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.