God Isn't Finished With Him Yet

 God had mercy on us in this election for sure, thank You Lord, thank You thank YOu, yet for a long whiolele I couldn't get confinced.  I kept thinking this isn't going to hold, no matter how many called it for Trump, no matter how good it looked for our team.  I'm too used to the Left knowing how to pull off a fraud.   But eventually I saw that we did indeed win and I shouldn't have distrusted god, which is really what that amounted to.   

Swtill, I haven't had the strength to get into a celebretaory mood about it.  Certainly I'm happy but it's not a big enthusiastic kind of happy.  It's more like releif.  Huge huge releif.  Relif that the cou ntry isn't going to be destroyed beyond reportair imemmediately at least.    I know our enemies aren't going to stop though so there is no resting on laurels here.

Somehow the Left hads t to be brought to see how wrong they have been so they can sto p being our enemies.  They have to be brought over to the true side of American democracy, the true patriotism.  I think that's the next job for Trump supporters.  Trump is going to make the country prosperous again, strong again, safe again, but the rest of us hasve to go to work to bring us all together again.

Soon as I say that I realize it's impossible.  And what we really need, desperately need, is a Christain revival.  As the American framers knwew, as Joyhn Adams said, our form of government is inadequate for any but a moreal and religious people.  That's what we need more tnan anyuthing else.  

Here's a good one at You Tube:  Why Trump Won With Victor Davis Hanson

I think I'll atdd Bret and Heather today too as their podcast is all about the election and they coer the spectrum of issues.    One thing I've seen in many places including in their podcast is the repott that every county in th country shifted red at least to some small extent and nowhere was there a shift to blue.  even if the red didn't overcome the blue the fact of the shift is hugely important.  The country is getting sane again.

Election 2024: Rescued Republic? The 250th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying

Here's a discussion of how the Left is going to wreak vengeanonce for the Trump win:

The Enemies of Liberty “Will Not Go Quietly into the Night" (From Panel at the @danubenstitute)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7nRZqBOCyA

It Takes a Potemkin Village: The 251st Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying

I Love Elon Musk

 watching him on Joe Rogan.  Thank You Lord for Elon Musk.  And Joe Rogan too for that matter since he iterviews a lot of peoiple in great depth we need to hear that way.   

Loveusk for hving a hat that says Make Orwell Fiction Again.  Wow, what a great slogan.  

he says if Kamala wins they'll take down X, his version of Twitter.  I hope not but he probably knows the truth about that.    After he sacrificed a lot to save us from the cCancel Culture he could lose it all.  

Have mercy on us Lord.

This is a source of all kinds of exposure of the evil of the left.  Wonderful if many peop.lele watch it.

Joe Rogan Experience #2223 - Elon Musk

This is voting day for those who haven't yet voted.  As Musk says in this interview, vote like your life depended on it, because it does.  If you are a conserfative especialy but they aren't going to leave the libeals lalone either.

AClouA Cloud the size of a fist, a smoking flax, a flickering falme of revival can it be?

 Some people these days seem to be thinking ether is a Christian revivla going on.  It's not my idea of a revivial but it is a kind of revival and could be toward the kind I khave in mnd if it holds up.   It comes off discussions like the one I just posted on with Holland and Murray and Meyer, where Christianity is being rediscovered as the foundation of western civilication, and there seems to be a more generally positive attitude toward it than we'd been seeing in the new atheist movement that followed on nine eleven.    

They point to various people who have personally turned to Chrsitainity recently too, such as Ayaan Hirisi Ali and russell Brand, someone I'm not familiar with, and others.   So far as I've gone on this rack it does seem to be mostly focused on societal ills and our need to find solutions to them, although a theme of personal discontent and even despair keeps coming up too.  

What I want of course is a Holy Spirit outpouring which knocks people flat on their faces for hours on end, riveted to the floor and to the church environment wfor starters wshere it usually comes about but I suppose it doesn't have to.   Certainly a lot of people have bveen praying fo ryears for revivial and this intellectual change of mind and heart I'm now hearing about could be the first move in that direction.  You can't very well knock people flat with the Holy Spirit who don't have the foggiest idea what chrfistianity is all about or who the Holy Spirit is or what to do with such an experience, so it makes sense that god would ease us all into a true revival by first geting people to think hard about the Bible's teachings and the differenct worlviews we have been living under for so many decades.  People are discovering that the moral basis of the west is very Christain and that's a very good thing because it is, and getting aback to the root of it would save the eweatst .  

This upcoming electgion makes it particularly urgent .  I hope the good guys win of course but even if we do something more is drastically needed if we aren't just to fall back into the mess we've been in for so long and that threatenes to get worse fi the bad guys win.   Certainly if they win we will even more desperately need a Christain revival if there is any hope of keeping America and the wetst in general from sinking into the totalitarian swamp.  

As the prophecy ministries say a lot these days, it may be that we are simply at the very end and we won't have a revival, we'll just see the Church raptuered and the world go into the Great Tribulation and jesus come back to reign.   Well, God's will be done bur t I would like to see a bgreat awakening foirst in which millions come back to God, and THTHEN those who won't will be the only ones left.  

I hope thi is what they think it might be.  Let it be the opening wedge of a great great revival Lord, please please please.  

Christian revival: Fantasy or reality? - UnHerd LIVE

NOTE:  THE URL goes to the last part of the discussion so you have to set it back at the beginning yourself.  Sorry about that, I do try to get it to start at the right place but I don't succeed at that.

Listening back to this as I always do again I hnote my many typeos abut also again I note that some of them are not my own errors but something imosed on the text by some alien entity, perhaps a bug in the software.   It keeps turning the world revival into Revivial and Christian into Christain.  It changes one form of a word into another form of it so that the sentence is not grammatical.    yes this is the kind of thing that could be a type by me but I just happene to know that in most cases it isn't.  

guess it doesn't do me h good to complain about it but who knows maybe it could.

Late Sunday

I don't want to start a new post although I'll be going somewhat off topic.  In my usual wanderings around You Tube I've been running across more of the discussion of religion by unbelievers, mostly from those who are positive toward it such as Peterson and Murray, but the main context is not the religion itself but social conflict.  This is particularly pronounced in the UK where Murray keeps tring to deal with the problem of the alien Muslim culture which has invaded that culturally Christain nation.   

It's a frustrating discussion.  The mindset that could have allowed or promoted the influx of so many Muslims is either naive to a degree of obtuseness I can hardly fathom, or malevolent to an equally incomfprehensive degree in the other direction.  That is the question of how it could have happened in the first place but now we have the same twwo alternatives in the rationalizations in defensvee of the rightness and googdness of this influx of a totally alien and vixiously antiChristain ideology.  ANaive or malevolent the midnleset is THE most destructive force in the western world today.  It's Marxism, its wokeness, it's that area of thought some have been calling HyperChristianity beause it purports to be the defender of the poor and downcast  which is of course a legacy of CHristianity.  But what they are calling the poor and downscast is really criminal and hostile and they cant't tell the difference or they simply deny it, are blind to it.    it's practically the formula for destroying western civilication civilization.   That we actually have to treat this mentality as a reasongable point of vie w to be debated in polite company is already midnd boggling.  Is this the definition of insanity?  

It's what the Left is doing and wants to do more of and justifies as ritght and good.  Sheer insanity.

We don't know how to fight it, thay always have righteous toned answers to hurl at us, all in the service of keep ing the evil flowing in unchecked.   

This hopeless situation is what makes God's intervention in a great revival the only possible answer.  

 Yes when good is called evil and evil is called good, as aggressively as they are doing today, how is it possible to stop the torrent of evil that is engulfing us?  Who would ever have thought it could happen this way?  they sound utterly crazy those college students who are debating against Charlie Kirk, or those leftists who are taking on the Trump supporters, so self righteously adamang about something that is pure evil apparently without  a speck of doubt.   I could review the issues but I dn't have the stomach for it at the moment.  

Monday morning:

I hope the URL  at the obottom of this section goes to the beginning of the talk but it may not and you'll have to reset to the beginning yourself.  

This is an interview by Douglas Murray of someone whose name I keep forgetting, gilling I think is the last name, who has written on the subject of the beneficial effects of colonialism, which of course has earned him all sorts of hatred and threats from the Woke Left who so pricde themselves on their compassion.    

His view is that colonialism byu the ewest wasn't for the sake of conquest and subjugation of the conquered peoples but held the view that the peoples were deserving of something better than they had, which the west has.  They need to be lifted out of their backward state into civilization and all its benefits and they were regarded by westerners as equals rather than as inferios which is how the left mischaracterizes western colonialism.  Of course there will always ebe indiiduals who don't share the dominant philosophy but overall it was a benefolent attitude and not a subjugating attitude the wewst carried to the peoples it came to oversee.    Yes the idea is that western civilization is superior and the tribal peoples inferior as far as their culture and circumstances go but their human nature is the same as everyone else's and culture can be improved.    This of course the left vilivies as egocentric when it is nothing of the sort.  The very idea of anything being superior to something else , except of course their own point of view, angers them.   they call it white superremacy and nazism and all those other epithets they throw around these days.  This is the evil that calls itself good that I'm talkinga bout above.   that is so aggressive and indignantly morally superior themselves it is hard to find a way to shosw them how they are wrong.  In fact it is impossible.

So I think Gilling makes the right argument but wshat is left out of the discussion is the fact that the attitude the west carried to its colonized peoples was a Christain one.  There is no white supermreamcy, or scultural supremacy in the sense the left throws at us, not at all, it is Chrsrist who is superior to everything and everybody and we have benefited from Him and wnat to share Him with everybody else.  So that they can benefit too, be lifted out of their fallen miseries to enjoy peace and propsperity and liberty along with the west.  

This is what the Left wants to kill, Christianity itself, whether they know it or not, with their so called hyperChristianity which isn't any kind of Christianity at all.

this is such good stuff which like all the really good stuff in the world today and especially in the west isopposed by the Marxist Wokeist Evil it hardly stands a chance of being heard at all, being subject to immediate cancellation ssas "misinformation" and the like, let alone being used to better the world as it should be used.  It is heartbreaking to understand what is really going on in the world with all these incidents of the war between good and evil which the evil side seesms to be winning everywhere.    Listen oto it all if you can.  The curtain is either going to come crashing down soon in which case you won't be able to find it again, or God will intervene and save us.  I don't see any ohther alternatives and although I hope and pray for the latter I have no feeling of optimism abou tiit.

Uncancelled History with Douglas Murray | EP. 02 Colonialism

The God Question Revisited

 Listening again to the discussion at Uncommon Knowlege with Steven Meyer, Tom Holland and Douglas Murray that was the subjet of my previous post, I have a lo9t less of the feeling that they are spiritually close to the truth than I had then and more of the feeling that they are lost in the usual errors of fallenness.  I'm happy that Tom Holland has discovered the abiding influence of Christianity on the west and he's quite right about that, and I like Murray's willingness to take Christianity seriously and of course I'm happy with Meyer's views becaus he is the only true Christian there.

But Holland says some very odd things such as that Christianity contains within it a tendency to atheisim.  Partly he gets this from his assumption that Roman Catholicism is a genuine Christian experession which in its inception was revolutionary.  Why he thinks that I don't get at all.  But that's because I know Romanism to be the apostate deviation from the true Christianity of the early Church, usurpinjg its place inte world and ushiering in the Antichrist along with all the pagan religi8ous baggage of the Roman Empire and its legacy from babyolon.   The Reformation was a return to the true biblical Christainity of the early Church, it was no trend toward atheisims at all.  It was a recovery to of the truth from the pagan accretions and distortions of Rom. e    What the atheism of today is, which does contain the hyper Christian morality against Christianity they impute to it, that is just the fallen mind reasserting its native atheism now laden with the cultural baggage of Christainity, against God.  It's atheism and it's fallenness, the Christain aspect of it is pervasive and inescapable but it is nevertheless just an overlay.

Murray says a return to the original faith is not possible for many in our time and he's one of them, due to so many philosophical influences that have grown up in the ewest over the last century or so, and I'm not really sure how he finds that an impediment to faith in heimself.   But then I'm on the other side of the line and to me it's just a simple matter of believing what the scripture says.  If you can take it seriously at all surely you can believe it as written, as history told by trustworthy witnesses.  I don't see why not, but then I'm no longer where I was before I was a believer and it didn't look easy to me then and I guess that's where a lot of people are.  

It's a matter of truth.  Dawkins has that right, we believe what we are convinced is true and his problem is hethinks we believe on other grounds.  Mainly that we are irrational and believe what we want to believe.  The way some poepole think we must beleive just because it's comforting.  I suppose some do or think they belive for that reason.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains her own believe tf that way, but for me it is because I came to understand that it is true.  I don't think I could accept itj  as a mere comfort.  And besides, I don't think it weever was for me a comfort.  I didn't necessarily like it at all at first.  I likesd some aspects of it that I discovered in some writers such as a few of the Catholic mystics, but I didn't like Martin Luther at all at first.  Little of it appealed to me emotionally excpet the idea that God exists, and that was a powerful influence, it made me happy beyhond happy to think God exists.   I'm not even entirely wusure why it made me so happy but I do know that is what made me happy.

It was later that I finally  took the gospel itself seriously the fact of the need for salvation and what God did to save us.  And for that I think scripture is very clear.  Jesus did rise from the dead and many saw Him alive after His death.  That's all the evidence needed.  It's all there, there is no reason to doubt it.  Jesus even goes out of His way to make the point that we dhshouldb believe the witneses when He gives Thomas the direct evidence he needed.    If we believe the resurrection there should be no difficulty in believing all the other supernatural  parts of the story.  

I'm not all tht inspired by the science questions that Steven Meyer finds so important in determining the reality of God.  I'm interestinged in the smaller scientific observations I've listed here many times recently because I think they prove evolution to be false, and I suppose you can go from there to the reality of God easily ienough but that hasn't ben my frame of reference.

Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray

I'm still bvery taken with this quote by someone Roger I think he said, about climbing this dimly lit stairway which is our life and suddenly coming upon a window thgouth which we catch sight of another and brighter world, a world to which we belong although we cannot enter it...  \\

I had experiences like that and so do many others, before becomeing a bwliever.  It didn't make a believer of me and may not for the others either.  

Later .  Just ran across another interview with Tom Holland where he makes it excruciatingly clear that he think sthe Roman Church represents a revl;lutionary expression of true Christainity, and he even includes the papacy as part of this wonderful revolution.  Ouch.  this is so wrong it hurts.

JHe sees cycles of revolutionary cleansings of society followed by decay followed by renewal of the reformation in cleansing.  this is so wrong it takes my breatha away.  

 Holland on the Great AwokeningLater    Just

later:   I didn't quite say what this so called hyperChristainity means.  It's a reference to the woke trend going on now, the antishite racism, the transgender stuf etc.  The idea is that these ideas make use of a sort of Chrsitian morality against Christianity, and I think that's true enough and a good obeservation.  That was also the case with the moveme4nts of the sixties, gay rights and feminism for instance, later gay marraige.   The moral attitude is definitily Christian, this concern about rights of minorisites, th last legitimate expression of which, if I may say so, ws the Civil Rights movement of the sixties.   None of these other movements has anythign Christian about them at all .  In fct it strikes me as ver odd swhen people critidize them as not being Christian in the sense that they have no concept of forgiveness.  That's certainly true but that's not the place to start to criticize them for not being genuinely Christian.  The point is that these are all violations of biblical moraltiy in one way or another and therefore there is nothing Christain about them whatever.  Even feminism although that has genuine Christain aspects to it, is not Christain in the form it started taking in the sixties with the Marxism framework that took it over.    But you can't call anything Christain that demands rights and freedoms for what the bible clls sin.    Without even referencing the bible though you can point out that the idea that abortin is a right is indefensible just because no sane societ would call murder a right.  They have to completely obscure the fact that it is murder in order to carry on about "reproductive rights' and all that inasanity.    But you don't ned to point to the Bible to say that murder is not a right.

Some Seriour Thoughts by Unbelievers on The God Question

Wonde4rful things pop up on You Tube fairly frquently despite its being a leftist bastion of cancel culture and wokeness and all that craziness.  I can't navigate anywhere else so I'm stuck here but grateful for how much really good stuff comes up nevertheless.

Theatest I just litened to is a \n episode of Uncommon Knowledge with guests A\Douglas Murray, Tom Holland and Steve oh drat I keep forgetting his name.  But all three of them are deep thinkers and whatever they say is rivieting.  For me anyway.  

This one is The God Question and each of these men has written a book relating to this subject.  All have conlcluded to one degree or another that Christianity is the philosophical cultural foundation of wester civilization, even having coming from points of view that would put them at odds with such a conclusion.   

Theyreno belivers and talk about Chrisitanity ass a body of concepts.  They addresss the question of how theis perspective relates to the question of belief.  I keep wanting to argue with them about this or that, particularly with Tom Holland, because they miss the whole point of belief.  They do know this though and that's important.  

To summarize, they see how the moral framework of estern culture is thoroughly Christain even though belief in the resurrection is not necessarily part of that.  

It's a great discussion even if I think they go offf the rails here and there.  

Toad the end someon quoted someone, I don't believe in God but I miss HIm.  Apparently they can relate tot aht feeling.  I remember something like that feeling myself from the years before I became a believer.  I was a pretty committed atheist but I did from time to time have to admit that I felt a pang of loss from the time I gave up my pretty shallow childhood believe in God about the age of Ffifteen.  A pang of loss but I became an atheist.  For the next thirty or so years.    I well remember the first Christmas I experienced in church hafter becomeing a believer, sitting there hearing the old carols sung and actually believing them and knowing their meaning for the first time in my life, tears streaming down my face.  

Why can't they believe in the resurrection?  It seems an odd sort of stubbornness to me.   The disciples themselves didn't believe in it either at first but their coming to believe it by witnessing Him alive ought to carry some weight with readers of the account.  They saw Him alive.  He even appeared to do called doubtingg Thomas.  Then he believed too.  It's all there.  They are honest people.  

These are highly intelligent men and men of ddeep feelings too.  Very touching.

\Does God Exist? A Conversation with Tom Holland, Stephen Meyer, and Douglas Murray

Just want to add a couple remarks I remember from the discussion.  Both might have come from Douglas Murray but I'm not sure.   All of them agreed with the sense of strangeness of Christianity.  I thought that was an interesting observation.  Yes there is a strangeness to it and certainly to unbelievers committed to the contemporary secular mindset.    The other remark I remember was the poignant statement that everyone has had an experience like looking out a window at an entirely different world and feeling That is my true home.   Yes.  

Dawkins on Religion Again

 

IBest of Richard Dawkins against Religion (youtube.com)

Going to try to answe r Dawkins again without the intemperate rant.  I think that URL above goes to the same video , at least I haope so because capturing URLs is not easy for me.

As usual it all starts out with his claim that faith is belief in something without evidence, and as usual my answer is that it simply isn't so.  I really don't think anyone believes anything without evidene.  It may be bad evidence but you always have some kind of evidence for whatever you accept as true.   Anyway, faith as he is thinking of it comes from Christianity and is of course the strongest concept we use in discussing what we believe.  I sue the term myself as my own psedonum here.  But my believe in the God of the bible and in the teachings of the Bible, and in my dsalvation through the death of Christ on the cross, which I believe in by faith, is all baed on the evidence given by the witnesses in the Bible and the witnesess of the Bible itself as a collection of testimonies attributed to the inspiration of God Himself.  

Why Dawkins doesn't think of witness evidence as evidence I don't know.  I believe in tghe resurrection of Christ becaues it is reported in the Bible by people who claim to be wyweyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, and who report on other witnesses of His life and of His appearing after His death.  All this is evidence whther you think it is good enough evidencde for you or not.   If your cousin told you he syw a bobcat in the woods and narrowly escaped and you never saw a bogcat would you not believe him anyway?   Wouldn't it be a basis for taking it as reality?  

We knw a lotof thigs this way.  but we certainly have to know the revelations of the Bible this way because we have no other way of knowing it.  It's all intin the past and we can never see it ourselves.  Some of ti is outside our normal experience, supernatural , and that askes a lot of us to believe it, but we believe it because we count the witnesses to be trustworthy.   If you don't you don't, I can't help that, but I do and for me the ressurection is very real and my salvation based on it trustworthy.

And I don't have faith in the boiling temperature of water for pete's sake.  I can measure that.  Or any other question that can be dealt with by the method of observation and experience, the scientific method.  Good grief.  

Then we have his remarks on biblical morality as he objects to stoning people for adultery and death for breaking the sabbath without regard to the biblical context which of course escapes him completes.  Laws for the ancient Israelites had a specif purpose of keeping themj separate from the peoples around them and protecting the integrity of the population of God's chosen people.  Christians wer not subject to those laws, they were for the Israelites only.  We ave are subject to eh Ten Commandments because those are universal laws but we are not subject to those given to the Israelites for the purpose of identifying them with the true God.   Since the people wer e prone to wander off into the mindset of the surrounding nations they sometimes had to be brought back harshly.  Bug t askdide from theat adultery threatened the cohesiveness of the group and had to be punished severely.  The Sabbath had farreaching implications concerning the nature of God and His promise of the Messiah to come, breaking the law of respecting the prmomise was a very serious thing, and it isn't that it could be violated inoocently, the death sentence for breaking it was well known so there was no expecuse.    There is also  reelation of the mind of God on these thigns, what He considers to be of great importance, which we too are to take seriously even if we are not under the lolaws as the Israelites were.

I'm not very happy with that paragraph but oh well, on we go.

He goes on to say how he liekes our modern morality, for instance that we are rid of slavery, women are treated as equals with men, we favor gentleness in general and being kind oto animals and so on.   He has zerio idea that this all comes from Christianity.  He thinks it is a secular achievement.   Slavery used to be universal throughout the world, may cultures depended on it economically and there was no opposition to it.  To oppose it under those circumstances would have accomplished nothing but the rebellion of the pepole or at least the leaders.  SlAvery couldn't have been effectively opposed until modern times and when it finally was it came from Christianity.  The west was finally freed sfrom slavery but it still remains entrenched in the rest of the world.  It is a Christian achievmenet and Dawkins is completely wrong about history.    Same sith equality for women.  Jesus liberalized relations with women and that became the basis for its eventual accewptance in modern times.  Again only in the west.  Same with kindness to animals and kindness in generl.  All from Christ.  

He aparently thinks that secular morality and rational thought somehow exist apart from the Christainity that pervades the west but aththat is his big mistake.  It all derives from Christaintiyh.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali understands this which she touches on beriefly in the previous post.

Then he goes into his hatred of the doctrine of original sin which he considers to be highly immoral and demeaning.    Funny when I first understood it I wa thrilled by it because to my mind it explains all kinds of things in our lives that otherwise don't get exlainsed,  all the suffering and hatred and violence and war and etc etc.   but I take the Bible as revealing universal truths, dawkins takes it as being the wordk of fallible humanity so he thinks we can just do away with it and make up our own morality.    

I'm not at all happy with this post but  it's the best I can do right now.  I think I'll end it by saying that I think Richarc d Dawkins needs to engage in some empirical science to get a better nderstanding of what is really going on with religion.  If for instance he learned something about how Chrsitain children perform in science I'm sure he'd be forced to admit that there is no difference in how they perform than unbelieving children, that includeds strictly homeschooled Christain chidlren.  They are taught the scientific method like weveryone else.

the only difference is that evolution is not science in that scense, it is hosistorical science that can't have the absolute certainty we get from the hard sciences.   they don't even have witness evidence for their supposed facts concerning the change from ne species to another, ti's all speculative, all conjecture and thee evidence as I've tbeen trying to show in many recent posts is just not there at all.  

but now I'm going to end this very unsatisfactory post.  

Later .  I have to add here that I just went back and listened to some of the Ayaan Hisrsi Ali interview and want to emphasize that I think it's an extremely good discussion about how the west and all our institutions and philosophies are shot through with Christain principles.  They refer to a gook by Tom Hallond I'm not familiar with but apparently he developes this theem and I'd like to be able to read it.  But the discussion alone is very good and I want to promote it for anyone who is interested.

GoGoing Down Under the Avalanche of Lies, or Will God Have Mercy on Us

 The entire Harris side of the election is built on lies, absolutely every word of it.  It's staggering.  How do they live with themselves.  And lies could win the elecrtion and plunge the nation into a dark ages most naive Americans have no way of imagining.

I don't think most Democrats or liberals could really be in favor of what their party actually stands for but if all they are hearing is lies they may well be deceived into voting for them anyway, and that is the big problem we have now.  How to get the truth to the liberals.  There seems to be no way to do that.  They are in the habit of trusting the usual sources and won't even think of checking out sources that might oppose them.  I ran into this recently with two liberals who were trying to convince me that Google wouldn't have intentionally interfered with my blog because I'm a conservative as i told them, no they have must simpler explanations, inocent explanations for why I'm having the problems I'm having.  The kind of problems one has in the old ckind of America swhere as a general rule we could trust both sides to be basically honest.  That is not the case any more and they have no idea that it isn't.  I certainly can't persuade them otherwise, they have a mountain of information they trust on their side.  That it is misinformation isn't cgoing to occur to them without many encounters with evidence and that isn't going to happen because they don't expose themselves to it.   They are convinced the misinformation is on the other side so why should they spend any time investigating it?

So it's up to God.  Well it isn anyway.  Will He have mercyh on us or not?  Does He want America to go down now?  Or will He give us another chance?

Have mercy on us, Lord.