been with all the violent upheaval going on throughout the period of its laying down.  

Ghere is also evidence that I have been promoting for years that the disruptions brought about by tectonic movvment occurred after all the strata were laid down.  That has been a major arugument of minde and I'm still  convinced by it, even after watching this video that gives this completely different scenario .     I've argued it many times before, on this blog and probably on the one called Fatasy of Evolution, and also at EvC forum.  It's based on a particular cross section of the Grand Canyon/ Grand Staricase area and although I can't see it any more I remember it as being very clear, there is no disruption whatever to be seen during the period of the laying down of the sedimentary layers, but lots of activity afterward.  Something   before too, but I don't and that's part of my oaargument.  

But I'm not going to go into it here.    I do hope my email about the  geological column layers gets some people interested enough to think about it and have some opinions.  Then I can go on to other arguments.

By the way the video I was watching was interrupted every few minutes or so buy on particular ad that coplainted about our Nevada rrepresentative voting for tax cuts for the rich which according to the ad are going to cost us all a lot of money are amount to his seelling us all out, and I get SO tired of this kind of liberal deceit.  Tax cuts for the rishch, which are NOT as big a thing as they claim anyway, since the tacsx cuts extend to all of us, but the tax cuts for the rich are designed to stimulate the economy, which they have always succeeded in doing whever a President has had the foresight to be willing to brave the stupidity of the Left and doin do it anyway.    Tax revenuse themselves double in some cases, jobs increase, etc etc.  That is just one of ma000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ny lying manipulative prop0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000aganda ads.

Later:  I'm discoveing that this video just moves way too fast for me to follow it, and on this new computer I don't  know how to do the usual things like back it up.  Someone will have to show me that some time, but meanwhile I'm lost to this video.  

IF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DROPPED DEAD ON A REMOTE ISLAND OF A BLOG, WOULD ANOYONE HEAR THE CRASH AS IT HIT THE GROUND?

 Overy the years rguing Creation versus Evolution I've brought ofup various problems witht e geoligcal column, such as that there isn't any indication on the surface of any of the separate layers of its every having been on the surface of the earth as anormal landscape.  They are mostly all straight and flat as a tabletop, not uneven the way a normal landscape eis, even the flattest.  They don't have gullies or deep erosion, certainly no canyons.  You don't see plant roots growing down into them anywhere.  There's nothing about them to suggest they ever were the surface of the world during a former time period, whichis what is claimed for eah of them.   Some are supposed to have been underwater but there too you wouldn't expect perfectly straight flat surface or such a homogeneous sediment either,    These conversations never went anywehre of course.  They just get ignored somehow, ,but they raise serious questions about the whole idea that the geological column is made up uof successive periods of time mrked by identifiable types of sediment which have become rock over supposed misllions of years since they were deposited.  Some of the time periods are over a hundred million years,, some tens of millions, but huge periods of time in which very particular animal life is found in fossilized form.  Each layer of sedimentary rock has its own collection of fossilized life forms.   These are understood to be creatures that lies in these time periods, which over time evolved into more odern kinds.  They seem to be less complex near the bottom of the stack of layers, getting more complex as you look toward the uppoer layers, ending in modern mammals and so on at the very top which isd considered to be modern time.

Doesn't irt seem odd thhat the history of the earth would be marked off in clearly identifialble time segments defined by specific kinds of sedimentary rocks?  Sometimes I wonder how that idea got so easily accepted in the first place, but it certainly has been accepted and is foundational to the idea of the fossil record which underlies much of evolutionary theroy.   Nobody coments on the actual physical situatio of the rocks that I've run across, they are just taken for granted to represent these time periods in which sepefic creatures lived, each period demonstrating some evolutionary change as they see it.   

It certainly is interesting that there does seem to be such a clear separate collection of fossil life forms characteristic of a particular rock layer which is identified as a pecrticular time period.   And in a rough way they do seem to exhibit some kind of development from something more primitedve to something modern.  It's easy enough to see how the fossil record idea got going on that simple fact.  And it's a strange fact no matter how you look at it, but it is a fact.  

But again, how is it that the earth could have been divided into time periods of millions of eyears so clearly marked by a very particular kind of sedimentary rock, very straight and flat, continaing a fery specici colelction of fossil forms?  When we look at the surface of the earth we live on it certainly doesn't look straight and flat and ceratinly isn't of one kind of sedimentary rock, or..    Should we expect our own time eperiod to somehow or other get reduced down to such a situation as is found in each of the layers beneath us?   How does that make sense?

Of course nobody does, but then nobody is really thinking about any of this from this point of view Fof course nobody is thinkiung about these things from this point of view.  

Sometimes I try to think through how it could ereally have been a time period that produced a particular rock layer and how that could have come aout.  Many of the layers extend across huge geographical areas, some covering whole continents and even can be found in soe form on all the continents or a umber of them anyway.  There are ideas about how the sediments were laid down originally, mounstains eroding and windo blowing the sediment into flat layers among other things, b tu none of that is very convincing.  SOme are explains by an incursion of water over the land, which seems to me to make more sense but even then it's hard to think the result would have been such a flat horizontal layer that eventually got overlaid by other layers and hardedned into rock.   

Whenver I try to figure this out I end up with the recognition that any amount of such esediment existing on the surface of the earth would have makede it impossible for any creature to surfvive there, either in it or on it.  Creatures can't live on a pure sand deposite.  So maybe the sand came layter and the animals lived on a normal surface that was eventualy covered over by the sand or other sediment?  But when it was covered over then the animal life would die, it couldn't go on living, and if it died then it didn't pass on to the next time period where an evolved form went on living, it just died because there was no place for it to go on living.      So maybe it lived on part of the surace that wasn't yet covered over by this sediment.  But since it was eventuqally covered over, as we can see from the rock layers in the column today, then they would have died there too.  Nobothing could live wherever these sedimentary deposits were the surface they had to live on.

So maybe thy formed beneath the surace or something like that, and then the surface was somehow eroded away and left only the sedimentary layer which got covered over by a new kind of sedienyt as the next supposed time period began to develop.   But it's the same problem.  When the livable surface is gone, erotded away or whatever, leaving only the sedimentary deposite we see as rock in the scolumn today, wheaever had been living on that surface would die because it couldn't live on that bare sedimentary surface.  Or in it if we're talking water deposition and sea creatures.

No nmatter how you try to rearrange the possibilityies, you end up with an unlivable environemnty.  For every one of the rock layers we see in the stack of layers we call the geollgical socolumn.   Nothing could have lived in any environmentin which those sedimenyts were actually present as the surface of the earth which for at least some wshort period they had to have been becaue there they are now in that stack of layers.  If nothing could live in that environment then clearly those are not time periods those rocks represent, othing ever lived there, it's all a great delusion.   There is no Geological time scale in which living forms evolved.  There just isn't.   It's all a delusion.     There are plenty of dead things encased within the sedimentary rocks, but they could never have lived in an environment of csuch sediments,  they had to have been carried within the sedimentas and deposited  with them.  Or something like that.  There was never anything living whever those sedimentas lay on the surace of the earth or on the sea floor either.    Nothing could have lived there.  That seems to me to be perfectly clear even if it's hard to thingk all this through and rearrange things in your mind.

Without the fossil record, what happenes to the theory of ewvolution?  Can it keep going on biological and genetic considerations alone without the geoloigcal suport of the fossils?  I don't know.  I'm sure those who believe in evolutio woud try to keep it alive one way or another.  I'm sure if they every thought about what I'm writing here they'd be concvinced I must be wrong one way or another and try to prove me wrong and maybe even manage to convince themselves that I'm wrong.  The theory would just go limping along on the basis of what they think must hve happened rather than on any clear evidence that it did happen.  But then that's the way it has always been.  Evolution has always been  an imaginary construct, building from the real biolgoical fact of the variations we  see all the time in living things m,  each species having a large range of ways it can vary its apparenantce, that's all real enough but they imagine from thant fact that the variation can just keep going from species to species and there's really no way it could.   

That's another line of thought that undoes the etheory of evolution.  I just finished listining to a wbook by Seteven Meyer, Darwin's Doubt , in which he diescusses instance after insnace in which the evolutionary biologicals themselves question the claims of the theory and shows ythat it is never resolved.  tThe same problems remain after every attempt to find a way to solve it or get around it.   Meyer gpoint out many times that variation or change only occurs in existing entitties.  If there is no docode for it it can't happen.  the code is convinced to the genome of each species.  There is no way to get outside of that code, the genome of the species, to form any kind of new thing.  

But that's another whole direction of argument I'm not up to going into right nwo.    I think the faiure of the idea of the geological time scale is enough to kill the ehtthroy of evolution.   There are certainly many ogther ways to kill it.  I think it's really been shown to be  dead for years but  so many people are so committed to the idea they just keep beating the dead horse expectin git to get up and move again.  Oh well.

*******

mAYBE i SHOULD ADD A DEFINITION OF THE gEOLOGICAL cOLUMN FOR THOSE WHO AREN'T SURE WHAT IT REFERS TO.  iF YOU CAN FIND A PICTURE OF A WIDE SECION OF THE gRAND cNYON LOOKING DOWN INTO IT, THE LAYERS YOU SEE IN THE WALLS OF THE CANYON, EACH OF A DIFFERENT SEDIMENTARY ROCK, ARE THE LOCAL VERSION OF THE gEOLOGICAL cOLUMN.  tHE PICTURE PROBABLY SHOWS THE LAYERS FROM THE LOWEST HORIZONTAL LAYER WHICH IS THE cAMBRIAN TIME PERIOD, DATED TO ABOUT FIVE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO, AND THE LAYERS CLIMB UP FROM THERE THROUGH THE oRDOVICIAN, THE sILURIAN, THE dEVONIAN, THE cARBONIFEROUS, TO THE pERMIAN WHICH FORMS THE RUM OF THE CANYON , DATED TO ABOUT TWO HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION YEARS AGO.  oRIGINALLY THE STACK OF LAYERS CLIMBED UP ANOTHER MILE OR SO OR ANOTHER TWO HUNDRED MILION YEARS BUT ALL THT WSHED AWAY IN THE CANYUON AREA.   tHEY CAN BE FOUND INTACT A HUNDRED OR SO MILES TO THE NORTH, HOWEVER, IN uTAH'S gRAND sTARICASE FORMATION.  iT'S IN THAT SECTION OF THE COLUMM THAT THE jURASSIC TIME PERIOD IS FOUND, WHERE ALL THE DINOSAUR FOSSILS COME FROM, THAT AND THE cRETACEOUS LAYER AOVE ITY.      

oOPS,      I see the caps lock was on.  Drat.  Sorry aout that.  

By the way I wrote out other arguments against evolution here and there on this blog, in particular some last Fall around September and Octorber.

---------------

I also keep forgetting to put in my new email addres which is managed by my daughter.   faithswindow@mail.com

Anitichrist Three:

 The previous two posts on the Roman church should be titled Antichrist One and Two but I can't go back and change them now.  This one is a continuation of the theme.

H Grattan Guinness refers to the current most popular end times ceneario as Futurism, the one we call the Pre Tribulation Rapture scenario.  I'm going to call it Futurism from now one just because it is a shorter twerm and is clear enough.    

I've already objected to the part of Futurism that expects the final Antichrist to suddenly be revealed at the very end while up until that time we won't have  any idea of his identity.  That is exactly the scenario Guinness is rejecting as an invention of the Roman Church to obscrure its own iudentity as the system of the papal Antichrist.   

The main objection to the idea of the papacy as the Antichrist has been that he is to be an individual who rules at the ery end, but this is easy enough to answer .  The Caesars were ann individuals and yet all aesar, so is the Pope annll individuals and yet all Pope.  There can be a final individual Pope who is the final Antichrist and that is the position I'm taking.  Guineness dismisses the whole futuris scenario however, he puts eerything in the past.  The Popes are right now the Antichrist and he isn't looking for a future individual Antichrist apparently.   He scoffs at the idea of teh Seventieth week of Daniel too, and arues that the numbers that sound so clearly like three and a half years written in various ways are really to be understood as the twelve hundred and sixty years of the rule of the Roman Church in the Middle Ages.  

All that just eems strained and false to me.   The seventieth week of Dainiel is a deinitely determined time period that is yet future.  I don't see how that can be so easily dismissed.   The seenty weeks are divided y sections in the prophecy itself, and it is sixty nine weks to the Sunday on whih Jesus rode into Jerousalem on the donkey.  That leaves a week of years that so far has no fulfillment.   The tiribulation period Jesus identifies in Matthew 24 however seems to fit right in there, the seventieth week being the last week of the Daniel prophecy, arriving at the reelation of the Messiah who brings the transgressions to a close and establishes eternal righteousness, as the prophecy says.  Jesus identities the great tribulation as occurring just before the EWndj:  "And then the end will come"  so the fit is a good one.

Sixty nine weeks to the crucifixion, when the Messiah is "cut off" as the Daniel prophecy puts it, then another week of years to the finishing of whe whole history of redemption.

Certainly it is not finished yet and the Antichrist is still quite visiblee in a position of international influence but no longer the ruler of the wrold as he was in the MIddle Ages.  But that could change quite suddenly and  he step back into the role as leader of teh reconsittuted Roman Embpire which is now the Roman Church as it was when he ruled over the so called Holy Roman Empire.  

So some of the futuris scenario is probably true enough still.  They have the identity of the Antichirst all rwrong and that's a big  part of it, but Guinessnness is also wrotng to reduce most of the book of revelation to sybolism that has already occurred in the past.  Jesus has not yet come, the transgression is not yet finished, the Antichrist is not ruling the world at the momenmt and so on.  That is all yet to come.

It's sad to see thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Europe flocking to see the election of a new Pope, as they did just a couple moneths ago.  The y stand in front of the ... St. Peter's as it's called  I'm not sure about those things...  but they are standing there reciting their repectitituve prayers with their rosaries and being all excited about the revelatio nof this new leader of the Roman Church who is in realtiy the leader of the deayh of the wrold.    American Catholics  don't rep[udiate the ope either.  He's come to America even to our Congress, what a horror of anabomination that is.  This is a Protestant nation.  All our successes, propsperity, freedoms, come from our Protestant heritage, which in its true essence opposes Catholicism, and yet today few Proptestants have ny idea of any of that.  And Catholics blindly revere their "church" and nobody opposes them any more.   All those pagan things that characterize it just get ignored somewhow.  They are contrary to Christian ity  and yet nobody seems to notice.  Bill Cunninham was going to go to his Romaist church to light a candle over some political situation or other, I forget.  Lgihting cancdles is just a papgan superstittuion, contrary to Christianity.  Cunninham is a solid American patriot it seems to me, but he's in thrall to the false Church and that's sad, for him and for America because  a patriot in thrall to the system of the Anitchrist is certainly not a good thing for the country.  Samew with Dan Bongino.  Many Catholics in American politicis here and there, in office or as talk show hosts and so on.  Good patriots most of them, at least the ocnservatives are, buyt they don't see the problems  that come with their allegiance to the anticChriustian and AntiAmerican Church oif Roe.   Nor do most Protestant though.  

jMark Levil just came out with a new book, On Power, and I'm going to get through my Alexa setup free today as an audio book.  I'm sure he does a great job identifying the power threats from the Left, Maarxism, and naming everybody who is part of it, bugt of course he doesn't know a thing about the Roman Church, which there is reason to believe is the rock bottom power behind it all in the end.    Chris Pinto has a film out called American Jesuits that I haven't been able to see yet, and he has a lot of good information about the dangers of the Roman Church in American politicis and indeed the whole political situation of the whole worldk,, as really the root of the Globalist agendy despite their ability to fly under the radar so cleverly nobody sees it without making a huge effortt.  

I was very idsappointed to find out that J D Vance became a Catholikfcc.  Well, they have good PR.   And they aren't killing people out in the open these days, only in the secret places of the world, yes it is still going on just not out in the open.    They have good PR now, sad to say, we have no John Adamses to warn us against them.  Nboodhyto tell the Catholics "get out of her, My people.    I too was attracted to them through the mystics like teresa of Avila and John of the Cross who teach a true love of God if you aren't sensitized to their little Romanisms that are a fly in the ointment if you know how to recognize them.  I just loved their love of God.  Then Karl Keathing said the Pope is the head of the Church and I knew that was wrong andthe Lord took me to the scripture passages where it says He is the head of the CHurch and that was the end of that for me.  But people who have no knowledge of anything about any of this, such as DjJD Vance, can still be seduced by them.    

Will Leo be the final Antichrist?  I don't know.  I thought Francis was a sure thing because of so many weird signs that stuck to him, but he wasn't and I don't know if Leo will be either.  There could yet be another one to come.  Or maybe he will be.  We're close enough.    Look for a covenant with Israel for seven years.  The last half of those seven years adds up to twelve hudnred and sixty days or foty two months or three and a half years of time, times and half a time.   That's when the Great Tribulation happens if the futurist scenrio is right about that much aty leas.t  

tHE rOMANIST gLOBAL tHREAT cONTINUED

 tHE BOOK, rOMANISM AND THE rEFORMATION BY h gRATTAN gUINESS IS PACKED WITH NECESSARY FACTS ABOUT THE rtOMAN cHURCH, SO THAT  YOU GET THE PERSPECTIVE THAT CAN IMMUNIZE YOU AGAINST ANY ATTRACTIONS IT MAY HAE FOR YOU.   i WAS ATTRACTED TO IT THROUGH THE cATHOLIC MYSTICS WHEN i WAS IN THE PROECESS OF BECOMING A cHRISTIAN BACK IN THE EIGHTIES.  i THINK THE SPELL WAS BROKEN WHEN i READ A BOOK BY kARL kEATING, a cATHOLI  SPOLOGIST, WHERE HE CALLS THE pOPE THE HEAD OF THE cHURCH AND THAT JUST DIDN'T SIT RIGHT.  sOON AFTER THAT THE lORD RESCUED ME FROM THAT IDEA AND FROM THE rOMANISMT SEDUCTION ALTOGETHER i THINK BY CAUSING ME TO OPEN THE bIBLE TO BOTH THE BPASSAGES IN THE nEW tESTAMENT WHICH CALL cHRIST THE hEAD OF THE cHURCH, IN RAPID SUCCESSION, AND i WASN'T EVEN PLAYING THAT GAME OF TRYING TO GET A MAESSAGE BY OPINIONG IT MYSELF, i JUST OPENED IT AND THERE IT WAS, AND i FLIPPED SOME PAGES AND THERE IT WAS AGAIN.  cHRIST IS THE hEAD OF TEH cHURCH.  tHE pOPE IS A USURPER OF THAT ROLE AND THAT TITLE.

aND gUINESS LAYS OUT ALL THE WAYS THE pOPE USURPSA THE TITLES AND FROLES OF gOD AND TAKES POWERS OVER KINGS AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT MADE THE PAPACY THE RULER OF THE WORLD DUREING THE LATE MIDDLE AGES, JUST BEFORE THE rEFORMATION.   tHEY ALSO WROTE LAWS THAT SEALED THE DOOM OF EVERYBODY UNDER THEIR USURPED GOVERNMENT.  sOME OF IT REMINDS OME OF THE WAYS THE lEFT IN aMERICA HAS BEEN MANIPULATING LAW TO SERVE ITSELF RECENTLY.  aND SOME OF IT REMINDS ME OF THE GLOBAL AMBITIONS OF iSLAM, THE JIHADISTS, SUCH AS THE RULAE THE pOPE CAME UP WITH THAT BLESSED ANYONE WHO MURDERED A SO CALLED HERETIC WITH THE PROMIST OF IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO HEAVEN.  lIKE JINADIS WHO EXPECT TO GO TO A CARNAL PARADISE FOR KILLING jEWS OR cHRISTIANS OR INDEED ANY NONmUSLIM.   tHERE IS NOTHING cHRISTIAN ABOUT ANYON OF THIS.  

bUT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOU TIT.  tHAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO READ BOOKS LIKE THIS ONE Y gUINNESS.  aND YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT JUST A THING OF THE PAST.  aLL THESE CLAIMS TO RIGHTS OVER EVERYONE ARE STILL ON THE BOOKS, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN RESCINDED, THERE HAD NEVER BEEN AN APOLOGY FOR THEIR MURDERS AND TORTURES AND PERSECUTIONS, THEY CONSIDER IT STILL TO BE THEIR RIGHT THOUGH YOU WON'T HEAR IT SAID OUT LOUD.  aND JUST AS WITH iSLAM, THEY LIE LOW AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT IN POWER BUT IF THEY EVER GET POWER AGAIN ALL THESE CLAIMS TO RIGHTFUL DOMINANCE OVER ALL HUMAN BEINGS WILL RESURFACE.  aND IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO SOINE PARTS OF THE FUURIST END TIMES CENARIO, ALL THAT COULD BE THE GREAT TRIBULATION OF THE BOOK OF rEVELATION.  a REVIVAL OF THE inQUISITION.     aND  gUINESSNNESS 

aND gUINNESS SHOWS THE iNQUISITION TO BE AS EVIL AND BLOODY AS ANYTHING iSLAM COMES UP WITH .  iSLAM IS JUST NOT SYSTEMATIC ABOUT IT AS THE rOMAN chURCH IS, SYSTEMAITIC, CALCULATIED, JUSTIFIED AS FOR THE GOOD OF THE VISICTIM EVEN.     

i THINK WHAT IS NEEDED IS A CONDENSED VESARSION OF gUINNESS' BOOK TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE AVERAGE READER.  iT'S TOO LONG AND TOO DETAILED AS IT IS.  iT COULD PROBABLY BE CUT DOWN EASILY TO A THIRD OF ITS SIZE OR EVEN LESS.  bUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT YHAT  ARE BGOOD TOO.   tHE TOME THE hISTORY OF rOMANISM BY dOWLING IS THE MAIN ONE.    tHE PAGAN LNATURE OF THE ORGANIZATION IS MADE VERY CLEAR IN ALL THESE SOURCES.  tHE rOMANISTS RETAIN THE OUTLINES OF THE GOSPEL SO THAT PEOPLE ARE EASILY FOOLED BY IT, AND IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE FOR SOME TO BE SAVED IN THAT SYSTEM IF THEY STICK TO JUST THOSE PARTS OF THEIR TEACHINGS, WHICH THE rEFORMERS THOUGHT WAS POSSIBLE.  i DON'T KNOW, i HAVE TO TRUST THE rEOFRMERS ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.    bUT SCRIPTURE IS CLEAR.  eVEN IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO BE SAVED WITHIN THE SYSTEM, THE SYSTEM ITSELF IS EVIL, AND gOD SAYS "cOME OUT OF HER, MY PEOPLE."  iF YOU ARE HIS, YOU  DON'T BELONG THERE.

sO IT'S HORRIFYING TO KNOW ALL THIS AND SEE THE SO CALLED pROTESTANT CHURCHES EMBRACING cATHOLICISM AS JUST ANOTHER DENOMINATION.  i STILL BELIEVE IN ENOUGH OF THE FUTURIST SCHATOLOGY TO BELIVE THAT THE tRIBULTION jESUS TAKELKED OF IN mATTHEW 24 IS STILL ON THE PROPHETIC CALENDAR AND IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE EVENTS OF THE bOOK OF rEVELATION, IN WHICH i BELIVE THE sEVENTIETH wEEK OF dANEIL BEGINS WITH THE OPENING OF THE sEVWNTH sEAL IN rVELATION eIGHT.  i COULD CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT ANY OF THIS BUT gUINNESS' SYMBOLIZING WAY OF DEALING WITH rEVELATION IS NOT AT ALL CONVINCING, IN FACT IT STRIKES ME AS LUDICROUS.   hI hE'S GOOD AT REVEALING THE rOMAN cHURCH BUT HIS TAKE ON PROPHECY DOESN'T CUT IT.  

tHERE ARE  CONNECTIONS BETWEEN rOMANISM, ESESPECIALLY THE jESUITS, AND mARXISM, SOCIALISM, coMMUNISM, TOO.  cHRIS pINTO IS A GREAT SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION.  aDULLAM fILMS, nOISE OF THUNDER rADIO.    pROTESTANTIMS HELD ON TO THE TRUTH ABOUT rOMANISM PRETTY MUCH UP UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY AND THEN ITS OWN PROPAGANDA SEEMS TO HAVE ECLIPSED THAT KNOWDLEDGE IN NOT JUST THE SCHURCHES BUYT THE SECULAR WORLD TOO WHERE IT WAS ALSO VAGUELY RECOGNIZED UP UNTIL RECENTLY.    jOHN aDAMS HAD A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THE EVILS OF THE jESUITS AND THEIUR DANGERS TO THE NATION.  nONE OF THAT IS LEFT IN TODAY'S WORLD.  tHAT MAKES US SITTING DUCKS.    tHEY ARE OH SO GOOD AT FLYING UNDER THE RADAR.  iSLAM IS LOUDER AND MAKES A GOOD DISTRACTION FOR THEM TOO.   bUT THEY ARE TWINS IN THEIR SATANIC INSPIRATION IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TOO LOOK CAREFULLY .   

i GET WHAT gUIONNESS IS ASAYING ABOUT HOW FUTURISM IS A CLOAK FOR rOMANISM, BUT i STILL HOLD TO SOME OF IT.  tHE MAIN THING HE HAS TO SAY, HOWEVER, i ALREADY ACCEPTED LONG AGO, THAT THE PAPACY IS THE aNTICHRIST AND NOT SOME FUTURRE INDIVIDUAL WHO RISES FROM OBSCURITY TO SUDDEN POWER.   tHE PAPACY HAS POWER ALREADY CARVED OUT FOR IT.  iT IS THE HEAD OF A SOVEREIGN STATE AND IT ONCE RULED THE WORLD.  rESUMING ITS OLD IDENTITY WOULDN'T TAKE TOO MUCH.  tHE pOPE ALREAYD HAS RWORLD STANDING ANYWAY.  tHE pOPES ARE IN EVERY INTERNATIONSAL MOVEMENT.  tIME MATTERS IN THE SCENARIO IF WE ARE AS CLOSE TO THE eND AS SO MANY FEEL WE ARE, AND A SINGLE ANTICHRIST RISING FROM OBSCURITY COULDN'T PUT TOGETHER HIS GOVENMENT IN SUCH A SHORT TIME, BUT THE PAPACY HAS IT ALLREADY THERE IN PLACE AND JUST NEEDS TO TWEAK THIS OR THAT AND JUST STEP INTO IT.

i WISH i COULD GET THIS ACROSS TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.  i'VE GOOT BOOKS LISTEN DED ON MY BLOG ABOUT THE rOAN cHURCH TOO BY THE BWAY.  tHIS IS ALL NEEDED PERSPETIVE BUT UNORTUNATLEY THE rOMANISMST HAVE THEPROPAGANDA ON THEIR SIDE AS LONG AS WE REMAIN IGNORANT.  ON 

pROTESTANTS nEED TO bECOME pROTESTANTS IN tRUTH aGAIN, AND cALL dOWN THE rOAMAN fAKE cHURCH

 I don't feel up to this, not to the topic and not even to the physical exertio of sitting at tmy computer to type it.   But I am definiotely called to write something about this however inadeuate it muar vw.  

I listened to an old book on the subject of the papacy as the antichrist by H Grattan Guinness but it's been a few weeks since I finished it, just haven't had theenergy to come to the computer.  The reader of the book was overly dramatic and inserted his own opinions here and there, which I've neve encountered in a reader of an audio book before, which was rather distratacting and made me wonder if I  was getting an accurate sense of the book.  

The message that must be put across somehow is that the Roman Church is far more of a threat to Christianity and to the world than an;ybody has any idea in our day.  The Protestant Church had s all but abandoned her first responsibility in this regard.  What is the Church called to but to identify the enemy of CHrist and follow the Reformers in keeping him from rising to power again.  That is the whole meaning of Protestantism, but what do we see in so called Protestant churches today but a nearly complete abdication of that responsibility.  HJogn MacArthur keeps the message alive.  So does Chris Pinto.  There are others I'm not as familiar with.  Richard Bennet died a few years ago.  I think his website is probably still up[, the rean Beacon I think.   But even the ministries to the Catholics, to try to save them from their doom in that soul killing institution  are way too gentle about it, apparently fearing to drive them away if they speak as stronlgly as the subject warrants.  

Catholicism is treated these days as just another denomination even by most Protestantsa.  The nonChristian wrolrld thinks of it as the main representative of Christianity in the world, ooh miserable travesty.  I mentioned in a previous post that Eric Metaxas seemed to be going out of his way tro avoid the problem of Catholicism in his recommendations ot Colson's efforts to unify all who call ghemselves CHristians for the purpose of taking on the evils in the culture.    I recently heard a good discussion of the Christian character of western civilization on the podcast Uncommon Knowledge where the Inquiition was treated as an unfortunate failur of Christianity, certainly not the sign of the nonChristian nature of the Roman Church that is the true explanation of it.  The same people always bring up the religionus wars too, as an argument against Christianity, without the slightest understanding of the cause of those wars even though theyu are historians and thinkers.  That sort of analysis is jjust not part of any secular study these days, though I was impressed that they had all come to the recognition that Christianity played the dominating role in establishing western Ciilzation.  These men were Doublas Murray and Tom Hollandj.  Also Steven Meyter but he's a real Christian and I'm not sure of his view of these thigns, I don't think he had must to say baout it on that panel.  

An;yway the book by H Grattan Guinness is a very stron gdenuniciation of the Roman Church and of the Protestant abdication of responsibility to keep it in the public eye as the great threat it is to civilization as well as to the true Church of Christ.   He madkes the point that after the Reformation the nations that became Protestant wen t on to progress and prosper in all sort of ways while the nations that remained Catholic, or really, Roman, stagnated as they always had.  America really owesa our liberties and properity to Protestantism, to the Reofrmation, no, not to theE Enlgihtenment.  And although we have many names for our enemies these days, Marxism Wokeism, Communism, and so  on, there is no doubt a strong Romanism influence influencing it all while flying under the radar.  It emerges at least in its support of open borders and flooding the nation with foreigners, manu of whome are Catholic as well as direct enemies such as terrorist Islamists.   I'm sure Chris Pinto has had a lot to say about this over the last year or so when I haven't been able to tget to his website.  Even now I'm having trouble listening to it though I've been able to get back now and then.  His is Noise of Thunder raDIO.  

tHE PAPACY ITSELF ISA VIOLATION OF SCRITPTURE.  wHEN THE rISHOP OF rOMAE SEDECLARED HIMSELF uNIVERSAL bISHOP OVER ALL THE OTHER BISHOPS HEW WAS USURPING A POWER THAT LAUNCHED HIM ON THE PATH TO THE FULL BLOWN ANTICHRIST WH PRESIDED OVER THE iNQUISISITON.   eVEN gREGORY THE gREAT, THAT IS pope gREHGORY THE gREAT , SAID THAT THIS USURPATION OF POWER WAS A FIRST STEP TOAWARD TOHTE ROLE OF ANTICHIRST OR SOMEHINGA ALONG THOSE LINES, AND HE WAS THE FIRST POSPE, IN aD 607 TO TAKE ON THAT ROLE.   

gUINNESS AMPLY PRESENTS ALL YTHE HORRIFIC ARROGANCEW OF THE PAPACY'S ASSUPTION OF POWERS OVER THE YEARS, AND ESPECIALLY ITS ARROGATION OF THE VERY POWERS AND IDENTIY OF goD.   tHE HE AMPLY DESCRIBES THE HORRORS OF THE TORTUEUES INFLIECTED ON THE VISCTIMS OF THE iNQUISITION.  oF COURSE THE rOMAN cHURCH HADA ALREADY BEEN PERSECUTING DISSIDENTS FOR YEARS ANYWAY, THE wALDENISANS AND THE OTHER GROPUS THAT RECOGNIZED THE PAPACY AS ANTICHRIST AND FORMED THEIR OWN DOMMUNITIES.  

iN A WAY YOU'D THINK JUST THE OUTER TRAPPINGS OF THE rOMAN cHURCH WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR SHE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH cHRISTIANITY.  tHE COLORFUL ROBES WHICH BELONG TO THE PAPGAN RELIGIONS OF rPAGAN rOEME, THE WEIRD LOOKING HGEADGREAR, THE LITTLE PAGAN PRACTICES LIKE THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, LIGHTING CANCDLES, DIPPING FINGERS IN "HOLY" WATER AND SO ON.  tHE ROSARY WHICH IS USED IN bUDDHISM AND OTHER PAGAN RELIGIONS.   L tHERE'S A LONG LIST OF THESE DEPARTURES FROM ANYTHING RLEATED TO BIBLICAL chRISTIANITY THAT IS ESCAPING ME RIGHT NOW.

i CAN'T DO THIS SUBJECT JUSTICES.  i HOPE i'VE SAID ENOUGH FOR A START., AND THAT i'LL BE UP TO SAYING MORE EVENTUALLY