You guys are ridiculous! Are you still couched in the Bible's pronoun for God? RFK, Jr. wasn't referring to the Woke madness, but the personification of God, which is ridiculous, too. When women, decades back, had to refer to God as a He/Him, many often felt that society was revering men over women, since those early times, when there was extreme Patriarchy. Don't dis him for opening up the reverence for God, by allowing for human, limited perceptions.
If you take Yhwh God at His word, and He tells us He is (not she, or it, is), to rejet that is to call Him a liar. Nothing spiritual rests on our human feelings; indeed, we are clearly and repeatedly warned our feelings will deceive us, so must not be trusted. Even the Lord's prayer begins "our Father" not "our mother". When I hear people claim to be Christians but deny the expressed word of Yhwh God about Himself, I am forced to wonder to which deity they are referring, as there are many called "God" who are not our Creator at all.
Sandra, I appreciate your allegiance to our ancestors' religious edicts, as I'm sure/I hope they meant well. I am not denying that our Creator has an all powerful, absolutely magnificent quality that many cultures would attribute to a masculine nature, yet his creation of earth has both yin and yang qualities, and we humans have within each sex, yin and yang qualities. It just seems so simplistic to condense God to a male, or personify * at all. When priests, seers, scribes contest that God told them his gender, I question that, as many do. I had heard a deep male voice once, answer my question from the previous night, and wondered..., but now I think it was a quality spirit/man from another dimension or from the country I was considering moving to. These things can happen on this planet. I think God is consciousness, with no sexual reference to it, albeit, the vertical plane (coronal thinking) may be attributed to a masculine nature, as in focusing or concentrating. The lateral plane associated with the female force, as with the landscape of the earth. And to be " made in his image" may mean to be of etherial- magnetic energy fields, infused with light. Something to contemplate.
He also has feminine traits, characterized by the title El Shaddai ( the many breasted one), but labels Himself as "our Heavenly Father". He also speaks of gathering and sheltering us beneath his wings, as an he does her chicks. He IS a Person, not some nebulous spirit. I, too, have heard Him speak audibly, on 2 separate occasions, and the voice was masculine. To be created in His image is to carry His spirit image. Only Jesus Christ come to mind as a bearer of His physical image, as a son bears his father's image. I believe it's a mistake to reject His method of describing Himself for some self-created image of what we think He should be, because I believe that opens us to other errors in understanding Him. Keep in mind, Abraham, Ezekiel and Moses all described physical encounters with Him, before Jesus walked among us. Ezekiel described Him, and His conveyance in considerable detail. How could he do that with some nebulous electromagnetism? Moses spoke of an hand, a front, and a back, physical attributes, not electromagnetism. Why not believe those eye witnesses? You believed His voice, as do I...what makes those others wrong?
I believe Jesus Christ is an ascended Master. He never said, "I am Lord", he always gave credit to the Lord. It was the scribes/orthodoxy that claimed him to be the Lord. And then there's semantics. Sorry, but I don't necessarily believe what was written about Moses. To say I do is dishonest. I do believe in ethics, and that is derived from our upbringing and inner guidance (from consciousness).
I read the WHO's Codex Alimentarius over a decade ago, it was crystal clear where they were going . Just remember Yhwh God remains in total control, not those who seek evil.
I've seen this kind of claim over and over among believers in the Abrahamic God. Believers are human, and will readily admit to the imperfections and limitations of *all* humans, but somehow are still able to leapfrog over those universal human faults to make unimpeachable claims about that God. It's not coherent.
I bypass his glitches. That includes those three pronouns and his views on Palestine. He proves he knows how to evolve and grow bigger around the red line hole. I choose patience and updating his source of facts. RFK core is rock solid. Thank you for all of this. #MauiMassacre . Donate to local HI groups.
"Glitches". Those are not "glitches": it's the humans seeing "errors" that don't fit THEIR OWN images, but in truth don' t exist. It's not "patriarchy" we get to object to, where Yhwh God is concerned, but His assertion about Who He is. He isn't just being arbitrary; He knows, and wants, what's best for each of us, and established a certain order for us based on that desire. We are free to reject it, but there are consequences to our choices, and we may not lie all of them.
Agreed. Apparently Kennedy doesn’t want to offend anyone who might have some weird view of the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. He should be far more concerned with offending/blaspheming that Holy God.
Either he really doesn't believe in God or he is trying to speak to specific people to say it that way. Someone that believes and proclaims doesn't talk like that.
The man is nominally Roman Catholic and referred to God after the typical lib/prog manner. But if ignorance is the mother of devotion, harldy unexpected.
Otherwise he is mentally competent and demonstrates some common sense as compared to . . . .
That is what is wrong with the country though. This viewpoint of God isn't typical to true believers. It isn't typical to God. It isn't typical for our founders. For the current Pope it is typical. How can you have it both ways? Be mentally competent and have common sense, but view God as a he, she or it? It isn't acceptable in my eyes and I don't believe it is in God's either.
I was speaking purely politically. For a Dimocrat, he's far ahead of the rest of the pack. OK not a high bar, but it is what is in a day of small things.
(As an ex romanist, you don't want to hear my opinion on AntiChrist.
Or the mass, which in the name of Christ, defiles Christ's once for all totally sufficient sacrifice for sin at Calvary and claims for itself atoning power.)
Man, this is difficult to say. It is difficult because in saying it, I will be labeled as negative/not caring/mean, yada, yada, yada. While this is a very moving piece, it is also systematic of the disease that is consuming us-Don Quixote complex -romanticized everything. So the people of Maui had a warning & yet apparently no one held anyone’s (political or corporate) feet to the fire (pun not intended). It is beyond fantasy to think that a system (top to bottom) as corrupt as this is can be corrected by one man. Trump was/is Wyatt Earp/Elliott Ness/Rudy Giuliani all rolled into one & he only scratched the surface. I don’t question RFK,Jr’s pedigree &/or sincerity, but we are in a battle of apocalyptical (sp?) proportions (aka the Lord of the Rings final battle). We lose & it will make the destruction of Maui look like a walk in the park.
JRR Tolkien didn't come close to what the real apocalyptic battle at Har Megiddo will look like, according to the vision John recorded for us, in the Revelation. It may more closely resemble Ezekiel's war upon the brink of which we are presently teetering.
RFK Jr.'s choices of those to populate his Administration being associated with 'The Club of 300's International Banker Family Mafia centered in 'The City of London' where his Grandfather and Father once hobnobbed during his Grandfather's time as Ambassador to the U.K.. don't paint him well regardless of stated empathy for the Hawaiians.
WHERE ARE HIS DEMANDS FOR U.S. TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR THE PEOPLE FORCED TO ENDURE SUCH HORROR TO REBUILD ACCORDING TO THE OWNERS OF LAHAINA'S LAND instead of the 'Concentration Camp/Prison' concepts inherent to 'Build Back Better' through the Obastards fraudulently installed into Office at this time?
EXACTLY! KENNEDY IS A TROJAN HORSE....hell bent to asskiss apartheid ISRAEL and to follow "pandemic protocols " of the corrupt CDC and WHO like a dead sheep ...
Yes, Kennedy is a Trojan Horse rising at just the most advantageous time with some unknown funding for CHD making his name more familiar and aligned with ANTI-MEDICAL COMPLEX built by the U.N.'s W.H.O., U.K.'S WELLCOME TRUST WITH JEREMY FARRAR, and NIHIA'S FAUCI WITH PSYCHOPATH GATES...and Anti-Ai/Bioweapon Injections euphemized as VACCINES.
As for Israel, all of the current Arab World was consumed by the Muslim Terrorists since Pedophile Mohammed's Delusions in the dessert based upon knowledge derived from his Camel Trucker years when he heard stories from the Jews and Christians. THEY FORCED THEIR CONVERSIONS ONTO THE PALESTINIANS AND THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE HISTORICALLY JEWISH who did not leave the Holy Land.
Do you not recall the years of thousands dying from terrorist bombs EVERY SINLE DAY in Israel? I do...Therefore, I have no issues with whatever means are necessary to maintain safety for everybody.
I DO have issues with 'The Club of 300's International Banker Family Mafia' out of 'The City of London' ORDERING CHAOS AND CRISES IN MUSLIM LANDS TO PROMOTE ILLEGAL ALIEN MUSLIMS ENTERRING INTO THE EU/AMERICAN REGIONS TO UNDERMINE THEIR CULTURE AND SOVEREIGNTY so the whole world can become as the worst of the Middle East.
The "Palestinians" are Arab Muslims, whose homelands are Arab nations, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. They may be descended from Hagar and Ishmael, Keturah, or Esau, but they are not the children of Israel, through whom the covenant has been handed down, and they are not a "people" group at all.
The club of 300, better known as the Club of Rome, or Bilderbergers, are an international problem, indeed, responsible for the lion's share of our problems, under the auspices of their masters.
I largely agree but God destroyed Israel 2,000 years ago and what God has put asunder only a fool would ever try to recreate. The country is called Palestine and it is presently under Western occupation but that shall not always be the case and the occupying force won't be moving from there into "big israel", as Zelensky calls the Ukraine as he seeks to destroy the Ukrainian people there via Nudelman's cannon fodder policy for them.
No, He did not! He used Rome to exile the Jewish people from their homeland in 70 AD, but Israel was not "destroyed"; neither was Yhwh God finished with the children of Israel. Isaiah foretold the restoration of Israel, in the end times; that restoration occurred on 14 &15 May 1948, as prophesied, in a single day ( the dates reflecting various time zones on the day it occurred; in Israel it was the 15th, in the US it was still the 14th). The nation is Israel, there never was a nation "Palestine" only a Roman region so called, including all the neighboring nations as part of it, called "Palestinians".
Hard to imagine God not being the force behind the re-establishment of Israel into the Promised Land.
Also, difficult to imagine Zelinsky's diatribe of making Ukraine into a 'Big Israel' when the country simply has no history of Judean habitation.
When we don't like the world, it's time to pray, fast and ask God's direction. In the 'End Times' it is prophesized Jewish people to again occupy Israel as their Promised Land...And, if The Bible states something as prophesy, IT WILL OR DOES BECOME FACT. Our thoughts are not those of our Creator and none know his plan and the timing attached.
It's amazing all the places that claim to be modern "replacements" for Biblical Israel, particularly since the covenant was between Yhwh God and Abraham for the children of Israel (Jacob), in perpetuity, with no mention anywhere that covenant was broken, or that the "Biblical Israel" would be anywhere other than where it was when David ruled the whole of the land of that promise.
So sorry for you, but Americans have woken up. We know that the entire Middle East outside of Israel is apartheid land. Read Genesis 12:3 before it's too late, abdul.
I thought the slogan was 'burn back better' - I agree with you on the your points too. Empathy is good, but it doesn't provide a roof or replace the traditions lost.
ACTION TALKS...And, the U.S. TAXPAYER CAN afford to cover for the terror and horror by at least providing for the victims of Maui. NOBODY BUT THE NATIVES OWNING THAT LAND HAS ANY RIGHT TO IT.
The wealthy parasites perpetrating this CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY really do need to be taken into custody, tried and burned themselves.
It's ALL so appalling, disgusting and the evil impossible for any average sinner to possibly imagine.
I think you have a VERY rosy image of the US' current fiscal condition. We are over$31 Trillion in debt, not counting unfunded liabilities, or the credit card debt nearly 45%, as of yesterday, of our citizens are carrying, trying to stay afloat through the inflation on top of the covid debacle.
The U.S. Dollar IS NOT BASED IN ANY FORM OF CONCRETE VALUE. The Evils removed the Gold/Silver Standard and the Dollar became IMAGINARY IN VALUE. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT AND WE ALL GASLIGHT ONE ANOTHER TO COVER OUR TERROR IN IT BEING TOTALLY USELESS. What would happen should the dollar become totally useless?
CBDC SLAVERY SYSTEM ANYBODY?
THAT IS THE OPTION NOW BEING FORCED UPON THE U.S. WITH INCREMENTAL SCHEDULE OF RELEASE...SO, WE DON'T NOTICE AND BECOME TOTALLY P.O.'d AND FIGHT BACK.
THE CITY OF LONDON'S INTL MAFIA IS TERRIFIED OF THE U.S AS WELL AS THE OBASTARDS FRAUDULENTLY INSTALLED INTO OFFICE AT THIS TIME...And, that's the reason they are out to destroy the U.S. as they have sought to do for 240 years. Now, China/CCP is their preferred World Pit Bully to HIDE BEHIND...And, to use to force the U.S. into Techno-Feudal FASCIST Compliance. Woop! Woop!
I know; I remember when Nixon did that, and I know that Ft Knox has been essentially empty for decades. The Federal Reserve, a mostly foreign nationals owned but private bank was behind that, in conjunction with other international, but privately owned, banks controlling the economy. Crashing the global economy is precisely the intent,aiming, eventually, toward the "mark of the Beast",an economic control of all humanity so complete it will prevent all who do not have it from participating economically at all.
It's not London you should be worrying about, but Rome; that's here the PTB are assembled about their master, Satan, at present, although in the foreseeable future, he will move his headquarters to Jerusalem. Neither was Obama, nor currently Biden, powers of any sort. They were /are nothing but PUPPETS, their strings pulled by people whose names we will likely never know, in Satan's innermost circle of bankers, high level Freemasons, and Jesuit priests. Their plan has been for the US to vanish into the NAU, the North American version of the EU.
THAT is where you're totally incorrect...Rome is NOT the top of the Evil Hierarchy. But, merely a tool used through the St. Gallen Mafia comprised of the Jesuits now in the Papacy and all KNOW there's an Anti-Pope installed. He's heretical and apostate and that doesn't mean there aren't good and faithful Priests. At this time, the faithful Priests in both the Anglican Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are being CANCELLED AND REMOVED FROM THEIR ORDERS. They are among the Remnant always prophesized to exist to the time Christ comes again.
The top of the Hierarchy is 'The City of London' as the Financial Capital of the World with the Rothschilds leading. Rothschild once said, "He who rules money rules the world." The Club of 300 existed LONG BEFORE THE BIRTH OF CHRIST and the consequent Roman Catholic Church...And, has had different names throughout the ages. The Illuminati, Freemasons, Jesuits and other organizations are aligned with 'The City of London' and all are united and used as tools exactly as the Vatican.
Are you aware of the reason Pope Benedict XVI resigned a portion of his Papacy? 'The City of London with the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, OWNED by the Rothschilds OUTRIGHT shut down the Vatican's ability to do banking and held the Vatican hostage until the Pope removed himself to allow the current Anti-Pope to be installed. Once Benedict resigned as the FRONTMAN in the Vatican...The Banking Privileges were resumed. TO DATE, THE ANTICHRIST HAS NOT ENTERRED EARTH AND IT ISN'T CERTAIN THAT DEMON WEARING A HUMAN BEING SUIT WILL ENTER THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It may or may not be...There's no certainty, merely assumption.
You're incorrect in what you assume about it as there is no demon EVER WILLING TO FACE A FAITHFUL CATHOLIC PRIEST DOING THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. Have seen it...And, know the mystery. Exorcism is real and people actually die from being saved through exorcism; it's that much of a shock to the human body. In truth...It would be wise for you to find some Youtube segments or some such Media to do better Research instead of adhering to past Indoctrination/Brainwashing about a Christian Faith it's pretty clear you know little to nothing about.
Im so passed any hearings or trials... Look at their voting history and online diaries and public hangings. But first serious taring and feathering type tactics like cock and ball torture. Totally annoyed that Facebook gave me 11 opportunities to defend my right to say this and then locked me out of my account as I would really like to tell their oversight committee how we all feel.
Facebook KNOWS how we all feel. Their contribution is HARVEST DATA AND TO MEASURE IT...A Behavioral Psych Activity to provide direction about how better to manipulate everybody to feel, think and behave.
Thing is...THEY'RE LOSING. THEIR ESCALATION IN TACTICS IS A SIGN OF THEIR RISING LEVEL OF THREAT AND TERROR. THE TRUE HEINOUS NATURE OF THE HARSHEST EVIL IS ONLY BEGINNING.
Have you seen the number of Wildfires burning out of control according to the Weather Satellite monitoring such events at this time. I wouldn't have believed it...IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNIMAGINABLE. They couldn't murder enough of 'The People' with poisonous, DNA mutilation...SO, they're burning the whole world...All areas of AGRICULTURE AND GREEN TREES, GRASS AND WHERE ANIMALS AND HUMANS LIVE.
Yes they are feeling the heat and escalating. It's basic cluster B personality 101 - which is why we all need to step it up a notch.
Facebook didn't like it much when I said the Facebook censorship team should be hung first. They deleted the post and didnt even spank me for it! Lol I expected a jail sentence for that one and was very disappointed.
What they are doing with the fires is pure insanity.
The nerve of dolly Parton to release that album cover with her sitting on a globe on fire.
It's like a circus show, it really is. You are right it is only the beginning and I truly feel that if you are not pushing the boundaries and on the edge of getting arrested calling these people out directly to their face, you aren't doing enough.
Their punishment is a Badge of Honor every faithful Christian SHOULD be proud to have. The utter arrogance has indicated they have some kind of dramatic and significant protection which threatens the whole world's population and we now have better understanding of the tech providing such lurid and insanely TRANSPARENT threat beyond Nuclear Weapons.
Fact of the matter is...It would only require a few teams of professionals hitting some key elements and the whole damned bunch would be down for the count and slithering, crawling and blobbing along in trying to escape before we could easily pick them off. EVIL IS COWARDLY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY OF IMAGINATION OR WIT...NO REAL SENSE OF HUMOR TO TAKE OUT THOSE OF GOD. For evil; hurt, misery, suffering is their comedy and celebration; their PARTY. THAT IS THE BEST IT CAN DO.
The only thing worse than the thousand of Wildfires burning on the whole globe in HIGHLY POPULATED AREAS FOR BOTH HUMANS AND ANIMALS, TREES, GRASS AND WOODLANDS...Check the Weather Satellite to see it...It's unbelievable, are the CHILDREN THEY ARE OPENLY TRAFFICKING TO SELL INTO SEXUAL SLAVERY AND TORTUROUS MURDER IN THE ADRENOCHROME HARVESTING MARKET. My God...The horror of the abominations these Demons are manifesting has no words capable of expressing this ghastly, defiling depravity. Yes, we all must pray and fast...To even begin to stand to oppose this evil clearly brewed in the depths of hell.
And for the unelected and those voting with money... Guilty by association every one of them. Peter Flaherty tried to warn bershire Hathaway and got arrested. He was right. Everyone of the shareholders that didn't stand up need to be hung too.
Until it's a CERTAINTY of this being the 'End Time of End Times' of the age of 'The Church'; we are to STAND AND FIGHT EVIL WITH ALL OUR MIGHT...God does NOT act to interfere or help his children until they take the first step and risk all when THEY COMMIT THEIR BLOOD AND LIVES IN HIS NAME. That is expected along with worship, praise, prayer, fasting, sacrifice, penance, charity and all other acts conducted in Faith. THAT'S THE WAY GOD WORKS.
The Rapture is a HERESY and designed by those in 'The City of London's Intl Mafia' to DEMORALIZE THE PEOPLE TO DECREASE PROBABILITY OF THEIR DESIRE TO FIGHT....From a false sense of 'Safety'. Hope you're not depending on that...And, the Jews are NOT yet converting in massive numbers to Christianity AND The Temple is NOT being rebuilt; thus it's doubtful THIS is the 'End Time'.
In working with an Exorcist Priest in Grad School, I learned your Yhwh God's Welfare Plan to be as much heresy as the Rapture...Just hang with The Holy Bible and not the Nut Jobs claiming heresy to provide a false sense of security and safety in this harsh, evil world. The heresies of all time are going to manifest as we're seeing right now...The legalization of abominations even Jesus Christ became Mafioso about by saying it's better those sinning against the children would be better with a millstone placed around their neck and thrown into the sea."
Since now EVERY prophecy that must be fulfilled, every condition in place, before the Rapture, and revelation of the Anti-Christ now has been completed, and the left are frantically putting in place the infrastructure of their 1world gov't and economic system before our eyes, I can't quite imagine what it is you think is missing insofar as proof is concerned. The Rapture is not an heresy unless you are calling Jesus and Paul both heretics, since both spoke of it in relating to end times events (rapture comes from the Latin rapare-, "to snatch out, or away", which both clearly described), and it was in the written world nearly 15 centuries before the group to which you refer was a twinkle.
I rather doubt you learned the Lord's "welfare plan" in school, as it was not taught when I as in school already, and I graduated almost 6 decades ago. I have read the Bible in at last 15 different translations, from the Geneva (predates the KJV) to the ESV, all cover to cover, in addition to portions of other translations and other specific studies over the past 7 decades,. I was not speaking from other sources, although I am aware of the banking cabal, of which our privately owned Federal Reserve is a part, and the intentions of the WEF, Bilderbergers, etc. Just FYI, if I were you, I'd be cautious about what I was labeling "heresies". Jesus did not "become Mafioso", when He issued that dire warning; Mafia is a very late 19th and 20th century crime organization begun in Italy and brought to our shore from there. As for the abominations, He never condoned those either.
We most assuredly are in the end times, very nearly into the Great Tribulation, in fact.
People like Bobby Kennedy restore my faith in humanity in our society. None can fake integrity and genuine care for people. I see it in his actions consistently watching him for the last years.
Would the democrat party of which you speak be the same one whose leader (LBJ) famously said upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “ these (N-word) wil vote for us for the next hundred years “, or would it be the dem party in numerous blue states and cities who allow the abortion of a baby right up to the moment of birth? Would it be the same party in the same blue localities who characterized the burning and looting of businesses and historic places by antifa or BLM mobs “mostly peaceful demonstrations? I’m pretty sure that the chance of reforming this hopelessly anti-American party is bill, regardless of who would attempted such a reversal.
I thank you for telling us of his speech. I wish I could agree with a revamped party (or two, both need to go) , but the Empire is on its last legs, and we
haven't been a Constitutional Republic since the CIA and a small bunch of rich men decided to shoot his uncle in broad daylight on a street in Dallas, and told us it was a lone gunman.
It is too late for reform the corruption goes all the way up and down. , we need to find new decentralized
government and information distribution about our government and what they are up to...we need , to tear down the bureaucracies and severely limit our Constitution interpretation to strict...i.e. no more "general welfare" interpreted broadly, instead limited to defending borders and fixing infrastructure between states.
The money is getting scarce, and the truth is getting fierce. We are OVER....have been for years...we are just now figuring that out.
We cannot afford to hope one man can reform anything about this massive WEF backed hollowed out country. And I have no answers.
Many of our problems are the result of a few who want to take all our money. We need to reform the money system. Otherise government debt will be assigned to us to cover.
There is so much money available to the people of the United States one would have difficulty quantifying it. There was a fortune beneath Vatican City and probably hidden underground in Israel and London.
No, we have trillions missing...Rumsfeldt told us day before 9/11...it was stolen by our politicians and the CIA and DOD and DARPA to invest in Bioweapons and biowafare...and has never been found. One reason for the 2008 bank failures.
And please, money is just a mark on a paper..there is nothing behind it. Hasn't been since we went off the gold standard in 71
Our social security system is also just liabilities on a balance sheet, which cannot be paid.
maybe we will have till 2028.....
You know the Federal Reserve, which can create money, is neither federal nor has any reserves right?
I believe you're mixing the private, and mostly foreign nationals owned Federal Reserve Bank with Ft Knox, where our gold reserves were once held, but which is now empty.
Well, the Federal Reserve seems to exist .....and they have controlled the money supply since 1913 so you need to elaborate a bit more on why there is no Federal Reserve...and since a big chunk of them are owned by the BIS, you might as well go on to them.
I appreciate your sincere reporting of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s speech. Speaking from personal experience, I am grateful that the memory of our loved ones who pass on, described as a “hole” by RFK, Jr., never goes away. I also appreciated the contrast you presented between Mr. Kennedy’s remarks and those of Joe Biden’s and your transition into a discussion of “our Republic” that you described as “unrecognizable.”
Unfortunately, it is “unrecognizable” because we have lost the knowledge and understanding of our “constitutional Republic” bequeathed to us by the Framers. As you so aptly noted, it did not include the “Democratic Party” as that was “founded in 1828”. The Constitution was ratified in 1787.
The Framers despised political parties as they are filled with “Ambition, avarice, personal animosity” and an “intolerant spirit” which has, “at all times, characterized political parties.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 1, ¶3. Political parties by their very nature are susceptible to "corrupting influences and bad leadership" as you described it.
In fact, our Constitutional Republic has been destroyed by political parties through the democratization of our Republic, which has directly supplanted the power that originally belonged to the states and transferred it to the oligarchies that control the political parties.
According to Madison, the Father of our Constitutional Republic, democracies always descend into “spectacles of turbulence and contention” and die horrific “deaths” from the “violence of faction”. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 10, ¶¶1, 13.
The chaos and destructive forces we are witnessing in the country today are the direct result of democratizing our Constitutional Republic. Under our Constitutional Republic, US Senators were supposed to be appointed by the individual state legislatures, and the Presidential Electors were also supposed to be appointed by the individual state legislatures to vote without becoming a rubber stamp for the 51% popular vote.
By removing these two indispensable republican principles, we have torn a gaping hole in our Constitutional Republic so large that it is no longer recognizable nor understood. By taking the power away from the states and putting it into the hands of the political party oligarchy, the national government no longer feels a dependency on the states as it was designed. The states were supposed to be a “double security” against the excesses of the national government, but the political parties have displaced that “double security.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 51, ¶9.
Few people even understand our history and what it means to be a Constitutional Republic. It was designed to be a bottom-up government and not the top-down government that we now live under.
"Under our Constitutional Republic, US Senators were supposed to be appointed by the individual state legislatures"
Originally. But regardless of the value of this over direct election of senators, the Constitution was successfully amended to provide for the latter. That is, according to the procedure in the Constitution that Madison (at least ultimately) accepted. Do you want a Constitution to be amended to prevent amendment of certain parts? Not sure how that could be done post-ratification.
Raising the issue on what can be “done post-ratification” is not only perceptive, but it’s one of the most important issues that we need to confront as a nation. Since this is a very complex issue, I’m going to give you the long version so I apologize in advance. There are at least three ways to handle this problem.
First, we could try and go through the amendment process to repeal the 17th Amendment just like we did with the 21st Amendment in order to repeal the 18th Amendment (also known as Prohibition). The amendment process is very difficult and time-consuming, and I doubt that a repeal would happen because the democratic forces are so powerful and so wealthy, and the issue is much more complex than Prohibition. During Prohibition, everyone understood that alcohol was being banned and pretty much everyone wanted alcohol to be legal again.
Repealing the 17th would be just the opposite of Prohibition. Everyone has been taught and schooled for over 100 years that democracy is the best thing that has ever happened, which is a lie. To try and educate people on the evils of democracy when they’ve believed just the opposite their whole lives will be very difficult. Plus, the propaganda coming from the democratic forces (i.e., the oligarchs who control the political parties that control DC) would overwhelm any attempt at repealing the 17th.
The second option is to challenge the 17th Amendment in court. To me, this would be a good option, but it would also take time and money. There is a principle in the law that is called the doctrine of severability, and it's used in contracts and statutes all the time. Basically, when drafting a contract or a new law, attorneys will add a severability clause that admits that the contract or law may actually be illegal or unconstitutional.
These severability clauses attempt to instruct any examining court to only strike the specific part of the contract or law that is unconstitutional and to leave the rest in place. It’s common for laws successfully passed by Congress to be struck down as unconstitutional. Just because it goes through the legal process, doesn’t guarantee that it’s sound constitutionally.
In other words, just because our Constitution “was successfully amended” by the 17th Amendment, it still doesn’t guarantee that it's valid. Even though there is no actual severability clause in the 17th Amendment, it's implied. It just hasn’t been challenged yet. The 17th Amendment is patently unconstitutional because it fundamentally altered our Compound Republic.
According to Madison, the Constitution created a “compound republic.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 51, ¶9. Our constitutional form of government, he explained, was to be “strictly Republican”— “[N]o other form” he explained, “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; [and] with the fundamental principles of the Revolution;” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39. Any attempt to alter that form of government would be unconstitutional unless the entire document were scrapped.
Madison also explained, that for a republic to be genuine it needed an “institution that will blend stability with liberty.” There was only one institution that the Framers built into the Constitution to guarantee stability to our Compound Republic in order to prevent the consolidation of power into the national government and to prevent any move to democracy. Only one institution needed to stay in place, to preserve what he called our “compound Republic.” This indispensable institution, he explained, “can only be . . . a senatorial institution.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 63, ¶10.
Hamilton explained how the Senate was supposed to work – “But lastly, the first and second clauses of the third section of the first article, . . . provides, that ‘the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF for six years’;” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 67, ¶11. Putting the Senate to a democratic vote destroys the Republican nature of the Senate and in turn our Compound Republic.
Democratic elections cannot work to preserve our Compound Republic. The Constitution, Hamilton explained, “committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures. This mode has, in such cases, vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 64, ¶3. (emphasis added)
It also destroys the Compound Republic because it takes the power of the states and delivers it over to the political parties which are unnamed, unconstitutional entities – “The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39, ¶12.
As Madison explained, “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. . . . Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence” on them. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 45, ¶4.
Hamilton concurred in Madison’s assessment: “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State Governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶8. The 17th Amendment destroyed this dependence and the double security.
Finally, if the first two options don’t work, there is a third option. The states can act the same way the people acted during Prohibition when they just simply ignored the 18th Amendment, which was the real reason for its repeal. If the states would just do the same thing and ignore the 17th Amendment then it would become unenforceable, and we could begin to repair our Republic.
"According to Madison, the Constitution created a 'compound republic.' "
And, by this reading, the 17th amendment undid the compound republic. Too bad for us, but legal. All the reasoning of the founders that you outline here can't undo it. Only a re-education of *current* citizenry can, so they can execute a new amendment.
"The 17th Amendment is patently unconstitutional because it fundamentally altered our Compound Republic."
Again, it may be a bad thing, but I disagree that it is unconstitutional. Literally *anything* may be altered in the existing Constitution by properly following the amendment procedure, and nothing subordinate to that (courts, legislatures, or founders' extra-constitutional arguments) can (legitimately) undo it. Sad, but true.
I sincerely appreciate your comments on this post because this is such an important topic that we do need “a re-education of *current* citizenry” to expose the unconstitutional actions of our government and with some of our amendments. I believe that discussions like this one can help with that re-education process.
In my prior post, I tried to explain the important legal principle through my severability discussion that contracts and laws are not necessarily legal just because they were formed through a procedurally sound legal process. This is an extremely important distinction with respect to the 17th Amendment. “Properly following the amendment procedure”, as you suggest, does not create an immovable legal object.
The 17th Amendment is one such example. The Constitution is a social contract between the government and the people. As in every contract, there has to be a meeting of the minds between the parties for it to be valid. Clearly, no one understood the impact that this amendment would have on our Compound Republic.
Also, as I noted, changes to a contract are not valid if that change conflicts with other provisions of the contract, which is what this Amendment did. A simple example of this would be for an amendment banning “hate speech” without addressing the provisions protecting “free speech” found in the First Amendment. The hate speech amendment would clearly conflict with the First Amendment and would have to be struck down by the courts.
Another example would be passing an amendment protecting the right to abortion without addressing the protections to life for “persons” who are “born” or unborn as clearly provided for under the 14th Amendment, Section 1. For some reason, no one ever raised this issue under the era of Roe v. Wade, but it is there nonetheless and should be used to sue in the states that are now passing abortion laws. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clearly conflicts with any supposed right to abortion, and it needs to be dealt with.
Like these prior examples, the 17th Amendment conflicts with all the other Republican clauses in the Constitution such as the Electoral College provisions and the Guarantee Clause of Article IV.
Changes that violate other legal principles are invalid as well. A good example would be a non-compete agreement between an employer and an employee. A simple amendment to that contract changing the length of the non-compete period from 1 year to 2-3 years would be unconstitutional, since that properly enacted amendment would basically change the contract into indentured servitude.
The 17th Amendment also violates the principle that everything has to be contained within the four corners of the document. Among the many genius provisions of our US Constitution, its foremost was the principles of checks and balances. Everyone knows about the checks and balances included in our Constitution that exist between the different branches of government, but very few even know about the checks and balances that exist between different levels of government.
The Constitution created a “double security” with the states so as to check the expansion, growth and power of the federal government. The 17th Amendment not only removed that power from the states but it handed it over to an extra-constitutional body otherwise known as political parties.
This power shift is not authorized in the 17th Amendment, and nowhere else in the Constitution as well. It would be like making an amendment in an import business contract between two parties in Mexico and the US where the amendment gives the power to control the importation of goods to the Cartel without mentioning the Cartel. This amendment would be patently illegal as is the transfer of the power of the states to control the federal government being given over to the political party Cartel.
I could go on but these examples sufficiently prove that believing that an amendment to the Constitution is valid simply because it is procedurally sound is nothing more than legal fiction.
Bobby Kennedy is a kind, empathetic, and talented leader. I would be proud to have him as one of our country's very influential political leaders. Can you, by chance talk with him or try to convince him that our next President needs to be willing to exit the the WHO, most especially because of its recently Amended International Healthcare Regulations (IHRs) that allow the WHO to compel all its member nations to lockdown and to mandate their people take vaccines when the WHO solely announces an Emergency, which can include Climate Change Emergencies. I am concerned, from his answer to a question in a zoom meeting, that, as President, he would not exit the WHO. In his answer, he reiterated that he there is Climate Change, and that we should work to change the WHO "from within."
Trump will win the election. Kennedy knows this, but agreed to campaign so that people could hear the truth about what has happened to the country since WWII.
I love RFK, and I know Trump will put him in an important position in his administration.
I have been writing comments on this substack that have expressed my deep sorrow and concern for the people of Lahaina and for their children, and have urged, to the point of being redundant, that attention be paid to their plight. So I cannot be accused of being calloused in my approach. Biblical Christianity has always stood for defending the weak, the widow, the orphan, the humble and the oppressed. The second commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself.
The New Testament also reminds us, however, that the first commandment is to love God with all our hearts and our minds and our strength. From Genesis through Revelation, God, through His Son Jesus Christ, claims authority over creation. He is not a God who will countenance being lumped in with other religions and other sources of inspiration. Those who make no distinction between faith in Jesus Christ and other beliefs speak from inexcusable ignorance. Otherwise, they would understand that the Bible makes an absolute claim of exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, and no other. That exclusivity takes priority over spiritual compromise to attain universal peace. Jesus Christ Himself stated, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." It is not a sword that Christians are permitted to wield. It is a sword that has been, is, and will continue to be used against them, for indicting sin in this world.
God does not speak through generic people. He speaks to us through His word, and as that word was being written and compiled, He spoke through the prophets. Anyone else who claimed authority to speak in His name, falsely, at a time when prophets were still writing and speaking, was to be put to death.
The comments you quoted, John, are not moving. They are not beautiful. God is not a He or a She or an It. These words are an egregious offense. I will not constrain my comments by saying this is my opinion. I will stand with the Bible and express myself in absolute terms: What was said was blasphemy. The fires of Lahaina, the fires that consume so many parts of our world, as devastating and tragic as they are, are not the fires to be feared. God save Mr. Kennedy, who, with his words, is playing with the most devastating fire of all.
J.P. Kerber, your hostility to RFK Jr.'s remarks puzzles me. Surely you know that some translations adopted gender neutral language (NRSV among them, but even KJV in Mt 5:9 where "children" replaced "sons", as did the NIV). NRSV was published 35 years ago, long before "woke" was a thing. Do you attack the biblical scholars and pastors on the translation committees with the same enthusiasm with which you denounce RFK Jr.?
Regardless of that, however, your comment overlooks the appropriateness of a presidential candidate speaking in nonsectarian terms. Americans include people of all faiths, and people come to God by various paths, even if you sincerely believe that your path is the only one. Some scholars interpret John 14:6-7 as descriptive rather that prescriptive; that makes all the difference for your exclusivity claims, and aligns well with Romans 1-2. Apostle Paul hadn't heard of your claim that "He is not a God who will countenance being lumped in with other religions and other sources of inspiration." Paul's speech in Athens specifically placed God in the pantheon of Greek gods in an effort to help his listeners understand and relate to Him.
As for scriptures, you said that "God is not a He or a She or an It." And yet God is portrayed as each of those in scripture, or at least has been historically interpreted that way by various Christians. Most often as "He" but also analogous to a female figure and even in some historical characterizations of the Holy Spirit, a force. Sometimes God is portrayed nongendered and nonanthropomorphically (i.e., one might say an "It"). God is also portrayed as a lion, a lamb, and many other things. God is beyond human comprehension (Job 36:26). Do you understand God's nature? Is Mr. Kennedy wicked because he doesn't profess to?
How do you know that God doesn't speak through generic people? Does he really only speak through His word (by which I assume you mean the Bible)? Does God never speak through the Holy Spirit today? Does God not use people to reach others? Are all conceptions of God that differ from yours blasphemous?
Perhaps you should review Romans 1:28-31 and make sure you are none of those things, including maliciousness, strife, backbiters, proud, undiscerning, unloving, unmerciful. If you are anything on the list, then Rom. 1:32 says that you are deserving of death (the same judgment you pronounced upon those who speak for God without prophetic authority in past times). "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Rom. 2:1).
In reality, I believe God is gracious, and I suspect if Mr. Kennedy helps the widows and orphans, loves mercy, and walks humbly, that will weigh far more heavily on God's balance than whatever misgendering or misnaming of God Mr. Kennedy may have done.
Robert, in many respects, I cannot assimilate what you are saying. You seem to have one foot in the Bible, sort of, and the other in undermining its authority. You quote it in your penultimate paragraph as though you would like to use it as a sword to cut off my head, and I'm glad that, at least, you are reading Romans. But in your second paragraph you seem to think that political considerations override its demands, turning it from a sword into something of a wet noodle. So which is it? Overall, I get the impression that you are more far more lax in your approach toward the authority of the Bible than I am, so you and I are probably not speaking the same language. I can't answer questions you put to me that have assumptions about where I am coming from that aren't accurate. I consider the Word of God to be the very air that I breathe, authoritative in all matters of faith and practice. Nobody is forcing anyone to take my approach, but it is my approach.
Let me take your comments in order. You talk about Bible scholars and pastors, but they are not relevant to my post. Neither is your example of sons. First, the issue of "sons" to which you refer is part of an extensive debate about how to translate, into English, pronouns that are masculine in the original text, when they are used to refer to mixed-gender groups of humans. It is a translation issue where nobody's actual gender is being called into question. It has nothing to do with the pronouns that apply to God Himself, where the issue of mixed-gender groups does not even arise. If this is not obvious, write back and I will elaborate. Second, it sounds like you take your cues from various pastors and translations, and that is fine. I don't. (Don't get angry and start citing Romans again - I said what you do with translations is fine.) I consult the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as the case may be and, for my own purposes, I do a very tight translation. So you are really not speaking to me or addressing the basis for my comments when you raise issues about how others treat the text. Besides, RFK, Jr. was not translating the Bible, so this is really not a translation issue.
My specific comment was that the statements made by RFK, Jr. are neither moving nor beautiful, as John Leake seems to view them. I was responding to Leake's comments in quoting RFK, Jr. not addressing a post made by Kennedy himself, so please keep the context in mind when you respond to what I was saying. Certainly, politicians can say anything they choose. If I were inclined to be a politician, however, I would have to ask what that would require, and if it would require that I speak in a way that was blasphemous toward God, then I would get out of politics. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a politician, nor is anyone forcing Mr. Kennedy to speak about God's gender. It was a pointed comment by virtue of the fact that it was gratuitous. I am unaware of any exception to the demands of the Bible for political speech. I, personally, cannot see how a born-again believer, who proclaims with Paul that they have died to themselves and live for Christ, could hold the office of president, because the demands of that office conflict with total allegiance to God.
Your unidentified "some scholars" are badly mistaken if they think the Bible teaches that one can have salvation in any way other than through obedient faith in Jesus Christ, and I will defend that position until I breathe my last breath. I am not basing this on one verse, although John 14:6-7 is about as plain as one can get. The message itself is the very fabric of Scripture. I worry, then, for you, because it seems you are listening to other voices, when we are told to test everything against the Scriptures themselves. I would encourage you to study the Bible for yourself, and to rely less on all these other pastors, scholars, and translators. Otherwise, you will end up using verses in the Bible selectively, to make the points you choose, or that you read in secondary sources, rather than following the discipline of understanding what the text really says and letting it act as a source of edification and correction.
I don't really understand your reference to Paul, Romans, and Athens. In the first place, Exodus 20:2-3 clearly states, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." That is a rather clear demand of exclusivity. Paul was thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew Bible, so when you say he had hadn't heard of my claim regarding not being lumped in with other gods, I think you are missing the first commandment and might not be familiar with Paul's background. You speak of Romans 1-2. Do you know what Paul is actually doing there, and why he is speaking the way he is? If so, tell me, so that I know we are on the same page. The reference to Athens does not appear in Romans, it appears in Acts 17. And if you think Paul is lumping God in with the gods of the Greek pantheon there, please tell me, also, and I will go over the passage in detail for you, and demonstrate that this is not the case. The Bible makes it clear that salvation is in Jesus Christ and no other, and that those who do not place their faith in Him will be judged and will face eternal destruction. Paul knew that, he preached that. I'm sorry if you don't like it, and you are free to hold your own views, but you cannot tell me the Bible says something other than this.
I have no idea which passages you refer to when you speak of the Holy Spirit as a force. If you tell me what you are referring to, I will go to the original text and respond. In any event, the use of analogies, metaphors and anthropomorphisms has nothing to do with references to God's gender. In Matthew 23:37 Jesus Christ said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." Nobody can reasonably argue that this means Jesus Christ was a woman or should be referred to with feminine pronouns. The God of the Bible refers to Himself in the masculine gender. In the Bible, He does not, Israel did not, and the authors of the New Testament books did not, refer to God as a woman or as an "it." You ask me if I understand God's nature. I know what the Bible tells me about His glorious nature. You ask me if Mr. Kennedy is wicked. I didn't say he is wicked (although the Bible condemns all of us, in our natural state, as evil). In any event, I said he is playing with fire. The Bible is there for him to read, and I hope he does. As with everyone else, if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ, then one will not see eternal life. I didn't write that, the prophets and the apostles did.
I surmise in your next question, that you are thinking of a very specific passage, but this is not the place to get into a lengthy discussion of God speaking through an ass. The Bible is clear that men and women, in their natural state, do not understand the things of God, and that His Word alone is our source of understanding. I know of no biblical teaching that God uses unsaved men or women to speak to others. I know of the clear teaching of the Bible that says He does not. That is how I know. To continue with your questions, God does use people to reach others. They are believers who share the gospel. Your question about speaking through the Holy Spirit is too general, in its phraseology, to attempt to answer here. If you will be more specific, about what it is that you have in mind - charismatics? being moved by the Holy Spirit? I will respond. Your question about all conceptions of God is taking a leap that is wholly unwarranted by what I have written.
All I will say about your paragraph where you would like to use Romans to chop my head off is that you are misreading it, and misreading me.
Yes, God is gracious. That is why He sent His son to die on a cross, as payment for our sins. What you think is not what matters. The words you speak conflict with the words He has given us. God does not balance the good we do. He either sees us through the blood of Jesus Christ, or we do not belong to Him. We have no merit of our own. If we walk in true humility, that humility is the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. It is the same with every other virtue. We are selfish to the core. We must be transformed by God, through the work of His Spirit, after we put our faith in Jesus Christ. Your comments suggest to me that you do not have a true understanding of the gospel, that you have not been born again. We are not born with an understanding of the gospel, so that is not a criticism. It is an invitation - please read the Bible and ask that God will open His word for you to understand it and find eternal life.
J.P. Kerber: LOL! No, I don’t want to cut off your head—with scripture or anything else. If it sounded like that it was because that’s how the scriptural passage comes across to one who reads the Bible in the way that you do. I quoted from the passage in Romans because it illustrates how a fundamentalist reading of scripture can lead to some awful applications, and mirrors how you came across in your original post. I thought you might profit by hearing how it sounds coming from someone else.
I don’t want to hijack this thread for an extended soteriological discussion so will try to keep this focused on the question of whether Mr. Kennedy is a blasphemer headed to hellfire barring divine intervention (and perhaps Mr. Leake as well for the sin of calling this alleged blasphemy “beautiful”).
The question of translations **does** speak to you despite your ability to read in the original languages because it highlights the condemnation you bring to the many Christian pastors, scholars, and lay members who disagree with you on this issue. I agree that the main focus of gender-neutral translations is on pronouns applying to humans, not God. But extending that to God is a hot topic of debate now. The RJPS, for example, has removed all pronouns for God for this reason. As just one example of Christian efforts, see the UMC’s resolution that “United Methodist clergy and laity be encouraged to use diverse biblical images and titles for God, including masculine/feminine metaphors…” I’m not a fan of gender-neutral speech; it sounds awkward to my ears. But regardless of whether we like or agree with gender-neutral translations, there are believers who do, and the issue I’m raising is the need for tolerance, humility and Christian charity, especially in the context of community, including our shared national life. The Left has become intolerant, as evidenced by censoring, deplatforming, mandates, etc.; is that how we want this country to be?
From your comments, I suspect that you would condemn non-Christians, Catholics, mainline Protestants, charismatics, anyone who is not an inerrantist, and perhaps (?) all non-cessationists and non-dispensationalists as well. You seem so confident in your own abilities that you insist your interpretation of scripture is the correct one and that the views of others—including biblical scholars and pastors, or believers with a different interpretation—don’t contribute to your understanding.
As for Jn 14:6-7, I don’t know how to be more clear than to repeat that it can be interpreted as descriptive rather than prescriptive. By that I mean that one doesn’t have to say a few magic words to be saved. One can be saved without knowing the name of Jesus Christ or anything about his life/death/resurrection. That is what Romans 1-2 describes, not to mention most of the Old Testament. (That doesn’t mean salvation isn’t through Christ—that’s the descriptive aspect).
Regarding Athens etc., your claim was about God not countenancing being “lumped in with other religions and other sources of inspiration,” not a claim of exclusivity or priority, which is a different matter. My point is that Paul was willing to contextualize the Hebrew God in order to make Him accessable to the Greeks, capitalizing on their placeholder for the “unknown god” memorialized in their statuary along with their other gods. Paul did not pursue a confrontational “my God against yours” approach, but rather placed his God amongst theirs, then argued for His superiority. Of course Paul, as a 1st century well-trained Pharisaic Jew, would have been a monotheist, but he still pursued this peaceful approach. You argue that exclusivity takes priority over peace. I’m suggesting that Paul pursued a peaceful way in this instance.
You said that "God is not a He or a She or an It." You implied that saying so was blasphemous. What, then, should God be called, and what pronouns used? How is using these very words of scripture blasphemous? “He” is used in nearly every English translation ever made. Were all those translators, the pastors who preached from them, the laypeople who memorized and quoted them—all blasphemers? And yes, you did in effect say that Mr. Kennedy is going to be burned in hellfire unless God saves him from his current blasphemous path. Perhaps you’d include Mr. Leake in that warning as well since he found these allegedly blasphemous words beautiful.
You misquoted me w/r/t God as force. I didn’t refer to verses referring to the Holy Spirit as a force; I referred to “some historical characterizations of the Holy Spirit” as a force. This is not orthodox trinitarian doctrine, but one can’t argue that there isn’t at least some scriptural basis for the interpretation. Jesus, for example, used the illustration of wind blowing where it will in describing the Holy Spirit’s work. Again, I’m not arguing for the correctness of that or any other interpretation; I’m arguing that there are many views on the nature of God and how to refer to Him, and denouncing as blasphemers those who don’t share your interpretation or nomenclature is not helpful.
You said, “The Bible is clear that men and women, in their natural state, do not understand the things of God, and that His Word alone is our source of understanding.” I refer you again to Rom. 1-2. You continued, “I know of no biblical teaching that God uses unsaved men or women to speak to others.” I offer the counterexample of Pharaoh who received a dream from God that led to the salvation of Israel from starvation. Joseph provided the interpretation, but Pharaoh was the one who received the dream. Similarly for Nebuchadnezzar and his dream. I’m not judging whether either of the recipients were “saved” or not, but the evidence is that at the time of receipt they were not. Was Balaam saved when God spoke through him to bless Israel (recall that Balaam then worked with Balak to lead Israel into adultery at Peor, Num. 31:16)? Were Saul and his servants saved when they prophesied as recorded in I Sam. 19:20-24? I could go on, but I’ll leave this topic by noting that Jesus’ followers were accused by the Pharisees of blasphemy when they praised him as the Messiah; Jesus replied that even the rocks would cry out if the people were silenced (Luke 19:40). The Bible teaches that God can speak through the unsaved, animals, and yes, rocks.
Regarding the last paragraph, of course I don’t think God literally balances our good vs. bad deeds to determine our fate. But the metaphor is biblical (Dan 5:25; I Sam 2:3; Prov. 16:2; Job 31:6) and reflects other ANE traditions such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, where the dead appear before Osiris and their hearts are weighed against truth, represented by a feather. Micah 6:8 says, “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” It was this text that I was alluding to, and I stand by my statement that this is more important to God than what one calls Him (see also Mt. 7:21).
I’ve voted Republican or Libertarian all my life. Yet, the GOP has led us into some terrible wars and voted for laws like the Patriot Act that have eroded our civil liberties. Mr. Kennedy intrigues me. Not that I agree with all his positions; not at all. But, he interests me because of the personal integrity he has displayed at high cost, and because I think he may be the candidate most likely to restore and respect the constitution.
Thanks for the discussion. I'll let you have the last word. :-)
From the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word "blasphemy" is defined as "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God..."
From the same source, the definition of "sacrilege" is "violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred."
From Leviticus 22:32 "You shall not profane My holy name."
The reference to God's gender is part of what is holy about His name because, as used in the Hebrew Bible, "My holy name" means more than His official titles. It means His character, including gender and its associations, in its entirety. See, for example, Ezekial 36:23, where it is clear that, when Israel profaned the name of God among the nations, the offense was not that Israel used the word YHWH in a careless manner. They misrepresented God's character through their behavior. God's name, His character, His gender, the way in which Israel was to sanctify Him before the nations - anything that has to do with the way God is portrayed or characterized, these are all part of what is sacred. Therefore, to violate what is sacred is sacrilege and to speak in a sacrilegious manner is blasphemy.
The Bible does not use feminine or neuter-gender pronouns when it speaks of God. It is as simple as that. Whatever translators choose to do with their reference to mixed-gender groups of people is a different issue, because people are not sacred.
In our world, it has been made patently obvious that referring to a person using a gendered pronoun that is not to their liking is nearly as bad as the unpardonable sin. How can anyone then claim that changing the gender by which the Creator of the universe has chosen to refer to Himself is not an offense of the highest order? You defend those who treat God, in an abhorrent manner, as a transgendered being?
When you extrapolate to what people are doing with the word of God in regard to the gender of God, you seem to assume that by virtue of the currency of the debate that every opinion has legitimacy. That is not true. No shortage exists of people - prominent, credentialled, educated, revered, inside the churches, outside the churches, who have no qualms about altering the Word of God to suit their purposes and come under the clear condemnation of the Bible. We have been warned that in the end times the church itself will be apostate. So your reference to debates about what to do with the gender references of God are unconvincing.
You say, "regardless of whether we like or agree with gender-neutral translations, there are believers who do, and the issue I'm raising is the need for tolerance, humility and Christian charity, especially in the context of community, including our shared national life." As with Romans, you are misapplying every one of the concepts to which you refer. Nowhere does the Bible teach that a believer is to compromise truth in the interest of "tolerance." When the Bible speaks of humility, it does not mean subverting what the Word of God teaches. The Bible knows nothing of charitable acceptance of blasphemy, and I have no idea what community you are talking about. Show me one verse, apart from those that speak of the nation of Israel, where a believer's concern is to be for a "shared national life." Rather, see John 18:36. A true believer does not consider this world to be her or his home. When I am instructed to love my neighbor, I am instructed to put their interests ahead of mine. I am not instructed to put their interests ahead of God Himself.
You are offended by my confidence. Jesus Christ does not approach the world, hat in hand, doing whatever it takes to avoid causing offense, saying whatever is necessary to get people to approve of His words. I will not waffle, I will not equivocate, and I will not take a defensive position with respect to my faith. I will not apologize for it, or take back what I wrote.
You refer to Paul's peaceful approach in Athens. Always peaceful, always tolerant, making sure the community does not suffer disruption. So please explain 1 Corinthians 16:22 and Galatians 1:7-9.
You concern yourself with politics in a world that is reserved for destruction by fire (2 Peter 3:7) and you place your hope in Kennedy who, like all other men, is made like the grass (Isaiah 51:12). In doing this, you are wasting your life.
You say, "One can be saved without knowing the name of Jesus Christ or anything about his life/death/resurrection." Acts 4:12 says, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." You refer to the Word of God and at the same time you deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as you maintain this position, tell me how you are any different from those referred to by the apostle Paul in the first chapter of Galatians.
Well, I am trying to post a response, but substack is asking for a shorter comment, and I have no idea what the algorithm has in mind. I'll try to figure out what to do.
There is a reason why RFK Jr. is being censored everywhere. If the whole nation would listen to him speak, many people would realize how bad politics and politicians have been in recent years.
Our country and society is falling apart, mostly because of a few people driving this destruction for their own profits. We do need someone like RFK Jr. who can unite us as one nation, heal our society and heal our country. There are not many people out there who are capable of doing this, he is one of the very few or maybe the only one.
We all need to come to our senses and realize what is important. If we let this great and potentially last opportunity to turn this nation around slip away, we will face the same consequences as the Roman Empire.
RFK is an admirable, courageous human being who by all accounts wants to do “the right thing”. Unfortunately he & many of our fellow citizens seem to completely underestimate the hatred the left has for our country & anyone who disagrees with their plans for us. They intend to to their best to destroy all western values, eliminate law & order, erase women, divide families, kill babies, mutilate children, ultimately decriminalize pedophelia, discriminate ( or worse) against believers , & continue it rip us off in the name of climate change. Just think of anything good & they want to destroy it. From the top down, that’s what the democrat party has come to represent. It may only be a “few”, but I sure haven’t heard any speak out against this evil agenda. We need leadership that understands the dire straits we’re in.
The HI state officials must've succeeded to the 5G craze, the Globalist agenda, to have accepted such an orchestrated arsen/utility failure/police compliance/Directed energy Weapons attack, as has been displayed upon these innocent souls. I respect RFK, Jr., but he should be aligning with the Hawaiian Indigenous Elders who are giving a Cease and Desist Order to the Globalists/WEF, US Space Force, etc. for exactly the above mentioned. Another Substance by Reinette [Seimmons], yesterday, gives the details. Awaken to their plan, asap.
“As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.”— Colossians 2:6–7 🙏
It was an admirable speech. The He, She or It part relating to God I question. Put your faith in God period. God isn't a he, she or it thing.
I felt the same. I was really moved by what he was saying until he went woke on God’s identity. That made me cringe.
You guys are ridiculous! Are you still couched in the Bible's pronoun for God? RFK, Jr. wasn't referring to the Woke madness, but the personification of God, which is ridiculous, too. When women, decades back, had to refer to God as a He/Him, many often felt that society was revering men over women, since those early times, when there was extreme Patriarchy. Don't dis him for opening up the reverence for God, by allowing for human, limited perceptions.
If you take Yhwh God at His word, and He tells us He is (not she, or it, is), to rejet that is to call Him a liar. Nothing spiritual rests on our human feelings; indeed, we are clearly and repeatedly warned our feelings will deceive us, so must not be trusted. Even the Lord's prayer begins "our Father" not "our mother". When I hear people claim to be Christians but deny the expressed word of Yhwh God about Himself, I am forced to wonder to which deity they are referring, as there are many called "God" who are not our Creator at all.
Sandra, I appreciate your allegiance to our ancestors' religious edicts, as I'm sure/I hope they meant well. I am not denying that our Creator has an all powerful, absolutely magnificent quality that many cultures would attribute to a masculine nature, yet his creation of earth has both yin and yang qualities, and we humans have within each sex, yin and yang qualities. It just seems so simplistic to condense God to a male, or personify * at all. When priests, seers, scribes contest that God told them his gender, I question that, as many do. I had heard a deep male voice once, answer my question from the previous night, and wondered..., but now I think it was a quality spirit/man from another dimension or from the country I was considering moving to. These things can happen on this planet. I think God is consciousness, with no sexual reference to it, albeit, the vertical plane (coronal thinking) may be attributed to a masculine nature, as in focusing or concentrating. The lateral plane associated with the female force, as with the landscape of the earth. And to be " made in his image" may mean to be of etherial- magnetic energy fields, infused with light. Something to contemplate.
He also has feminine traits, characterized by the title El Shaddai ( the many breasted one), but labels Himself as "our Heavenly Father". He also speaks of gathering and sheltering us beneath his wings, as an he does her chicks. He IS a Person, not some nebulous spirit. I, too, have heard Him speak audibly, on 2 separate occasions, and the voice was masculine. To be created in His image is to carry His spirit image. Only Jesus Christ come to mind as a bearer of His physical image, as a son bears his father's image. I believe it's a mistake to reject His method of describing Himself for some self-created image of what we think He should be, because I believe that opens us to other errors in understanding Him. Keep in mind, Abraham, Ezekiel and Moses all described physical encounters with Him, before Jesus walked among us. Ezekiel described Him, and His conveyance in considerable detail. How could he do that with some nebulous electromagnetism? Moses spoke of an hand, a front, and a back, physical attributes, not electromagnetism. Why not believe those eye witnesses? You believed His voice, as do I...what makes those others wrong?
I believe Jesus Christ is an ascended Master. He never said, "I am Lord", he always gave credit to the Lord. It was the scribes/orthodoxy that claimed him to be the Lord. And then there's semantics. Sorry, but I don't necessarily believe what was written about Moses. To say I do is dishonest. I do believe in ethics, and that is derived from our upbringing and inner guidance (from consciousness).
I read the WHO's Codex Alimentarius over a decade ago, it was crystal clear where they were going . Just remember Yhwh God remains in total control, not those who seek evil.
I've seen this kind of claim over and over among believers in the Abrahamic God. Believers are human, and will readily admit to the imperfections and limitations of *all* humans, but somehow are still able to leapfrog over those universal human faults to make unimpeachable claims about that God. It's not coherent.
I bypass his glitches. That includes those three pronouns and his views on Palestine. He proves he knows how to evolve and grow bigger around the red line hole. I choose patience and updating his source of facts. RFK core is rock solid. Thank you for all of this. #MauiMassacre . Donate to local HI groups.
"Glitches". Those are not "glitches": it's the humans seeing "errors" that don't fit THEIR OWN images, but in truth don' t exist. It's not "patriarchy" we get to object to, where Yhwh God is concerned, but His assertion about Who He is. He isn't just being arbitrary; He knows, and wants, what's best for each of us, and established a certain order for us based on that desire. We are free to reject it, but there are consequences to our choices, and we may not lie all of them.
Agreed. Lots of limiting beliefs.
Like you feeling really good then you throw up in your mouth type moment. lol
Agreed. Apparently Kennedy doesn’t want to offend anyone who might have some weird view of the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. He should be far more concerned with offending/blaspheming that Holy God.
Indeed! So should we all.
exactly...it proves they don't know what they are talking about...just manipulation of words
Either he really doesn't believe in God or he is trying to speak to specific people to say it that way. Someone that believes and proclaims doesn't talk like that.
He says He's an he, I believe Him.
The man is nominally Roman Catholic and referred to God after the typical lib/prog manner. But if ignorance is the mother of devotion, harldy unexpected.
Otherwise he is mentally competent and demonstrates some common sense as compared to . . . .
That is what is wrong with the country though. This viewpoint of God isn't typical to true believers. It isn't typical to God. It isn't typical for our founders. For the current Pope it is typical. How can you have it both ways? Be mentally competent and have common sense, but view God as a he, she or it? It isn't acceptable in my eyes and I don't believe it is in God's either.
I was speaking purely politically. For a Dimocrat, he's far ahead of the rest of the pack. OK not a high bar, but it is what is in a day of small things.
(As an ex romanist, you don't want to hear my opinion on AntiChrist.
Or the mass, which in the name of Christ, defiles Christ's once for all totally sufficient sacrifice for sin at Calvary and claims for itself atoning power.)
I could go down that road as well. Like how Jesus said no one comes to the Father, but through Me. He didn't say, but through a priest.
Man, this is difficult to say. It is difficult because in saying it, I will be labeled as negative/not caring/mean, yada, yada, yada. While this is a very moving piece, it is also systematic of the disease that is consuming us-Don Quixote complex -romanticized everything. So the people of Maui had a warning & yet apparently no one held anyone’s (political or corporate) feet to the fire (pun not intended). It is beyond fantasy to think that a system (top to bottom) as corrupt as this is can be corrected by one man. Trump was/is Wyatt Earp/Elliott Ness/Rudy Giuliani all rolled into one & he only scratched the surface. I don’t question RFK,Jr’s pedigree &/or sincerity, but we are in a battle of apocalyptical (sp?) proportions (aka the Lord of the Rings final battle). We lose & it will make the destruction of Maui look like a walk in the park.
JRR Tolkien didn't come close to what the real apocalyptic battle at Har Megiddo will look like, according to the vision John recorded for us, in the Revelation. It may more closely resemble Ezekiel's war upon the brink of which we are presently teetering.
RFK Jr.'s choices of those to populate his Administration being associated with 'The Club of 300's International Banker Family Mafia centered in 'The City of London' where his Grandfather and Father once hobnobbed during his Grandfather's time as Ambassador to the U.K.. don't paint him well regardless of stated empathy for the Hawaiians.
WHERE ARE HIS DEMANDS FOR U.S. TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR THE PEOPLE FORCED TO ENDURE SUCH HORROR TO REBUILD ACCORDING TO THE OWNERS OF LAHAINA'S LAND instead of the 'Concentration Camp/Prison' concepts inherent to 'Build Back Better' through the Obastards fraudulently installed into Office at this time?
EXACTLY! KENNEDY IS A TROJAN HORSE....hell bent to asskiss apartheid ISRAEL and to follow "pandemic protocols " of the corrupt CDC and WHO like a dead sheep ...
Yes, Kennedy is a Trojan Horse rising at just the most advantageous time with some unknown funding for CHD making his name more familiar and aligned with ANTI-MEDICAL COMPLEX built by the U.N.'s W.H.O., U.K.'S WELLCOME TRUST WITH JEREMY FARRAR, and NIHIA'S FAUCI WITH PSYCHOPATH GATES...and Anti-Ai/Bioweapon Injections euphemized as VACCINES.
As for Israel, all of the current Arab World was consumed by the Muslim Terrorists since Pedophile Mohammed's Delusions in the dessert based upon knowledge derived from his Camel Trucker years when he heard stories from the Jews and Christians. THEY FORCED THEIR CONVERSIONS ONTO THE PALESTINIANS AND THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE HISTORICALLY JEWISH who did not leave the Holy Land.
Do you not recall the years of thousands dying from terrorist bombs EVERY SINLE DAY in Israel? I do...Therefore, I have no issues with whatever means are necessary to maintain safety for everybody.
I DO have issues with 'The Club of 300's International Banker Family Mafia' out of 'The City of London' ORDERING CHAOS AND CRISES IN MUSLIM LANDS TO PROMOTE ILLEGAL ALIEN MUSLIMS ENTERRING INTO THE EU/AMERICAN REGIONS TO UNDERMINE THEIR CULTURE AND SOVEREIGNTY so the whole world can become as the worst of the Middle East.
The "Palestinians" are Arab Muslims, whose homelands are Arab nations, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. They may be descended from Hagar and Ishmael, Keturah, or Esau, but they are not the children of Israel, through whom the covenant has been handed down, and they are not a "people" group at all.
The club of 300, better known as the Club of Rome, or Bilderbergers, are an international problem, indeed, responsible for the lion's share of our problems, under the auspices of their masters.
I largely agree but God destroyed Israel 2,000 years ago and what God has put asunder only a fool would ever try to recreate. The country is called Palestine and it is presently under Western occupation but that shall not always be the case and the occupying force won't be moving from there into "big israel", as Zelensky calls the Ukraine as he seeks to destroy the Ukrainian people there via Nudelman's cannon fodder policy for them.
No, He did not! He used Rome to exile the Jewish people from their homeland in 70 AD, but Israel was not "destroyed"; neither was Yhwh God finished with the children of Israel. Isaiah foretold the restoration of Israel, in the end times; that restoration occurred on 14 &15 May 1948, as prophesied, in a single day ( the dates reflecting various time zones on the day it occurred; in Israel it was the 15th, in the US it was still the 14th). The nation is Israel, there never was a nation "Palestine" only a Roman region so called, including all the neighboring nations as part of it, called "Palestinians".
Hard to imagine God not being the force behind the re-establishment of Israel into the Promised Land.
Also, difficult to imagine Zelinsky's diatribe of making Ukraine into a 'Big Israel' when the country simply has no history of Judean habitation.
When we don't like the world, it's time to pray, fast and ask God's direction. In the 'End Times' it is prophesized Jewish people to again occupy Israel as their Promised Land...And, if The Bible states something as prophesy, IT WILL OR DOES BECOME FACT. Our thoughts are not those of our Creator and none know his plan and the timing attached.
It's amazing all the places that claim to be modern "replacements" for Biblical Israel, particularly since the covenant was between Yhwh God and Abraham for the children of Israel (Jacob), in perpetuity, with no mention anywhere that covenant was broken, or that the "Biblical Israel" would be anywhere other than where it was when David ruled the whole of the land of that promise.
Ignorance is not a virtue.
So sorry for you, but Americans have woken up. We know that the entire Middle East outside of Israel is apartheid land. Read Genesis 12:3 before it's too late, abdul.
I thought the slogan was 'burn back better' - I agree with you on the your points too. Empathy is good, but it doesn't provide a roof or replace the traditions lost.
😲HOW CLEVER!!!
🎯for the slogan. DEFINITELY 👍🏼👏🏼😉
Words of Empathy are CHEAP.
ACTION TALKS...And, the U.S. TAXPAYER CAN afford to cover for the terror and horror by at least providing for the victims of Maui. NOBODY BUT THE NATIVES OWNING THAT LAND HAS ANY RIGHT TO IT.
The wealthy parasites perpetrating this CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY really do need to be taken into custody, tried and burned themselves.
It's ALL so appalling, disgusting and the evil impossible for any average sinner to possibly imagine.
I think you have a VERY rosy image of the US' current fiscal condition. We are over$31 Trillion in debt, not counting unfunded liabilities, or the credit card debt nearly 45%, as of yesterday, of our citizens are carrying, trying to stay afloat through the inflation on top of the covid debacle.
The U.S. Dollar IS NOT BASED IN ANY FORM OF CONCRETE VALUE. The Evils removed the Gold/Silver Standard and the Dollar became IMAGINARY IN VALUE. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT AND WE ALL GASLIGHT ONE ANOTHER TO COVER OUR TERROR IN IT BEING TOTALLY USELESS. What would happen should the dollar become totally useless?
CBDC SLAVERY SYSTEM ANYBODY?
THAT IS THE OPTION NOW BEING FORCED UPON THE U.S. WITH INCREMENTAL SCHEDULE OF RELEASE...SO, WE DON'T NOTICE AND BECOME TOTALLY P.O.'d AND FIGHT BACK.
THE CITY OF LONDON'S INTL MAFIA IS TERRIFIED OF THE U.S AS WELL AS THE OBASTARDS FRAUDULENTLY INSTALLED INTO OFFICE AT THIS TIME...And, that's the reason they are out to destroy the U.S. as they have sought to do for 240 years. Now, China/CCP is their preferred World Pit Bully to HIDE BEHIND...And, to use to force the U.S. into Techno-Feudal FASCIST Compliance. Woop! Woop!
I know; I remember when Nixon did that, and I know that Ft Knox has been essentially empty for decades. The Federal Reserve, a mostly foreign nationals owned but private bank was behind that, in conjunction with other international, but privately owned, banks controlling the economy. Crashing the global economy is precisely the intent,aiming, eventually, toward the "mark of the Beast",an economic control of all humanity so complete it will prevent all who do not have it from participating economically at all.
It's not London you should be worrying about, but Rome; that's here the PTB are assembled about their master, Satan, at present, although in the foreseeable future, he will move his headquarters to Jerusalem. Neither was Obama, nor currently Biden, powers of any sort. They were /are nothing but PUPPETS, their strings pulled by people whose names we will likely never know, in Satan's innermost circle of bankers, high level Freemasons, and Jesuit priests. Their plan has been for the US to vanish into the NAU, the North American version of the EU.
THAT is where you're totally incorrect...Rome is NOT the top of the Evil Hierarchy. But, merely a tool used through the St. Gallen Mafia comprised of the Jesuits now in the Papacy and all KNOW there's an Anti-Pope installed. He's heretical and apostate and that doesn't mean there aren't good and faithful Priests. At this time, the faithful Priests in both the Anglican Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are being CANCELLED AND REMOVED FROM THEIR ORDERS. They are among the Remnant always prophesized to exist to the time Christ comes again.
The top of the Hierarchy is 'The City of London' as the Financial Capital of the World with the Rothschilds leading. Rothschild once said, "He who rules money rules the world." The Club of 300 existed LONG BEFORE THE BIRTH OF CHRIST and the consequent Roman Catholic Church...And, has had different names throughout the ages. The Illuminati, Freemasons, Jesuits and other organizations are aligned with 'The City of London' and all are united and used as tools exactly as the Vatican.
Are you aware of the reason Pope Benedict XVI resigned a portion of his Papacy? 'The City of London with the Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, OWNED by the Rothschilds OUTRIGHT shut down the Vatican's ability to do banking and held the Vatican hostage until the Pope removed himself to allow the current Anti-Pope to be installed. Once Benedict resigned as the FRONTMAN in the Vatican...The Banking Privileges were resumed. TO DATE, THE ANTICHRIST HAS NOT ENTERRED EARTH AND IT ISN'T CERTAIN THAT DEMON WEARING A HUMAN BEING SUIT WILL ENTER THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It may or may not be...There's no certainty, merely assumption.
You're incorrect in what you assume about it as there is no demon EVER WILLING TO FACE A FAITHFUL CATHOLIC PRIEST DOING THE WORK OF JESUS CHRIST. Have seen it...And, know the mystery. Exorcism is real and people actually die from being saved through exorcism; it's that much of a shock to the human body. In truth...It would be wise for you to find some Youtube segments or some such Media to do better Research instead of adhering to past Indoctrination/Brainwashing about a Christian Faith it's pretty clear you know little to nothing about.
Im so passed any hearings or trials... Look at their voting history and online diaries and public hangings. But first serious taring and feathering type tactics like cock and ball torture. Totally annoyed that Facebook gave me 11 opportunities to defend my right to say this and then locked me out of my account as I would really like to tell their oversight committee how we all feel.
Facebook KNOWS how we all feel. Their contribution is HARVEST DATA AND TO MEASURE IT...A Behavioral Psych Activity to provide direction about how better to manipulate everybody to feel, think and behave.
Thing is...THEY'RE LOSING. THEIR ESCALATION IN TACTICS IS A SIGN OF THEIR RISING LEVEL OF THREAT AND TERROR. THE TRUE HEINOUS NATURE OF THE HARSHEST EVIL IS ONLY BEGINNING.
Have you seen the number of Wildfires burning out of control according to the Weather Satellite monitoring such events at this time. I wouldn't have believed it...IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNIMAGINABLE. They couldn't murder enough of 'The People' with poisonous, DNA mutilation...SO, they're burning the whole world...All areas of AGRICULTURE AND GREEN TREES, GRASS AND WHERE ANIMALS AND HUMANS LIVE.
Yes they are feeling the heat and escalating. It's basic cluster B personality 101 - which is why we all need to step it up a notch.
Facebook didn't like it much when I said the Facebook censorship team should be hung first. They deleted the post and didnt even spank me for it! Lol I expected a jail sentence for that one and was very disappointed.
What they are doing with the fires is pure insanity.
The nerve of dolly Parton to release that album cover with her sitting on a globe on fire.
It's like a circus show, it really is. You are right it is only the beginning and I truly feel that if you are not pushing the boundaries and on the edge of getting arrested calling these people out directly to their face, you aren't doing enough.
Their punishment is a Badge of Honor every faithful Christian SHOULD be proud to have. The utter arrogance has indicated they have some kind of dramatic and significant protection which threatens the whole world's population and we now have better understanding of the tech providing such lurid and insanely TRANSPARENT threat beyond Nuclear Weapons.
Fact of the matter is...It would only require a few teams of professionals hitting some key elements and the whole damned bunch would be down for the count and slithering, crawling and blobbing along in trying to escape before we could easily pick them off. EVIL IS COWARDLY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY OF IMAGINATION OR WIT...NO REAL SENSE OF HUMOR TO TAKE OUT THOSE OF GOD. For evil; hurt, misery, suffering is their comedy and celebration; their PARTY. THAT IS THE BEST IT CAN DO.
The only thing worse than the thousand of Wildfires burning on the whole globe in HIGHLY POPULATED AREAS FOR BOTH HUMANS AND ANIMALS, TREES, GRASS AND WOODLANDS...Check the Weather Satellite to see it...It's unbelievable, are the CHILDREN THEY ARE OPENLY TRAFFICKING TO SELL INTO SEXUAL SLAVERY AND TORTUROUS MURDER IN THE ADRENOCHROME HARVESTING MARKET. My God...The horror of the abominations these Demons are manifesting has no words capable of expressing this ghastly, defiling depravity. Yes, we all must pray and fast...To even begin to stand to oppose this evil clearly brewed in the depths of hell.
And for the unelected and those voting with money... Guilty by association every one of them. Peter Flaherty tried to warn bershire Hathaway and got arrested. He was right. Everyone of the shareholders that didn't stand up need to be hung too.
I take it you have never read Yhwh God's "welfare plan", or if you have done, didn't comprehend it. The US system is not even close...
Until it's a CERTAINTY of this being the 'End Time of End Times' of the age of 'The Church'; we are to STAND AND FIGHT EVIL WITH ALL OUR MIGHT...God does NOT act to interfere or help his children until they take the first step and risk all when THEY COMMIT THEIR BLOOD AND LIVES IN HIS NAME. That is expected along with worship, praise, prayer, fasting, sacrifice, penance, charity and all other acts conducted in Faith. THAT'S THE WAY GOD WORKS.
The Rapture is a HERESY and designed by those in 'The City of London's Intl Mafia' to DEMORALIZE THE PEOPLE TO DECREASE PROBABILITY OF THEIR DESIRE TO FIGHT....From a false sense of 'Safety'. Hope you're not depending on that...And, the Jews are NOT yet converting in massive numbers to Christianity AND The Temple is NOT being rebuilt; thus it's doubtful THIS is the 'End Time'.
In working with an Exorcist Priest in Grad School, I learned your Yhwh God's Welfare Plan to be as much heresy as the Rapture...Just hang with The Holy Bible and not the Nut Jobs claiming heresy to provide a false sense of security and safety in this harsh, evil world. The heresies of all time are going to manifest as we're seeing right now...The legalization of abominations even Jesus Christ became Mafioso about by saying it's better those sinning against the children would be better with a millstone placed around their neck and thrown into the sea."
THIS IS NOT YET THE 'END TIME OF END TIMES'.
Since now EVERY prophecy that must be fulfilled, every condition in place, before the Rapture, and revelation of the Anti-Christ now has been completed, and the left are frantically putting in place the infrastructure of their 1world gov't and economic system before our eyes, I can't quite imagine what it is you think is missing insofar as proof is concerned. The Rapture is not an heresy unless you are calling Jesus and Paul both heretics, since both spoke of it in relating to end times events (rapture comes from the Latin rapare-, "to snatch out, or away", which both clearly described), and it was in the written world nearly 15 centuries before the group to which you refer was a twinkle.
I rather doubt you learned the Lord's "welfare plan" in school, as it was not taught when I as in school already, and I graduated almost 6 decades ago. I have read the Bible in at last 15 different translations, from the Geneva (predates the KJV) to the ESV, all cover to cover, in addition to portions of other translations and other specific studies over the past 7 decades,. I was not speaking from other sources, although I am aware of the banking cabal, of which our privately owned Federal Reserve is a part, and the intentions of the WEF, Bilderbergers, etc. Just FYI, if I were you, I'd be cautious about what I was labeling "heresies". Jesus did not "become Mafioso", when He issued that dire warning; Mafia is a very late 19th and 20th century crime organization begun in Italy and brought to our shore from there. As for the abominations, He never condoned those either.
We most assuredly are in the end times, very nearly into the Great Tribulation, in fact.
People like Bobby Kennedy restore my faith in humanity in our society. None can fake integrity and genuine care for people. I see it in his actions consistently watching him for the last years.
Would the democrat party of which you speak be the same one whose leader (LBJ) famously said upon the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “ these (N-word) wil vote for us for the next hundred years “, or would it be the dem party in numerous blue states and cities who allow the abortion of a baby right up to the moment of birth? Would it be the same party in the same blue localities who characterized the burning and looting of businesses and historic places by antifa or BLM mobs “mostly peaceful demonstrations? I’m pretty sure that the chance of reforming this hopelessly anti-American party is bill, regardless of who would attempted such a reversal.
Exactly 🙌
Same party.
I thank you for telling us of his speech. I wish I could agree with a revamped party (or two, both need to go) , but the Empire is on its last legs, and we
haven't been a Constitutional Republic since the CIA and a small bunch of rich men decided to shoot his uncle in broad daylight on a street in Dallas, and told us it was a lone gunman.
It is too late for reform the corruption goes all the way up and down. , we need to find new decentralized
government and information distribution about our government and what they are up to...we need , to tear down the bureaucracies and severely limit our Constitution interpretation to strict...i.e. no more "general welfare" interpreted broadly, instead limited to defending borders and fixing infrastructure between states.
The money is getting scarce, and the truth is getting fierce. We are OVER....have been for years...we are just now figuring that out.
We cannot afford to hope one man can reform anything about this massive WEF backed hollowed out country. And I have no answers.
Many of our problems are the result of a few who want to take all our money. We need to reform the money system. Otherise government debt will be assigned to us to cover.
We stopped being a Constitutional Republic in February of 1871, long before JFK was even born.
The answer is Jesus Christ, and His plan for humanity's future.
There is so much money available to the people of the United States one would have difficulty quantifying it. There was a fortune beneath Vatican City and probably hidden underground in Israel and London.
The wealth looted from each country was returned to each country, but there was still a lot left for the United States. https://rumble.com/v35xjke-special-report-ncswic-nobody-escapes-all-the-proof-you-need-to-know-white-h.html
Also check out https://rumble.com/v36jc1r-us-white-hat-military-news-89-black-hats-executed-secrets-of-3-gorges-dam-d.html
No, we have trillions missing...Rumsfeldt told us day before 9/11...it was stolen by our politicians and the CIA and DOD and DARPA to invest in Bioweapons and biowafare...and has never been found. One reason for the 2008 bank failures.
And please, money is just a mark on a paper..there is nothing behind it. Hasn't been since we went off the gold standard in 71
Our social security system is also just liabilities on a balance sheet, which cannot be paid.
maybe we will have till 2028.....
You know the Federal Reserve, which can create money, is neither federal nor has any reserves right?
There is no Federal Reserve. 650 plane-loads of gold removed from the Vatican alone. Gold, not paper.
https://rumble.com/v36jc1r-us-white-hat-military-news-89-black-hats-executed-secrets-of-3-gorges-dam-d.html
I believe you're mixing the private, and mostly foreign nationals owned Federal Reserve Bank with Ft Knox, where our gold reserves were once held, but which is now empty.
Well, the Federal Reserve seems to exist .....and they have controlled the money supply since 1913 so you need to elaborate a bit more on why there is no Federal Reserve...and since a big chunk of them are owned by the BIS, you might as well go on to them.
I appreciate your sincere reporting of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s speech. Speaking from personal experience, I am grateful that the memory of our loved ones who pass on, described as a “hole” by RFK, Jr., never goes away. I also appreciated the contrast you presented between Mr. Kennedy’s remarks and those of Joe Biden’s and your transition into a discussion of “our Republic” that you described as “unrecognizable.”
Unfortunately, it is “unrecognizable” because we have lost the knowledge and understanding of our “constitutional Republic” bequeathed to us by the Framers. As you so aptly noted, it did not include the “Democratic Party” as that was “founded in 1828”. The Constitution was ratified in 1787.
The Framers despised political parties as they are filled with “Ambition, avarice, personal animosity” and an “intolerant spirit” which has, “at all times, characterized political parties.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 1, ¶3. Political parties by their very nature are susceptible to "corrupting influences and bad leadership" as you described it.
In fact, our Constitutional Republic has been destroyed by political parties through the democratization of our Republic, which has directly supplanted the power that originally belonged to the states and transferred it to the oligarchies that control the political parties.
According to Madison, the Father of our Constitutional Republic, democracies always descend into “spectacles of turbulence and contention” and die horrific “deaths” from the “violence of faction”. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 10, ¶¶1, 13.
The chaos and destructive forces we are witnessing in the country today are the direct result of democratizing our Constitutional Republic. Under our Constitutional Republic, US Senators were supposed to be appointed by the individual state legislatures, and the Presidential Electors were also supposed to be appointed by the individual state legislatures to vote without becoming a rubber stamp for the 51% popular vote.
By removing these two indispensable republican principles, we have torn a gaping hole in our Constitutional Republic so large that it is no longer recognizable nor understood. By taking the power away from the states and putting it into the hands of the political party oligarchy, the national government no longer feels a dependency on the states as it was designed. The states were supposed to be a “double security” against the excesses of the national government, but the political parties have displaced that “double security.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 51, ¶9.
Few people even understand our history and what it means to be a Constitutional Republic. It was designed to be a bottom-up government and not the top-down government that we now live under.
"Under our Constitutional Republic, US Senators were supposed to be appointed by the individual state legislatures"
Originally. But regardless of the value of this over direct election of senators, the Constitution was successfully amended to provide for the latter. That is, according to the procedure in the Constitution that Madison (at least ultimately) accepted. Do you want a Constitution to be amended to prevent amendment of certain parts? Not sure how that could be done post-ratification.
Raising the issue on what can be “done post-ratification” is not only perceptive, but it’s one of the most important issues that we need to confront as a nation. Since this is a very complex issue, I’m going to give you the long version so I apologize in advance. There are at least three ways to handle this problem.
First, we could try and go through the amendment process to repeal the 17th Amendment just like we did with the 21st Amendment in order to repeal the 18th Amendment (also known as Prohibition). The amendment process is very difficult and time-consuming, and I doubt that a repeal would happen because the democratic forces are so powerful and so wealthy, and the issue is much more complex than Prohibition. During Prohibition, everyone understood that alcohol was being banned and pretty much everyone wanted alcohol to be legal again.
Repealing the 17th would be just the opposite of Prohibition. Everyone has been taught and schooled for over 100 years that democracy is the best thing that has ever happened, which is a lie. To try and educate people on the evils of democracy when they’ve believed just the opposite their whole lives will be very difficult. Plus, the propaganda coming from the democratic forces (i.e., the oligarchs who control the political parties that control DC) would overwhelm any attempt at repealing the 17th.
The second option is to challenge the 17th Amendment in court. To me, this would be a good option, but it would also take time and money. There is a principle in the law that is called the doctrine of severability, and it's used in contracts and statutes all the time. Basically, when drafting a contract or a new law, attorneys will add a severability clause that admits that the contract or law may actually be illegal or unconstitutional.
These severability clauses attempt to instruct any examining court to only strike the specific part of the contract or law that is unconstitutional and to leave the rest in place. It’s common for laws successfully passed by Congress to be struck down as unconstitutional. Just because it goes through the legal process, doesn’t guarantee that it’s sound constitutionally.
In other words, just because our Constitution “was successfully amended” by the 17th Amendment, it still doesn’t guarantee that it's valid. Even though there is no actual severability clause in the 17th Amendment, it's implied. It just hasn’t been challenged yet. The 17th Amendment is patently unconstitutional because it fundamentally altered our Compound Republic.
According to Madison, the Constitution created a “compound republic.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 51, ¶9. Our constitutional form of government, he explained, was to be “strictly Republican”— “[N]o other form” he explained, “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; [and] with the fundamental principles of the Revolution;” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39. Any attempt to alter that form of government would be unconstitutional unless the entire document were scrapped.
Madison also explained, that for a republic to be genuine it needed an “institution that will blend stability with liberty.” There was only one institution that the Framers built into the Constitution to guarantee stability to our Compound Republic in order to prevent the consolidation of power into the national government and to prevent any move to democracy. Only one institution needed to stay in place, to preserve what he called our “compound Republic.” This indispensable institution, he explained, “can only be . . . a senatorial institution.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 63, ¶10.
Hamilton explained how the Senate was supposed to work – “But lastly, the first and second clauses of the third section of the first article, . . . provides, that ‘the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF for six years’;” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 67, ¶11. Putting the Senate to a democratic vote destroys the Republican nature of the Senate and in turn our Compound Republic.
Democratic elections cannot work to preserve our Compound Republic. The Constitution, Hamilton explained, “committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures. This mode has, in such cases, vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 64, ¶3. (emphasis added)
It also destroys the Compound Republic because it takes the power of the states and delivers it over to the political parties which are unnamed, unconstitutional entities – “The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress.” Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39, ¶12.
As Madison explained, “The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. . . . Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence” on them. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 45, ¶4.
Hamilton concurred in Madison’s assessment: “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State Governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶8. The 17th Amendment destroyed this dependence and the double security.
Finally, if the first two options don’t work, there is a third option. The states can act the same way the people acted during Prohibition when they just simply ignored the 18th Amendment, which was the real reason for its repeal. If the states would just do the same thing and ignore the 17th Amendment then it would become unenforceable, and we could begin to repair our Republic.
"According to Madison, the Constitution created a 'compound republic.' "
And, by this reading, the 17th amendment undid the compound republic. Too bad for us, but legal. All the reasoning of the founders that you outline here can't undo it. Only a re-education of *current* citizenry can, so they can execute a new amendment.
"The 17th Amendment is patently unconstitutional because it fundamentally altered our Compound Republic."
Again, it may be a bad thing, but I disagree that it is unconstitutional. Literally *anything* may be altered in the existing Constitution by properly following the amendment procedure, and nothing subordinate to that (courts, legislatures, or founders' extra-constitutional arguments) can (legitimately) undo it. Sad, but true.
I sincerely appreciate your comments on this post because this is such an important topic that we do need “a re-education of *current* citizenry” to expose the unconstitutional actions of our government and with some of our amendments. I believe that discussions like this one can help with that re-education process.
In my prior post, I tried to explain the important legal principle through my severability discussion that contracts and laws are not necessarily legal just because they were formed through a procedurally sound legal process. This is an extremely important distinction with respect to the 17th Amendment. “Properly following the amendment procedure”, as you suggest, does not create an immovable legal object.
The 17th Amendment is one such example. The Constitution is a social contract between the government and the people. As in every contract, there has to be a meeting of the minds between the parties for it to be valid. Clearly, no one understood the impact that this amendment would have on our Compound Republic.
Also, as I noted, changes to a contract are not valid if that change conflicts with other provisions of the contract, which is what this Amendment did. A simple example of this would be for an amendment banning “hate speech” without addressing the provisions protecting “free speech” found in the First Amendment. The hate speech amendment would clearly conflict with the First Amendment and would have to be struck down by the courts.
Another example would be passing an amendment protecting the right to abortion without addressing the protections to life for “persons” who are “born” or unborn as clearly provided for under the 14th Amendment, Section 1. For some reason, no one ever raised this issue under the era of Roe v. Wade, but it is there nonetheless and should be used to sue in the states that are now passing abortion laws. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clearly conflicts with any supposed right to abortion, and it needs to be dealt with.
Like these prior examples, the 17th Amendment conflicts with all the other Republican clauses in the Constitution such as the Electoral College provisions and the Guarantee Clause of Article IV.
Changes that violate other legal principles are invalid as well. A good example would be a non-compete agreement between an employer and an employee. A simple amendment to that contract changing the length of the non-compete period from 1 year to 2-3 years would be unconstitutional, since that properly enacted amendment would basically change the contract into indentured servitude.
The 17th Amendment also violates the principle that everything has to be contained within the four corners of the document. Among the many genius provisions of our US Constitution, its foremost was the principles of checks and balances. Everyone knows about the checks and balances included in our Constitution that exist between the different branches of government, but very few even know about the checks and balances that exist between different levels of government.
The Constitution created a “double security” with the states so as to check the expansion, growth and power of the federal government. The 17th Amendment not only removed that power from the states but it handed it over to an extra-constitutional body otherwise known as political parties.
This power shift is not authorized in the 17th Amendment, and nowhere else in the Constitution as well. It would be like making an amendment in an import business contract between two parties in Mexico and the US where the amendment gives the power to control the importation of goods to the Cartel without mentioning the Cartel. This amendment would be patently illegal as is the transfer of the power of the states to control the federal government being given over to the political party Cartel.
I could go on but these examples sufficiently prove that believing that an amendment to the Constitution is valid simply because it is procedurally sound is nothing more than legal fiction.
John Leake
Bobby Kennedy is a kind, empathetic, and talented leader. I would be proud to have him as one of our country's very influential political leaders. Can you, by chance talk with him or try to convince him that our next President needs to be willing to exit the the WHO, most especially because of its recently Amended International Healthcare Regulations (IHRs) that allow the WHO to compel all its member nations to lockdown and to mandate their people take vaccines when the WHO solely announces an Emergency, which can include Climate Change Emergencies. I am concerned, from his answer to a question in a zoom meeting, that, as President, he would not exit the WHO. In his answer, he reiterated that he there is Climate Change, and that we should work to change the WHO "from within."
didn't TRUMP exit the WHO??! let's get him back
YES, he did!
Trump will win the election. Kennedy knows this, but agreed to campaign so that people could hear the truth about what has happened to the country since WWII.
I love RFK, and I know Trump will put him in an important position in his administration.
Trump might get the most votes, popular and electoral, but I seriously doubt he'll ever be allowed to win again.
Yes please! If we do not exit the WHO we will have no medical or political freedom or freedom of speech.
I have been writing comments on this substack that have expressed my deep sorrow and concern for the people of Lahaina and for their children, and have urged, to the point of being redundant, that attention be paid to their plight. So I cannot be accused of being calloused in my approach. Biblical Christianity has always stood for defending the weak, the widow, the orphan, the humble and the oppressed. The second commandment is to love one's neighbor as oneself.
The New Testament also reminds us, however, that the first commandment is to love God with all our hearts and our minds and our strength. From Genesis through Revelation, God, through His Son Jesus Christ, claims authority over creation. He is not a God who will countenance being lumped in with other religions and other sources of inspiration. Those who make no distinction between faith in Jesus Christ and other beliefs speak from inexcusable ignorance. Otherwise, they would understand that the Bible makes an absolute claim of exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ, and no other. That exclusivity takes priority over spiritual compromise to attain universal peace. Jesus Christ Himself stated, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." It is not a sword that Christians are permitted to wield. It is a sword that has been, is, and will continue to be used against them, for indicting sin in this world.
God does not speak through generic people. He speaks to us through His word, and as that word was being written and compiled, He spoke through the prophets. Anyone else who claimed authority to speak in His name, falsely, at a time when prophets were still writing and speaking, was to be put to death.
The comments you quoted, John, are not moving. They are not beautiful. God is not a He or a She or an It. These words are an egregious offense. I will not constrain my comments by saying this is my opinion. I will stand with the Bible and express myself in absolute terms: What was said was blasphemy. The fires of Lahaina, the fires that consume so many parts of our world, as devastating and tragic as they are, are not the fires to be feared. God save Mr. Kennedy, who, with his words, is playing with the most devastating fire of all.
Best comment ever. Thank you
Thank you, Sheila. I am heartbroken over all of this.
As am I. We all should be.
J.P. Kerber, your hostility to RFK Jr.'s remarks puzzles me. Surely you know that some translations adopted gender neutral language (NRSV among them, but even KJV in Mt 5:9 where "children" replaced "sons", as did the NIV). NRSV was published 35 years ago, long before "woke" was a thing. Do you attack the biblical scholars and pastors on the translation committees with the same enthusiasm with which you denounce RFK Jr.?
Regardless of that, however, your comment overlooks the appropriateness of a presidential candidate speaking in nonsectarian terms. Americans include people of all faiths, and people come to God by various paths, even if you sincerely believe that your path is the only one. Some scholars interpret John 14:6-7 as descriptive rather that prescriptive; that makes all the difference for your exclusivity claims, and aligns well with Romans 1-2. Apostle Paul hadn't heard of your claim that "He is not a God who will countenance being lumped in with other religions and other sources of inspiration." Paul's speech in Athens specifically placed God in the pantheon of Greek gods in an effort to help his listeners understand and relate to Him.
As for scriptures, you said that "God is not a He or a She or an It." And yet God is portrayed as each of those in scripture, or at least has been historically interpreted that way by various Christians. Most often as "He" but also analogous to a female figure and even in some historical characterizations of the Holy Spirit, a force. Sometimes God is portrayed nongendered and nonanthropomorphically (i.e., one might say an "It"). God is also portrayed as a lion, a lamb, and many other things. God is beyond human comprehension (Job 36:26). Do you understand God's nature? Is Mr. Kennedy wicked because he doesn't profess to?
How do you know that God doesn't speak through generic people? Does he really only speak through His word (by which I assume you mean the Bible)? Does God never speak through the Holy Spirit today? Does God not use people to reach others? Are all conceptions of God that differ from yours blasphemous?
Perhaps you should review Romans 1:28-31 and make sure you are none of those things, including maliciousness, strife, backbiters, proud, undiscerning, unloving, unmerciful. If you are anything on the list, then Rom. 1:32 says that you are deserving of death (the same judgment you pronounced upon those who speak for God without prophetic authority in past times). "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." (Rom. 2:1).
In reality, I believe God is gracious, and I suspect if Mr. Kennedy helps the widows and orphans, loves mercy, and walks humbly, that will weigh far more heavily on God's balance than whatever misgendering or misnaming of God Mr. Kennedy may have done.
Robert, in many respects, I cannot assimilate what you are saying. You seem to have one foot in the Bible, sort of, and the other in undermining its authority. You quote it in your penultimate paragraph as though you would like to use it as a sword to cut off my head, and I'm glad that, at least, you are reading Romans. But in your second paragraph you seem to think that political considerations override its demands, turning it from a sword into something of a wet noodle. So which is it? Overall, I get the impression that you are more far more lax in your approach toward the authority of the Bible than I am, so you and I are probably not speaking the same language. I can't answer questions you put to me that have assumptions about where I am coming from that aren't accurate. I consider the Word of God to be the very air that I breathe, authoritative in all matters of faith and practice. Nobody is forcing anyone to take my approach, but it is my approach.
Let me take your comments in order. You talk about Bible scholars and pastors, but they are not relevant to my post. Neither is your example of sons. First, the issue of "sons" to which you refer is part of an extensive debate about how to translate, into English, pronouns that are masculine in the original text, when they are used to refer to mixed-gender groups of humans. It is a translation issue where nobody's actual gender is being called into question. It has nothing to do with the pronouns that apply to God Himself, where the issue of mixed-gender groups does not even arise. If this is not obvious, write back and I will elaborate. Second, it sounds like you take your cues from various pastors and translations, and that is fine. I don't. (Don't get angry and start citing Romans again - I said what you do with translations is fine.) I consult the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, as the case may be and, for my own purposes, I do a very tight translation. So you are really not speaking to me or addressing the basis for my comments when you raise issues about how others treat the text. Besides, RFK, Jr. was not translating the Bible, so this is really not a translation issue.
My specific comment was that the statements made by RFK, Jr. are neither moving nor beautiful, as John Leake seems to view them. I was responding to Leake's comments in quoting RFK, Jr. not addressing a post made by Kennedy himself, so please keep the context in mind when you respond to what I was saying. Certainly, politicians can say anything they choose. If I were inclined to be a politician, however, I would have to ask what that would require, and if it would require that I speak in a way that was blasphemous toward God, then I would get out of politics. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a politician, nor is anyone forcing Mr. Kennedy to speak about God's gender. It was a pointed comment by virtue of the fact that it was gratuitous. I am unaware of any exception to the demands of the Bible for political speech. I, personally, cannot see how a born-again believer, who proclaims with Paul that they have died to themselves and live for Christ, could hold the office of president, because the demands of that office conflict with total allegiance to God.
Your unidentified "some scholars" are badly mistaken if they think the Bible teaches that one can have salvation in any way other than through obedient faith in Jesus Christ, and I will defend that position until I breathe my last breath. I am not basing this on one verse, although John 14:6-7 is about as plain as one can get. The message itself is the very fabric of Scripture. I worry, then, for you, because it seems you are listening to other voices, when we are told to test everything against the Scriptures themselves. I would encourage you to study the Bible for yourself, and to rely less on all these other pastors, scholars, and translators. Otherwise, you will end up using verses in the Bible selectively, to make the points you choose, or that you read in secondary sources, rather than following the discipline of understanding what the text really says and letting it act as a source of edification and correction.
I don't really understand your reference to Paul, Romans, and Athens. In the first place, Exodus 20:2-3 clearly states, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." That is a rather clear demand of exclusivity. Paul was thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew Bible, so when you say he had hadn't heard of my claim regarding not being lumped in with other gods, I think you are missing the first commandment and might not be familiar with Paul's background. You speak of Romans 1-2. Do you know what Paul is actually doing there, and why he is speaking the way he is? If so, tell me, so that I know we are on the same page. The reference to Athens does not appear in Romans, it appears in Acts 17. And if you think Paul is lumping God in with the gods of the Greek pantheon there, please tell me, also, and I will go over the passage in detail for you, and demonstrate that this is not the case. The Bible makes it clear that salvation is in Jesus Christ and no other, and that those who do not place their faith in Him will be judged and will face eternal destruction. Paul knew that, he preached that. I'm sorry if you don't like it, and you are free to hold your own views, but you cannot tell me the Bible says something other than this.
I have no idea which passages you refer to when you speak of the Holy Spirit as a force. If you tell me what you are referring to, I will go to the original text and respond. In any event, the use of analogies, metaphors and anthropomorphisms has nothing to do with references to God's gender. In Matthew 23:37 Jesus Christ said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." Nobody can reasonably argue that this means Jesus Christ was a woman or should be referred to with feminine pronouns. The God of the Bible refers to Himself in the masculine gender. In the Bible, He does not, Israel did not, and the authors of the New Testament books did not, refer to God as a woman or as an "it." You ask me if I understand God's nature. I know what the Bible tells me about His glorious nature. You ask me if Mr. Kennedy is wicked. I didn't say he is wicked (although the Bible condemns all of us, in our natural state, as evil). In any event, I said he is playing with fire. The Bible is there for him to read, and I hope he does. As with everyone else, if one does not have faith in Jesus Christ, then one will not see eternal life. I didn't write that, the prophets and the apostles did.
I surmise in your next question, that you are thinking of a very specific passage, but this is not the place to get into a lengthy discussion of God speaking through an ass. The Bible is clear that men and women, in their natural state, do not understand the things of God, and that His Word alone is our source of understanding. I know of no biblical teaching that God uses unsaved men or women to speak to others. I know of the clear teaching of the Bible that says He does not. That is how I know. To continue with your questions, God does use people to reach others. They are believers who share the gospel. Your question about speaking through the Holy Spirit is too general, in its phraseology, to attempt to answer here. If you will be more specific, about what it is that you have in mind - charismatics? being moved by the Holy Spirit? I will respond. Your question about all conceptions of God is taking a leap that is wholly unwarranted by what I have written.
All I will say about your paragraph where you would like to use Romans to chop my head off is that you are misreading it, and misreading me.
Yes, God is gracious. That is why He sent His son to die on a cross, as payment for our sins. What you think is not what matters. The words you speak conflict with the words He has given us. God does not balance the good we do. He either sees us through the blood of Jesus Christ, or we do not belong to Him. We have no merit of our own. If we walk in true humility, that humility is the work of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. It is the same with every other virtue. We are selfish to the core. We must be transformed by God, through the work of His Spirit, after we put our faith in Jesus Christ. Your comments suggest to me that you do not have a true understanding of the gospel, that you have not been born again. We are not born with an understanding of the gospel, so that is not a criticism. It is an invitation - please read the Bible and ask that God will open His word for you to understand it and find eternal life.
J.P. Kerber: LOL! No, I don’t want to cut off your head—with scripture or anything else. If it sounded like that it was because that’s how the scriptural passage comes across to one who reads the Bible in the way that you do. I quoted from the passage in Romans because it illustrates how a fundamentalist reading of scripture can lead to some awful applications, and mirrors how you came across in your original post. I thought you might profit by hearing how it sounds coming from someone else.
I don’t want to hijack this thread for an extended soteriological discussion so will try to keep this focused on the question of whether Mr. Kennedy is a blasphemer headed to hellfire barring divine intervention (and perhaps Mr. Leake as well for the sin of calling this alleged blasphemy “beautiful”).
The question of translations **does** speak to you despite your ability to read in the original languages because it highlights the condemnation you bring to the many Christian pastors, scholars, and lay members who disagree with you on this issue. I agree that the main focus of gender-neutral translations is on pronouns applying to humans, not God. But extending that to God is a hot topic of debate now. The RJPS, for example, has removed all pronouns for God for this reason. As just one example of Christian efforts, see the UMC’s resolution that “United Methodist clergy and laity be encouraged to use diverse biblical images and titles for God, including masculine/feminine metaphors…” I’m not a fan of gender-neutral speech; it sounds awkward to my ears. But regardless of whether we like or agree with gender-neutral translations, there are believers who do, and the issue I’m raising is the need for tolerance, humility and Christian charity, especially in the context of community, including our shared national life. The Left has become intolerant, as evidenced by censoring, deplatforming, mandates, etc.; is that how we want this country to be?
From your comments, I suspect that you would condemn non-Christians, Catholics, mainline Protestants, charismatics, anyone who is not an inerrantist, and perhaps (?) all non-cessationists and non-dispensationalists as well. You seem so confident in your own abilities that you insist your interpretation of scripture is the correct one and that the views of others—including biblical scholars and pastors, or believers with a different interpretation—don’t contribute to your understanding.
As for Jn 14:6-7, I don’t know how to be more clear than to repeat that it can be interpreted as descriptive rather than prescriptive. By that I mean that one doesn’t have to say a few magic words to be saved. One can be saved without knowing the name of Jesus Christ or anything about his life/death/resurrection. That is what Romans 1-2 describes, not to mention most of the Old Testament. (That doesn’t mean salvation isn’t through Christ—that’s the descriptive aspect).
Regarding Athens etc., your claim was about God not countenancing being “lumped in with other religions and other sources of inspiration,” not a claim of exclusivity or priority, which is a different matter. My point is that Paul was willing to contextualize the Hebrew God in order to make Him accessable to the Greeks, capitalizing on their placeholder for the “unknown god” memorialized in their statuary along with their other gods. Paul did not pursue a confrontational “my God against yours” approach, but rather placed his God amongst theirs, then argued for His superiority. Of course Paul, as a 1st century well-trained Pharisaic Jew, would have been a monotheist, but he still pursued this peaceful approach. You argue that exclusivity takes priority over peace. I’m suggesting that Paul pursued a peaceful way in this instance.
You said that "God is not a He or a She or an It." You implied that saying so was blasphemous. What, then, should God be called, and what pronouns used? How is using these very words of scripture blasphemous? “He” is used in nearly every English translation ever made. Were all those translators, the pastors who preached from them, the laypeople who memorized and quoted them—all blasphemers? And yes, you did in effect say that Mr. Kennedy is going to be burned in hellfire unless God saves him from his current blasphemous path. Perhaps you’d include Mr. Leake in that warning as well since he found these allegedly blasphemous words beautiful.
You misquoted me w/r/t God as force. I didn’t refer to verses referring to the Holy Spirit as a force; I referred to “some historical characterizations of the Holy Spirit” as a force. This is not orthodox trinitarian doctrine, but one can’t argue that there isn’t at least some scriptural basis for the interpretation. Jesus, for example, used the illustration of wind blowing where it will in describing the Holy Spirit’s work. Again, I’m not arguing for the correctness of that or any other interpretation; I’m arguing that there are many views on the nature of God and how to refer to Him, and denouncing as blasphemers those who don’t share your interpretation or nomenclature is not helpful.
You said, “The Bible is clear that men and women, in their natural state, do not understand the things of God, and that His Word alone is our source of understanding.” I refer you again to Rom. 1-2. You continued, “I know of no biblical teaching that God uses unsaved men or women to speak to others.” I offer the counterexample of Pharaoh who received a dream from God that led to the salvation of Israel from starvation. Joseph provided the interpretation, but Pharaoh was the one who received the dream. Similarly for Nebuchadnezzar and his dream. I’m not judging whether either of the recipients were “saved” or not, but the evidence is that at the time of receipt they were not. Was Balaam saved when God spoke through him to bless Israel (recall that Balaam then worked with Balak to lead Israel into adultery at Peor, Num. 31:16)? Were Saul and his servants saved when they prophesied as recorded in I Sam. 19:20-24? I could go on, but I’ll leave this topic by noting that Jesus’ followers were accused by the Pharisees of blasphemy when they praised him as the Messiah; Jesus replied that even the rocks would cry out if the people were silenced (Luke 19:40). The Bible teaches that God can speak through the unsaved, animals, and yes, rocks.
Regarding the last paragraph, of course I don’t think God literally balances our good vs. bad deeds to determine our fate. But the metaphor is biblical (Dan 5:25; I Sam 2:3; Prov. 16:2; Job 31:6) and reflects other ANE traditions such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, where the dead appear before Osiris and their hearts are weighed against truth, represented by a feather. Micah 6:8 says, “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” It was this text that I was alluding to, and I stand by my statement that this is more important to God than what one calls Him (see also Mt. 7:21).
I’ve voted Republican or Libertarian all my life. Yet, the GOP has led us into some terrible wars and voted for laws like the Patriot Act that have eroded our civil liberties. Mr. Kennedy intrigues me. Not that I agree with all his positions; not at all. But, he interests me because of the personal integrity he has displayed at high cost, and because I think he may be the candidate most likely to restore and respect the constitution.
Thanks for the discussion. I'll let you have the last word. :-)
From the New Oxford American Dictionary, the word "blasphemy" is defined as "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God..."
From the same source, the definition of "sacrilege" is "violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred."
From Leviticus 22:32 "You shall not profane My holy name."
The reference to God's gender is part of what is holy about His name because, as used in the Hebrew Bible, "My holy name" means more than His official titles. It means His character, including gender and its associations, in its entirety. See, for example, Ezekial 36:23, where it is clear that, when Israel profaned the name of God among the nations, the offense was not that Israel used the word YHWH in a careless manner. They misrepresented God's character through their behavior. God's name, His character, His gender, the way in which Israel was to sanctify Him before the nations - anything that has to do with the way God is portrayed or characterized, these are all part of what is sacred. Therefore, to violate what is sacred is sacrilege and to speak in a sacrilegious manner is blasphemy.
The Bible does not use feminine or neuter-gender pronouns when it speaks of God. It is as simple as that. Whatever translators choose to do with their reference to mixed-gender groups of people is a different issue, because people are not sacred.
In our world, it has been made patently obvious that referring to a person using a gendered pronoun that is not to their liking is nearly as bad as the unpardonable sin. How can anyone then claim that changing the gender by which the Creator of the universe has chosen to refer to Himself is not an offense of the highest order? You defend those who treat God, in an abhorrent manner, as a transgendered being?
When you extrapolate to what people are doing with the word of God in regard to the gender of God, you seem to assume that by virtue of the currency of the debate that every opinion has legitimacy. That is not true. No shortage exists of people - prominent, credentialled, educated, revered, inside the churches, outside the churches, who have no qualms about altering the Word of God to suit their purposes and come under the clear condemnation of the Bible. We have been warned that in the end times the church itself will be apostate. So your reference to debates about what to do with the gender references of God are unconvincing.
You say, "regardless of whether we like or agree with gender-neutral translations, there are believers who do, and the issue I'm raising is the need for tolerance, humility and Christian charity, especially in the context of community, including our shared national life." As with Romans, you are misapplying every one of the concepts to which you refer. Nowhere does the Bible teach that a believer is to compromise truth in the interest of "tolerance." When the Bible speaks of humility, it does not mean subverting what the Word of God teaches. The Bible knows nothing of charitable acceptance of blasphemy, and I have no idea what community you are talking about. Show me one verse, apart from those that speak of the nation of Israel, where a believer's concern is to be for a "shared national life." Rather, see John 18:36. A true believer does not consider this world to be her or his home. When I am instructed to love my neighbor, I am instructed to put their interests ahead of mine. I am not instructed to put their interests ahead of God Himself.
You are offended by my confidence. Jesus Christ does not approach the world, hat in hand, doing whatever it takes to avoid causing offense, saying whatever is necessary to get people to approve of His words. I will not waffle, I will not equivocate, and I will not take a defensive position with respect to my faith. I will not apologize for it, or take back what I wrote.
You refer to Paul's peaceful approach in Athens. Always peaceful, always tolerant, making sure the community does not suffer disruption. So please explain 1 Corinthians 16:22 and Galatians 1:7-9.
You concern yourself with politics in a world that is reserved for destruction by fire (2 Peter 3:7) and you place your hope in Kennedy who, like all other men, is made like the grass (Isaiah 51:12). In doing this, you are wasting your life.
You say, "One can be saved without knowing the name of Jesus Christ or anything about his life/death/resurrection." Acts 4:12 says, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." You refer to the Word of God and at the same time you deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. As long as you maintain this position, tell me how you are any different from those referred to by the apostle Paul in the first chapter of Galatians.
Well, I am trying to post a response, but substack is asking for a shorter comment, and I have no idea what the algorithm has in mind. I'll try to figure out what to do.
There is a reason why RFK Jr. is being censored everywhere. If the whole nation would listen to him speak, many people would realize how bad politics and politicians have been in recent years.
Our country and society is falling apart, mostly because of a few people driving this destruction for their own profits. We do need someone like RFK Jr. who can unite us as one nation, heal our society and heal our country. There are not many people out there who are capable of doing this, he is one of the very few or maybe the only one.
We all need to come to our senses and realize what is important. If we let this great and potentially last opportunity to turn this nation around slip away, we will face the same consequences as the Roman Empire.
RFK is an admirable, courageous human being who by all accounts wants to do “the right thing”. Unfortunately he & many of our fellow citizens seem to completely underestimate the hatred the left has for our country & anyone who disagrees with their plans for us. They intend to to their best to destroy all western values, eliminate law & order, erase women, divide families, kill babies, mutilate children, ultimately decriminalize pedophelia, discriminate ( or worse) against believers , & continue it rip us off in the name of climate change. Just think of anything good & they want to destroy it. From the top down, that’s what the democrat party has come to represent. It may only be a “few”, but I sure haven’t heard any speak out against this evil agenda. We need leadership that understands the dire straits we’re in.
no more silver spoon boys from old prominent CORRUPT families...
I really really like him and have followed his vaccine research for years. Unfortunately he sometimes spouts some crazy leftist ideas. We'll see!
exactly...completely untrustworthy so far...
SIGN THE KENNEDY/DOWD DOCTRINE and then we'll talk...
Very deep, very real, very admirable.
The HI state officials must've succeeded to the 5G craze, the Globalist agenda, to have accepted such an orchestrated arsen/utility failure/police compliance/Directed energy Weapons attack, as has been displayed upon these innocent souls. I respect RFK, Jr., but he should be aligning with the Hawaiian Indigenous Elders who are giving a Cease and Desist Order to the Globalists/WEF, US Space Force, etc. for exactly the above mentioned. Another Substance by Reinette [Seimmons], yesterday, gives the details. Awaken to their plan, asap.
Too bad he felt he had to qualify God with He or Her. Seems sort of silly.
But oh so much better than old creeper.
DO NOT BE A SLAVE TO EVILS,,,,,#DONOTCOMPLY
Living Thankfully
“As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.”— Colossians 2:6–7 🙏