It becomes clearer each day that Sarte's contentless and terminal "hope" is more a manner of vanity and pride of place and (baleful) influence than anything else. It in fact qualifies on every level as, "strongholds...arguments and every pretension that sets itself against the knowledge of God..." (2 Cor 10:5) Not to mention denial and self delusion. (But as for the alcoholic, misery loves company and social proof.)
I have come to the conclusion that, as I do weaken with aging, I really have too many opportunities of a worldish nature, and less and less time to fool around with them. "Look, it's really quite simple...
..."
The simplicity of the Gospel leads to The Basic Axiom, which is summed up in some of today's reading from the book and chapter noted above: referring to such plain wisdom as, "set no wicked thing before your eyes." Because if you do, you see, you will be left with Sartre's empty thought and nothing else--but still the Specific Content of God will not, and never, go away. Pascal's wager keeps popping up--but with this difference, as Lewis said: this particular story happens to be true--I might add, on every possible level.
Let it never be forgotten that Sartre from age 7 up, hated God. His reasoning is/was sensate. The resentment of being one-upped in wisdom or authority or autonomy is probably the chief weapon (besides surprise) of all who hate God and need some kind of tangled rationale to dispose of Him. In that case, the philosopher can't even count on luck; supposing there is such a thing, which I cannot assume on any level. The power of self-deception is amazing--but it cannot move mountains and remains in the valley of decision like Godot's clueless tramps and Beckett himself.
Recently I have been quite discouraged--but I realized I was putting my nature and well-being at the disposal of almost anyone or anything besides God. Like a true Pharisee, I was focusing on the superficiality of evil as if it alone had any substance. But as noted above, in the end its substance is the null set. And this is entirely the opposite of life in and through and with Christ. Rather than focusing on legions, I find there is too much fermentation and mindless froth in the world to be taken up with it, or with people's weak points--I have too many of my own.
Aside: The matter of Entertainment has reached the king of boiling point of fecundity noted in Chapter 10 of "A Pilgrim at Tinker's Creek"--unsupportable at its present level, having only a faux influence but it's enough for the majority, all right. We certainly prefer a fiddle and the spectacle of Rome burning.
I also realized that there is plenty of Philippians 4:8 at my disposal that can be readily accessed if I will take even a little time to, "think upon these things," and to leave all the rest behind. It is as Jesus said about the little man who swept and garnished his little home, only to end up 7x worse than before, and without a proper exterminator --but Christ. It's not a matter of hosing the place down but doing as the Marys did--sitting at His feet while the opportunity--soon in the past--presents itself.
Hope...has a face. Hope...is a Person. Hope is open and ready for "whosoever will." I can be stubborn and end up with a "handful of pebbles," as one despondent "higher critic" noted, looking back. (And I have enough to criticize within myself to have time to serve it up it up for others who don't want it in the first place; much less judging God's Word and Spirit according to my faintness and ever- dimming sight.) Or one can arrange for a meeting...
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Living on Burrowed Holiness
Pilate's Cave, anyone?
Calvin's Dad: " It takes about 100,000 dollars to raise a child. Now, (to Calvin) you have to ask yourself; is that a Gift? Or a loan?"
The laws of men are by their very derivative and unoriginal nature, reactionary. Not only that, they are like a horde of bank robbers; like Willie Sutton, they go to the branch banks where the money is. They, like even the laws of the OT, are so intertwined with, and actually dependent on, evil, that sooner or later it is hard to tell the difference, and laws themselves become agents of evil--c.f. Animal Farm, Brave New World, Nazi and Leninist philosophy and purges, and so on. Our own laws--which we seem disinclined to change because, above all, we fear the fussy and loud media Lords who can lead to our being shunned and disenfranchised.
Maybe that's a good thing.
What I do not want is to retreat into a Plato's cave of obscurantism and self-righteousness, like the evil dwarves of Narnia, always retreating from the light and in particular from Aslan. Their mantra is, "The dwarves are for the dwarves."
But all that is not of Christ will pass away. Many of our laws are becoming unenforceable because no one has time to follow them all much less read them all. Hence we are all criminals unawares, continually, every day transgressing against McState. (And their banks and all their lawyers too).
And again, "What's done for Christ will last." And I add,"all else dies in the past." He does expect us to endure; but not to change what can't be changed.
Calvin's Dad: " It takes about 100,000 dollars to raise a child. Now, (to Calvin) you have to ask yourself; is that a Gift? Or a loan?"
The laws of men are by their very derivative and unoriginal nature, reactionary. Not only that, they are like a horde of bank robbers; like Willie Sutton, they go to the branch banks where the money is. They, like even the laws of the OT, are so intertwined with, and actually dependent on, evil, that sooner or later it is hard to tell the difference, and laws themselves become agents of evil--c.f. Animal Farm, Brave New World, Nazi and Leninist philosophy and purges, and so on. Our own laws--which we seem disinclined to change because, above all, we fear the fussy and loud media Lords who can lead to our being shunned and disenfranchised.
Maybe that's a good thing.
What I do not want is to retreat into a Plato's cave of obscurantism and self-righteousness, like the evil dwarves of Narnia, always retreating from the light and in particular from Aslan. Their mantra is, "The dwarves are for the dwarves."
But all that is not of Christ will pass away. Many of our laws are becoming unenforceable because no one has time to follow them all much less read them all. Hence we are all criminals unawares, continually, every day transgressing against McState. (And their banks and all their lawyers too).
And again, "What's done for Christ will last." And I add,"all else dies in the past." He does expect us to endure; but not to change what can't be changed.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
LIVING ON BORROWED HOLINESS
In his acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize, Alexander Solzhenitsyn quoted at the outset the "pithy" Russian proverb, "Men have forgotten God, that is why all these things have happened. The Bible makes it plainer yet:"There is no Fear of God in their eyes." Hence, "every man does what is right in his own eyes." (Until the tyrannies arrive in force, or outside forces conquer)
There are I suppose two general sources of fear; the seen and the unseen. I'll let the reader decide which is scarier. In our world we treat ourselves to fear, as an entertainment. But in reality it is no different than it ever has been. We fear circumstances and people. We fear death, pain, suffering that has no meaning or purpose that we can see (the unseen again, and the "why?") and we fear separation from or disapproval of, loved ones, culture, society, institutions of approbation or cursing, and the list goes clear across all of Creation.
But as Jesus told Martha about her sister: "One Thing is needful and your sister has chosen the better part."
I am suspecting that, even with Jesus' friendship, Mary knew she was in the Presence, something which Martha also would confess later at Lazarus' tomb. She knew a Person inspiring Intense Fear and Fascination conmingled with Tenderest Mercies. Complete in One Person in front of her: Martha and Mary have seen the Face of Incarnate Love and Justice, and not only survived, but thrived.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe." (So there, Thomas!) "My Lord and my God!" (So there, us!!!)
to be continued, "should anybody ask..."
There are I suppose two general sources of fear; the seen and the unseen. I'll let the reader decide which is scarier. In our world we treat ourselves to fear, as an entertainment. But in reality it is no different than it ever has been. We fear circumstances and people. We fear death, pain, suffering that has no meaning or purpose that we can see (the unseen again, and the "why?") and we fear separation from or disapproval of, loved ones, culture, society, institutions of approbation or cursing, and the list goes clear across all of Creation.
But as Jesus told Martha about her sister: "One Thing is needful and your sister has chosen the better part."
I am suspecting that, even with Jesus' friendship, Mary knew she was in the Presence, something which Martha also would confess later at Lazarus' tomb. She knew a Person inspiring Intense Fear and Fascination conmingled with Tenderest Mercies. Complete in One Person in front of her: Martha and Mary have seen the Face of Incarnate Love and Justice, and not only survived, but thrived.
"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe." (So there, Thomas!) "My Lord and my God!" (So there, us!!!)
to be continued, "should anybody ask..."
Saturday, October 13, 2012
THE PERMANENT THINGS
This of course is a phrase from T S Eliot, my middle namesake, although I do not know the context. Mr. Sherwood Sugden, Dennis' friend and publisher, published at least two books on Eliot, including one by this title; written by one of Eliot's best American friends, Russell Kirk. (CAPTAIN Kirk to you my friends!)
Both Sherwood and Eliot were purveyors of the "moral imagination," and conservative moral philosophers. To say they were intellectuals would be an understatement. But as such, they tend to treasure ideas as being, well, above beings. They find the concept of God helpful, but the "idea" of a personal intimate relationship with God they find, well, unimaginable--perhaps by the token of it being, well, uncontrollable! Ideas per se may have some permanent roots in someone beyond our capacity to imagine (insert Heaven here)--but on the other hand, they may only have the appearance of permanence, like the worldwide presence of various forms of pyramids (not to forget their schemes!) whose original has been erased at Babel.
Ideas, like computers, may seem to have a life of their own, beyond the scope of man or God--yet God says quite clearly, "Stop judging by appearances, and use right judgement." That is from Jesus, by the way, the Prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:14. "Ideas have consequences," true--but do we really think our perception of "good" ideas is more important than, say, God's Laws? Which in the NT become the schoolmasters of desperation to bring to us the futility of both law and imagination, culture and society, and all our attempts to redeem ourselves by reinterpreting what has been said ever-so-clearly by Christ? "Effrontery" would also be an understatement in this context.
(As if to prove my point, my computer shut me out after the first sentence of the preceding paragraph as it needed to "re-interpret" Windows for me. Thank God for Autosave!)
The point being, as I have always averred in these pages, is that materialism dictates that ideas, morals, ethics especially, outlast any given person. Which is like saying we have only One Real Culture, if we would just admit it. The Bible throughout, but most clearly in Christ, says quite the opposite. So that our responsibilities are Permanent Things and of eternal import. We can be forgiven of our many flawed ideas and icons--if we can put Christ and even our souls above and beyond their reach. It is called, "surrender," not to philosophy and the love of rhetoric, but to an Actual Ever-Persistent Person. And this can only begin and end with The Person of God Himself.
In Deut. 18 for instance Moses says not that God will raise up new and better laws and concepts and I-Deals, but that He would raise up a prophet, precisely because the people at Sinai protested that they no longer wanted to experience God directly--as if they actually had, since they experienced only manifestations, not the Fullness of the Godhead as such; and Moses experienced much more than they did, and he wasn't complaining! (Please also note that Sinai is not a pyramid!)
"I will put My Words in His Mouth (caps mine) and He will tell them everything I command Him."
"I come to do My Father's will."
To say that intellectuals, conservative or other, cannot countenance such "ideas" i.e. what I call the Whole Person, whose brain cannot even imagine his own self, much less his own soul or spirit; is to me stating the obvious, again and again. It gets rather tedious, or would be if the Trinity were not so Infinitely Interesting and Deep. My attempts to put this on paper, or be convincing, is merely evidence that I left parts of my heart and soul in San Francisco at the City Lights bookstore. Sad to say. Pray for me, "now and in the hour of my death..."
Both Sherwood and Eliot were purveyors of the "moral imagination," and conservative moral philosophers. To say they were intellectuals would be an understatement. But as such, they tend to treasure ideas as being, well, above beings. They find the concept of God helpful, but the "idea" of a personal intimate relationship with God they find, well, unimaginable--perhaps by the token of it being, well, uncontrollable! Ideas per se may have some permanent roots in someone beyond our capacity to imagine (insert Heaven here)--but on the other hand, they may only have the appearance of permanence, like the worldwide presence of various forms of pyramids (not to forget their schemes!) whose original has been erased at Babel.
Ideas, like computers, may seem to have a life of their own, beyond the scope of man or God--yet God says quite clearly, "Stop judging by appearances, and use right judgement." That is from Jesus, by the way, the Prophet spoken of in Deut. 18:14. "Ideas have consequences," true--but do we really think our perception of "good" ideas is more important than, say, God's Laws? Which in the NT become the schoolmasters of desperation to bring to us the futility of both law and imagination, culture and society, and all our attempts to redeem ourselves by reinterpreting what has been said ever-so-clearly by Christ? "Effrontery" would also be an understatement in this context.
(As if to prove my point, my computer shut me out after the first sentence of the preceding paragraph as it needed to "re-interpret" Windows for me. Thank God for Autosave!)
The point being, as I have always averred in these pages, is that materialism dictates that ideas, morals, ethics especially, outlast any given person. Which is like saying we have only One Real Culture, if we would just admit it. The Bible throughout, but most clearly in Christ, says quite the opposite. So that our responsibilities are Permanent Things and of eternal import. We can be forgiven of our many flawed ideas and icons--if we can put Christ and even our souls above and beyond their reach. It is called, "surrender," not to philosophy and the love of rhetoric, but to an Actual Ever-Persistent Person. And this can only begin and end with The Person of God Himself.
In Deut. 18 for instance Moses says not that God will raise up new and better laws and concepts and I-Deals, but that He would raise up a prophet, precisely because the people at Sinai protested that they no longer wanted to experience God directly--as if they actually had, since they experienced only manifestations, not the Fullness of the Godhead as such; and Moses experienced much more than they did, and he wasn't complaining! (Please also note that Sinai is not a pyramid!)
"I will put My Words in His Mouth (caps mine) and He will tell them everything I command Him."
"I come to do My Father's will."
To say that intellectuals, conservative or other, cannot countenance such "ideas" i.e. what I call the Whole Person, whose brain cannot even imagine his own self, much less his own soul or spirit; is to me stating the obvious, again and again. It gets rather tedious, or would be if the Trinity were not so Infinitely Interesting and Deep. My attempts to put this on paper, or be convincing, is merely evidence that I left parts of my heart and soul in San Francisco at the City Lights bookstore. Sad to say. Pray for me, "now and in the hour of my death..."
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Compare and Contrast
Deuteronomy 16 and Isaiah 29 esp:1-4. "Your voice will come ghostlike from the earth." "Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel."
Gal. 1--"You began well--what happened?" Being blessed is a massive responsibility...which becomes harder and greater as time goes on. (Non-entropy here)
Gal. 1--"You began well--what happened?" Being blessed is a massive responsibility...which becomes harder and greater as time goes on. (Non-entropy here)
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Beyond the Pale...
Dr. Stephen J. Gould the prime mover of evolutionary theory of his time, recent head of Harvard dept. of paleontology:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils...yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."
Dr. Colin Patterson former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, private correspondence: "If I knew of any, fossil or living, (transitional forms) I would certainly have included them...yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Dr. Mark Ridley, Oxford zoologist: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist (Gould), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Dennis, I can tell you this--I have always been fascinated by the fossil record, showing as it does incredible life forms all the way through. But when I started, I was only barely aware of the theory of evolution. I can say during my days of study, I was impartial in regards to origins. In fact, I found the question of origins irrelevant even to my deepest study of the fossil record. I knew little of Darwin, and had little use for him, until long after medical school. So I was never a Darwinist, at least not a socially and culturally committed one such as populate our airwaves today. I actually started to study the Bible in 1979, and after that it became an issue; and I immediately became aware of the fatal flaws of Darwinism shortly after that. Although the seeds were planted by my Shimer college "hard science" professor of chemistry who was also our pre-med adviser. He was a great fan of both Dobzhansky and more so of Michael Polyani. But he gave me an article called: "Heresy in the Halls of Darwin: Mathematicians Question Evolution." Not only are there no transitional forms, there is not nearly enough time to transition from one species to another by any proposed or known mechanism. At least nothing under the rubric of purely material causes, which "science" supposedly requires.
got to go, more later perhaps
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils...yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study."
Dr. Colin Patterson former senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, private correspondence: "If I knew of any, fossil or living, (transitional forms) I would certainly have included them...yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils... I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
Dr. Mark Ridley, Oxford zoologist: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist (Gould), uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
Dennis, I can tell you this--I have always been fascinated by the fossil record, showing as it does incredible life forms all the way through. But when I started, I was only barely aware of the theory of evolution. I can say during my days of study, I was impartial in regards to origins. In fact, I found the question of origins irrelevant even to my deepest study of the fossil record. I knew little of Darwin, and had little use for him, until long after medical school. So I was never a Darwinist, at least not a socially and culturally committed one such as populate our airwaves today. I actually started to study the Bible in 1979, and after that it became an issue; and I immediately became aware of the fatal flaws of Darwinism shortly after that. Although the seeds were planted by my Shimer college "hard science" professor of chemistry who was also our pre-med adviser. He was a great fan of both Dobzhansky and more so of Michael Polyani. But he gave me an article called: "Heresy in the Halls of Darwin: Mathematicians Question Evolution." Not only are there no transitional forms, there is not nearly enough time to transition from one species to another by any proposed or known mechanism. At least nothing under the rubric of purely material causes, which "science" supposedly requires.
got to go, more later perhaps
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Rachel, Rachel, I've been thinking...
Reading an article about Seward and Lincoln, and how America elected a President that had virtually no foreign policy experience--still often true--and how "Seward's Folly" turned out to be a wise investment, etc.
But it brought to mind how much the Republican party was brought to life as a response to pro-slavery Democrats. The Whig party, and the Know-Nothings, were not enough by any means; yet we seem to have reverted to the same sort of policies that characterized the pre-Republicans. (pre-abolitionists as well)
Democracy per se always falls on its own sword, because it panders to impulses of the moment. Schoolchildren were taught this in the past, via the Greek and Roman experiments, as showing the need for a balance of powers. But recall (and this is even recapped in Star Wars!) that Rome's strength was predicated on intact family systems to oppose the will of the general public, and that their Republic was undone by the idea of democracy which quickly and as always devolved into the Imperium. "A Republic, if you can keep it." Ben knew his history, obviously; but we have forgotten it in our rush towards bread and circuses. In fact, it could well be argued that our politics now center around entertainment; and the party of Hollywood, which specializes in instant gratification, is now the de facto ruling party of the nation--and it is unlikely that anything but the hand of God could reverse it. (which of course he is doing--but will it take another 2000 years?
I thoroughly believe that God put Lincoln in place, not merely to save the Union and Federalism, but to preserve us from, "every man does what is right in his own eyes." I have quoted Ibsen before in these pages, who said that, "The minority is sometimes right; but the majority is always wrong." This idea is the only way--by the grace of God--that Lincoln, a depressive, could endure his maximally strident opposition from virtually all sides--the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herods and Caesar's of his own day--as it is in ours--but Lincoln could never be elected in our day. These four powers hold absolute and de facto cooperative sway in USA Today--and worldwide....knit together inseparably by gross materialism. They may fight over ownership of their "things," but otherwise they are all disciples of Darwinian Mechanisms, hence philosophically irreducibly linked.
And let it be pointed out that it was the vast majority in Judah that killed the One Person sent who could have been, at the very least, their Lincoln, who indeed, as Isaiah said, came to set the captives free. This analogy does not go very far--but it does suggest that pure democracy can never be anything but an enemy to truth--especially hard and ugly and inconvenient truths, which it "suppresses in unrighteousness." (c.f. Judges)
It is small wonder that both our politics and our godz are like Molech-worship, anti-family, anti-natal, and known best for their advocacy of, shall we say, "free love." That this is prone both to despotism and self-destruction should be obvious, but no matter hoTw many historical examples, and no matter how many "Professor Gadget godz" we go through with constant disappointment yet always clamoring for more (and fewer sacrifices for children, and the more sacrifices OF children); the more we ignore the silent cries of those we persecute to death, and the millions more of oppressed peoples we ignore become, "legion"--and more and more legions against us and our self righteous ways.
I do not make excuses for the present day Republican Party; neither party could be the party of Lincoln, because both are parties that pander to our basest emotions, and both are largely reactionary in the worst sorts of ways.
Neither party will stop the slaughter.
And because of this, we will diminish not only in stature and reputation, but will be considered worldwide as a hypocritical example of mass degradation and living for ourselves. "Imperial Washington" is upon us, Samson, as Delilah sniggers behind the arras.
We forget that "the greatest generation," was raised in almost always intact families, both nuclear and extended-- yet one that betrayed itself by asserting free and easy divorce in the free and easy post war years--hence devouring not only themselves but selling their children and grandchildren down the river for a bowl of red stew. Not funny, McGee.
Jer 31:15: fulfilled by Herod and the Imperiums of today: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
But it brought to mind how much the Republican party was brought to life as a response to pro-slavery Democrats. The Whig party, and the Know-Nothings, were not enough by any means; yet we seem to have reverted to the same sort of policies that characterized the pre-Republicans. (pre-abolitionists as well)
Democracy per se always falls on its own sword, because it panders to impulses of the moment. Schoolchildren were taught this in the past, via the Greek and Roman experiments, as showing the need for a balance of powers. But recall (and this is even recapped in Star Wars!) that Rome's strength was predicated on intact family systems to oppose the will of the general public, and that their Republic was undone by the idea of democracy which quickly and as always devolved into the Imperium. "A Republic, if you can keep it." Ben knew his history, obviously; but we have forgotten it in our rush towards bread and circuses. In fact, it could well be argued that our politics now center around entertainment; and the party of Hollywood, which specializes in instant gratification, is now the de facto ruling party of the nation--and it is unlikely that anything but the hand of God could reverse it. (which of course he is doing--but will it take another 2000 years?
I thoroughly believe that God put Lincoln in place, not merely to save the Union and Federalism, but to preserve us from, "every man does what is right in his own eyes." I have quoted Ibsen before in these pages, who said that, "The minority is sometimes right; but the majority is always wrong." This idea is the only way--by the grace of God--that Lincoln, a depressive, could endure his maximally strident opposition from virtually all sides--the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herods and Caesar's of his own day--as it is in ours--but Lincoln could never be elected in our day. These four powers hold absolute and de facto cooperative sway in USA Today--and worldwide....knit together inseparably by gross materialism. They may fight over ownership of their "things," but otherwise they are all disciples of Darwinian Mechanisms, hence philosophically irreducibly linked.
And let it be pointed out that it was the vast majority in Judah that killed the One Person sent who could have been, at the very least, their Lincoln, who indeed, as Isaiah said, came to set the captives free. This analogy does not go very far--but it does suggest that pure democracy can never be anything but an enemy to truth--especially hard and ugly and inconvenient truths, which it "suppresses in unrighteousness." (c.f. Judges)
It is small wonder that both our politics and our godz are like Molech-worship, anti-family, anti-natal, and known best for their advocacy of, shall we say, "free love." That this is prone both to despotism and self-destruction should be obvious, but no matter hoTw many historical examples, and no matter how many "Professor Gadget godz" we go through with constant disappointment yet always clamoring for more (and fewer sacrifices for children, and the more sacrifices OF children); the more we ignore the silent cries of those we persecute to death, and the millions more of oppressed peoples we ignore become, "legion"--and more and more legions against us and our self righteous ways.
I do not make excuses for the present day Republican Party; neither party could be the party of Lincoln, because both are parties that pander to our basest emotions, and both are largely reactionary in the worst sorts of ways.
Neither party will stop the slaughter.
And because of this, we will diminish not only in stature and reputation, but will be considered worldwide as a hypocritical example of mass degradation and living for ourselves. "Imperial Washington" is upon us, Samson, as Delilah sniggers behind the arras.
We forget that "the greatest generation," was raised in almost always intact families, both nuclear and extended-- yet one that betrayed itself by asserting free and easy divorce in the free and easy post war years--hence devouring not only themselves but selling their children and grandchildren down the river for a bowl of red stew. Not funny, McGee.
Jer 31:15: fulfilled by Herod and the Imperiums of today: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)