Generally. the use of the Bible by 'Christians' to justify their condemnation of homosexuality is in the form  of a syllogism:

 As a Christian I believe in what the Bible says

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin

Thus as a Christian I believe that homosexuality is a sin

This logic of prejudice begins to unravel as soon as it is noted that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say, "Homosexuality is a sin." The word 'homosexual' in any form is simply not used, nor ever is the word 'sin' applied to same gender sex.


In one book in the entire Old Testament, Leviticus (18:22 & 20:13), is there found a prohibition against same gender sex, and it does say that those who engage in such conduct should be put to death. However in two books of the Old Testament, Exodus (31:14-15) and Numbers (15:32-36), God himself commands that all those who work on the Sabbath be put to death.

Here the reliance on the syllogism to justify bigotry continues to come apart:

major premise - As a Christian I believe in the evidence of the Old Testament;

minor premise - In the Old Testament there is twice as much evidence that those working on the Sabbath should be put to death as there is that those engaging in homosexual conduct should be;

conclusion - Thus as a Christian I believe even more strongly that workers on the Sabbath should be condemned than those performing homosexual acts.?

The story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah found in Genesis chapter 19 is often offered as evidence that homosexuality will provoke God's punishment; however not only does the story not support this, but here syllogistic logic actually leads into acute perversion. It is claimed that God destroyed the cities because a mob wanted to rape the two men/angels God sent to Lot's house, but this simply isn't the case. As Genesis 18:20-32 makes clear, the fate of these cities was already sealed well before the arrival of these men/angels.

However the story does directly tell us that the Lot offers the rabble outside his door the opportunity to rape his virginal daughters  (Gen. 19:8). Furthermore the story ends with Lot having impregnated these same two daughters (Gen 19:31-38). What is truly fascinating here is that these actions happen without any rebuke or condemnation or punishment whatsoever from God! Apparently in God's eye these actions don't diminish Lott's righteousness in the least.

Logical but very perverted syllogism:

major premise - As a Christian I believe in the evidence of the Old Testament (Genesis chapter 19);

minor premise - Genesis chapter 19 show that it's o.k. with God for a father not only to offer up his daughters to be raped, but also to have incestuous relations with them;

conclusion - Thus as a Christian I believe it's o.k. for a father both to give his daughters to a rapacious mob and for him to have sex with them.

Well so much for the Old Testament. No good news here for the 'Christians' who want to use Biblical authority as justification for their prejudice against homosexuals. Now let's see what the New Testament might offer.

The story of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ found in the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, shows us that Jesus had absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality. So this syllogism is easy:

major premise - As a Christian I believe in the evidence of the gospels;

minor premise - The gospels show Jesus having nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality;

conclusion - Thus as a Christian I believe I should have nothing to say regarding homosexuality.

Oops! Obviously the logic of this syllogism shows that it is illogical to both claim that one is a follower of Jesus and, at the same time, to show oneself as a loud mouth bigot!


-------------------Remain stuck from here on. Last third of post is only in crude and incomplete form.



In the rest of the New Testament there are three books in which are found explicit prohibition against same  gender sexual activity.

Romans 1:26-32 contains a long list of behaviors and attitudes which are deemed worthy of death. The problem for anyone using this passage to condemn homosexuality is that the same logic dictates that such actions and attitudes as gossiping, greed, envy, arrogance, and boasting also be condemned with equal fervor.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 likewise shows that those so adamantly opposed to homosexuals be equally against the drunkards and the covetous among us.

And doesn't 1st Timothy 1:9-10 essentially give us the same, that those who speak so vehemently against homosexuals then logically should speak with the same intensity against such as the rebellious, the profane, and the liars and perjurers?

Everyone knows that science and faith rule different realms, and that the two shall never meet. Well everyone is wrong.

Though the following exposition is scientifically irrefutable it will remain nonetheless beyond belief and imagination for almost everyone. Like all science, it is not dependent upon opinion nor wishful thinking. What it is dependent upon however, is hard, cold evidence obtained from rigorous experimentation.

Let us begin with the observation that if we sort all the verses of the Gospels by topic then we can see that by far and away the greatest number of verses are devoted to the topic of the denial and rejection of Jesus as the savior of the world: his own prediction of this denial, and from others, the disbelief, doubt, hostility, betrayal, desertion, accusations of blasphemy, execution, and through to the disciples' lack of recognition of Jesus after his resurrection. This cannot be refuted; it is only a matter of reading and counting verses. Time consuming yes, but nonetheless very easy to do.

Now based on this observation, let us make the hypothesis both that any statement reflecting the real teachings of Jesus will encounter this same denial, and likewise then that anyone proclaiming the same as Jesus will get the same as Jesus. Here denial is explicitly defined as the obliviousness of the obvious, - that we haven't been seeing what for so long has been staring us right in the face.

To begin to prove our hypothesis we will use two expressions of Jesus' gospel which have long been accepted as the heart and core of Christian doctrine:

- Christ's blood on the cross washed away the sins of the world;

-  Christ paid for our sins with his death on the cross.

Can you see anything denied here, - anything obvious but nonetheless which we have been oblivious to for the last two thousand years? Anything here which Christians might experience as the most caustic blasphemy?

According to the science of the meaning of the English language, isn't it so that if Christ’s blood washed away the sins of the world, then this should mean no more sin? After all, if the sins of the world have been washed away, doesn’t this then leave the world without sin? If I said that the laundry washed away the dirt of the sheets, then wouldn't it be immediately self-evident that the sheets are now free and clean of dirt? Two sentences virtually identical in structure and dynamics with the only real difference being in vocabulary, so why do we see the sheets free of dirt, but not the world free of sin?

Likewise if I said that Joe Shit the Ragman paid our bar tab, then doesn’t this obviously mean that we now have to pay nothing for our drinks? So when we are told Christ has already paid for our sins why don't we then understand the same: now there is no cost to us for our sins? A bit irrational, isn't it, to tell us of the good news that Jesus did pay for our sins while in the same breath, telling us that we still have to pay for our sins???


Can you think of any reason or rationale to explain why the world has been so blind for so long to the obvious meaning of the plain, simple English of these two statements? And just why is it that Christians run around professing that which they certainly don't believe and actually find very objectionable? There’s no technical vocabulary here. No esoteric logic. Is there any excuse, any explanation for this not seeing of what is right in front of our eyes? Welcome to the inexplicable, to the messianic mystery of Jesus Christ.

No more sin? No cost or payment for sin? Could there be any worse news for Christianity than that its dogma says what it means and means what it says? Unthinkable blasphemy for most Christians, eh? For if these two assertions of Christian doctrine do indeed reflect the actual good news of Jesus Christ that he did indeed sacrifice his life in order to pay for our sins, then doesn't the last twenty centuries of the church with all its popes, priests, pastors and preachers warning of the dangers and abomination of sin, reveal that for the Christian Church Jesus' atoning sacrifice was actually meaningless? - that Jesus died for nothing? - that the church’s stance against sin reveals that the history of Christianity is the history of the denial of the gospel truth of Jesus Christ?!

Unbelievable? Jesus certainly understood this to be the case. In Matthew 9:5, Mark 2:9 and Luke 5:23 isn‘t he essentially asking, "What is easier to say in order to be believed, that I can forgive/remit sins or that I can perform miracle cures?" Isn't the history of Christianity up through today the history of the belief that Christ did indeed perform all sorts of miracle cures like healing the blind, the insane, the paralyzed, the lepers, resurrecting the dead as well as he himself being resurrected, while being at the same time the history of the denial Jesus' own testimony that the sins of the world are to be forgiven/paid through the shedding of his blood (Matthew 26:28)?

In science irrefutable proof is dependent upon at least three things: the first involves observation, that you and others can see what I see; the second is how accurately hypothetical prediction is confirmed by experimental results; and then that the same experiment, when repeated over and over, always gives the same results.

So can you see what I see? Do the two statements of Christian dogma, - that Christ’s blood washed away the sins of the world and that Christ paid for our sins, - actually tell us in plain simple English that thanks to Jesus Christ sin is no more, is without cost to ourselves?  

After questioning a number of people about this observation, can you begin to confirm the predicted response of denial? In fact can't you see not just some generalized response, but that the denial ranges from polite evasion and rationalization by liberals to irritation and even acute hostility from conservatives? (Ironically while Jesus speaks so directly of love and life, it is those self described as pro-life who, like the Pharisees, will experience as an unbearable blasphemy this notion that because of Jesus we are no longer subject to condemnation for our sins.)

And when you’ve performed this little experiment lots of times, do you always get the same results? During the last twenty years I have ask several hundred people from all walks of life about these two expressions of Christian doctrine. Literally less that ten have been able or willing to admit the obvious.

Of course not just unbelievable, but in all reality, utterly unthinkable that through Jesus there is no more sin/no cost or divine consequence for sinning, - absolutely impossible to even consider believing that for two thousand years Christianity, with its ongoing insistence of the danger of sin, has in all reality existed as the institutionalized denial of the teachings at the heart of Christ's ministry. Such notions clearly contradict a huge part of our shared and fundamental understanding of the only world we've ever known.  But what about the evidence? Does one now take refuge in the comfort and safety of orthodox belief, or can one push aside blind belief just enough to allow for following the trail left by the evidence of those things which for so long haven't been seen?

Nothing demonstrates all the above so well as what Jesus himself tells us in the two verses John 3:16-17. For Christians, while John 3:16 is the most beloved and well known of all verses of the Bible, it is the very next verse, John 3:17, that is for those same Christians perhaps the least seen and most objectionable verse.

If you'll take a quick glance at these two verses, don't you see that John 3:16 and John 3:17 form an indivisible unity? Doesn't the former tell us of our reward for believing in Jesus, while the latter tells us exactly what there is to believe about Jesus in order to receive this reward. Taken together isn't Jesus telling us that because God so loved the world he sent his son not to judge but to save the world, and whoever believes this will have everlasting life?

Ask around about this. It's interesting and so revealing how many seemingly sweet and sane people will react so angrily to any suggestion that there is actually no divine judgment/condemnation of the world. Why, oh why, is the good news of Jesus Christ such bad news for so many people?

The messianic mystery is not just some mere little misunderstanding, some little historical oopsie, but rather as the Bible reveals to us is essential to God‘s plan of salvation for humankind. Note that the atoning sacrifice was absolutely dependent on this very rejection and denial; and moreover it is then this ongoing denial of Christ's gospel that creates the need for the Second Coming, - dialectics both divine and sublime!

Well enough for now. Only the barest beginning has been made, but there's no point in going on until you begin to learn from your own experimental questioning. Should you do some such questioning and again and again encounter this denial, this inexplicable messianic mystery of Jesus Christ, then perhaps your eyes and ears will start to open and you'll begin to make the rare and difficult transition from believer to seeker. Perhaps you'll become more sure of having questions than you are of the certainty of your beliefs. Perhaps you might even begin to wonder about the Bible itself, about the most well known and studied book in the history of the world. It just couldn't be, could it, that after all these centuries the truth of the Bible still remains hidden? - that when Hebrews 11:1 speaks of faith in the evidence of things having not been seen, it is referring to faith in the evidence of the denied truth of the Bible?

Amen,

dipstick

ADAM AND EVE AND THE END

It has long been suspected and often suggested that the truth of the Bible is hidden, and is only to be found in some obscure code or esoteric symbolism. But the reality of the truth of the Bible is that its truth is only hidden as Easter eggs are 'hidden' for a group of three-year olds. The only difficultly with understanding the truth of the Bible is that what is so blatantly obvious is at the same time so appalling to so many, that throughout history instinctive denial has been humanity's only possible reaction. With the revelation of this 'hidden' truth, i.e., when the world comes to know what the Bible says in plain, simple English, it will indeed be the apocalypse, the end of days, but not for life on Earth as so many of the pious hope. Rather it will be the end of days for our moral interpretation of life, or to say the same, the end of the three great moralistic and monotheistic religions of the world - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

More than a hundred years ago one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever known, Fredrick Nietzsche, predicted this death of morality. From The Genealogy of Morals, "As the will to truth gains self-consciousness - there can be no doubt of that - morality will gradually perish now: this is the great spectacle in hundred acts reserved for the next two centuries in Europe - the most terrible, most questionable, and perhaps also the most hopeful of all spectacles."

We are early in the second century of Nietzsche's prediction of morality's demise, but rather than any decline of morality what presents itself to us instead is a growing global conflagration that is from all fronts justified on moral grounds, a struggle in which enemies are seen in such moralistic terms as pure evil or the Great Satan.

However is it not at least somewhat thought provoking that such implacable enemies as George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden showed themselves to be so much the moral mirror image of each other? Didn't both think of his morality not just as his own personal view, but as God's law that all should obey? And what does it tell us that these two who are/were such vociferous proponents of both capital punishment and war as the solution, share such a similar stark, black and white morality of good and evil that is so against any 'sins of the flesh,' - so against premarital sex, same-sex marriages, the ordination of gays, and the reproductive rights of women?

And in general, isn't it significant that from wherever we hear the loudest bleating of rigid moralities of good and evil as justification for killing, - no matter the differences in culture, country, ethnicity, or social-economic strata, - we can expect to find essentially the same social constellation: exclusionary and male dominated hierarchies, subordination and subjugation of women, repressive sexual mores, homophobia, the inclusion of religious beliefs into both government and school, a propensity to homicidal violence, an intolerance of tolerance, a disdain for science, and an eschatology that is, as Franz Overbeck said, world denying?

Our planet is not being turned into a killing ground by atheistic heathens without any religious inclination, but rather by those who are the most sure of the righteousness of their actions in the eyes of God, by those who truly see themselves as fundamentally pious. Moreover, this death and destruction that is coming to reign over our world today is not a consequent of the struggle between those who believe in different moralities, but between those who believe most strongly in the same morality: one characterized by a simplistic knowledge of the world in terms of good and evil mated to a view of human sexuality as something shameful, fearful, and even ungodly.

In the next few decades, as civilization's many and myriad faults, schisms, inadequacies and inequalities make themselves known, we will come to see that it is the historical destiny of our twenty-first century to learn of the irresistible attraction of religious fascism for a significant percentage of the world's population. It is now our future, our inescapable fate, to become exquisitely aware of this triune unity of morality, fear of sex and death as the animating spirit of a few billion of our fellow citizens.



******following paragraph(s) under construction (probably forever):

Plato's prediction that demagoguery will follow democracy ---
 -----the rampant fear and insecurity in Germany during the late 1920's and early 1930's that made possible Hitler's rise to power gives us a template for what to expect as our world becomes a shakier place.

The fruit of the next 20-80 years: the unimaginable consequences wrought from global climate change, competition for decreasing resources, food shortages, massive increases in the cost of energy, pandemics due to mutations in bird/swine flu or Ebola or any other bug, industrial toxins making their way into the food chain, unstable and volatile global financial markets, tensions between haves and have-nots, desire of the abused to have their revenge against their abusers, proliferation of nuclear weapons, etc., etc. Spend a week or two reading and watching the news and list all the aspects of our world which have the possibility of bringing about profound disruptions and dislocations. All the dominoes are upright and in place!

Increase of fear and anxiety in the insecure/powerless equals an increase in attraction to a strongman as a solution. Increase in pain equals an increase in blame. Scapegoats must be found! As our world begins to appear to be shaking itself apart, as fear and misery become the order of the day, and as faith is lost in the ability of governing institutions to cope with the increasingly foreboding future, the fearful pious will flock to demagogue 'Holy Hitler' types around the world who, similar to Jerry Falwell after 9/11, will preach that God is pissed off and punishing the world because of us liberals, hippies, gays, lesbians, artists, intellectuals, feminists, humanists, ACLU's, and all the rest of us decadent and degenerate types. Thus in order to appease God the world must be rid of those like us.

In the Zondervan NASB Study Bible, the note for 2nd Corinthians verse 4 reads, “Used in contrast to the future eternal age when God’s creation will be forever purged of all that now mars and defiles it.” (italics mine) Remind anyone of Nazi ideology? Astonishingly shortsighted and rather chilling not to see that the greatest terroristic threat to the USA grows from within, from within the ranks of Christian fundamentalists!  (Data from the Air Force indicate that 87 percent of those seeking to become chaplains are enrolled at evangelical divinity schools.)

(Of course not just the pious types will be freaking. All sorts of nationalists and non-religious fascists, opportunistic strongmen, nihilists, anarchists, and a plethora of just garden variety sociopaths will find it easy to release their hell-bent need for homicidal madness.)


end constructions zone ******


However as Nietzsche wrote in Will to Power, "But among the forces cultivated by morality was truthfulness: this eventually turned against morality, ...." And so as we shall see, it our time also to witness the effectiveness of the force of Biblical truth against all those who justify their bigotry, hatred and murderous impulses as the will of God.

Let us begin with the story of Adam and Eve found in the second and third chapters of Genesis. It is an elegantly simple little tale, has been around some three thousand years, and is accepted divine scripture by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet as if through some magic spell, the world remains completely oblivious to its utterly transparent meaning.

In particular the twenty verses composed of the last ten of chapter two and then the first ten of chapter three, - perfectly demonstrate the earlier assertion that the truth of the Bible is "hidden as Easter eggs are 'hidden' for a group of three-year olds," And that revelation of what it actually says 'in plain, simple English,'means the beginning of the apocalypse for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Genesis 2:16 - The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; Genesis 2:17 - but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Is there any lack of clarity here? Is this not an explicit command from God not to acquire the knowledge of good and evil,"?  Could there be any worse news for the pious than that the literal and infallible word of God shows that any morality founded on the knowledge of good and evil - the exact morality held so dear by a few billion Jews, Christians, Muslims, - exists only in violation of God's original commandment?

Genesis 2:24 - For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and bejoined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:25 - And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

But if possible, here is yet even 'worser' news for the pious: God is not only anti-morality, he is also pro-sex! The story of Adam and Eve's creation found in the second chapter of Genesis couldn't be more clear-cut: shameless sexuality without moral restraint in the Garden of Eden is God's gift of life to this first couple!

Don't the last eight verses of chapter two manifestly make the point that man, as created by God, is in need of woman? And as it is through God that they are from one flesh, it is then not the most divinely natural thing for the man and woman to return to one flesh, to mate, to boink like bunnies?

Let us note in the positive that in Genesis chapter two, we see God bringing into creation man and woman, - the names for adult human sexual mates, - and then in the negative note that the story is not of the creation of peoples, tribes, kingdoms, or any other sort of pluralistic, asexual designations for humanity. Of all the possible attributes and characteristics of being human, scripture here explicitly ascribes only three to Adam and Eve as they are wrought from the hand of God, and these are that the primal pair are sexual, without shame and without the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:6 - When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

If it is a sin to violate any of God's commandments and/or to disobey God, then here the Bible shows that the first sin ever committed, the original sin, is Adam and Eve's acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus we can see that the long-standing and profoundly vexing question as to why God created the world with evil in it is utterly baseless. The second and third chapters of Genesis reveal to us that God is not responsible for the evil in the world, but rather that evil exists only as a perception in the minds of those living in original sin! And as moral judgment is that which gives us the knowledge of good and evil, and morality the body of such knowledge, then aren't moral judgment and morality other names for original sin?

Furthermore, as the Bible shows us that God's creation predates the birth of morality, i.e., the introduction of the knowledge of good and evil into the world through Adam and Eve's temerity, then isn't God's creation pre-moral, without morality, amoral?



Genesis 3:7- Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked and they sewed fig leaves together; and made themselves loincloths. Genesis 3:8 - They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Genesis 3:9 - Then the Lord God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" Genesis 3:10 - He said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."

Don't these verses reveal the bitterest possible irony that the primal fall from grace, if understood as being separated from God, occurred when Adam and Eve became afraid of their nakedness?  , - that Adam and Eve hid from God only because because they were exactly as created by God?! With their eyes opened by a morality of good and evil, the first man and the first woman perversely see it necessary to hide the appearance of their sexuality, God's gift of life, first from each other, and then, bizarrely enough, from God himself. And yet somehow they still think they are wise like God.?

Again it must be ask, "Is there any lack of clarity here?" In only three verses, Genesis 3:6,7 & 8, aren't we clearly shown that upon doing the one thing God told them not to do, Adam and Eve now inexplicably see themselves unworthy of being in the presence of the very one responsible for their being the way .  creation in the second chapter of Genesis as unworthy of being in the presence of the Creator himself? - that that it is this imbuing of fear and shame into the divine gift of erotic love by the knowledge of good and evil which is the direct cause of the primal disruption in relations between God and the first humans?

Genesis 3:16 - "....And he will rule over you."

A profound consequence of original sin: with the introduction of the knowledge of good and evil into the world, Eve looses her birthright of being equal mate to her husband. And now doesn't history show that the subordination and subjugation of women is the norm for those who are the most proud of this same 'Godlike wisdom,' and that such a tradition of oppression of women is at the same time a tradition of violence. (Big hint here: among the most potent weapons against religious terrorism is the emancipation and empowerment of women. And civilization as a whole will not find its way into sanity until this happens.) (Is this the oldest written story of the origin of patriarchy?)

Genesis 3:22 - Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"

Unless that we grant that God is suffering from Alzheimer's, and so has lost all memory of what has just transpired, then this verse has to be read as sarcastic mockery born of divine exasperation. Because of their confounding perception of knowing they are wise like God, all the while seeing their unworthiness to be in his presence, Adam and Eve remain unreconciled with God. For this reason God is essentially kept at a distance, thus being reduced to impotently poking fun at their perverted thinking.

And when Adam and Eve obtain the knowledge of good and evil we don't see them die a physical, bodily death. What we do see is that the consequence of their sin is that they become estranged from self, each other, Eros, and God, - that the death God predicts in Genesis 2:17 is first of all a spiritual death, a life of being separated from the source and nourishment of life, from love! (Origin of mind/body split: 'good' spirit judging 'evil' flesh.) And as we see today, it is then those communities living in such spiritual death that are responsible for so much murderous hatred.

Adam and Eve are exiled from the garden without confessing their sin, without recanting their new found 'knowledge', and so begins the spread into the world of the morality that is today common to Jew, Christian and Muslim: a deranged perception, a so-called 'Godlike wisdom' of good and evil that in schizoid fashion then sees the divine gift of life, human sexuality, as anathema to the Giver himself.

Thus if we accept the prima facie evidence of scripture deemed holy by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Church, have we not then been ushered into a view within which the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Church is put to question? - or more accurately , put to the sword? Indeed, as revelation of scripture shows the shared moral foundation of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Church, i.e., a belief in good and evil coupled with the profanation of sexuality, as the essence of original sin, as the reason for the fall from grace, then doesn't this same scripture indict the history of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Church as the history of the institutionalization of original sin, and as such, instead of bringing people closer to God, is in reality the perpetuation of the primal rupture between God and his people?

This of course is the identical deranged perception that both Bush and bin Laden are/were so proud of. Is it only a meaningless coincidence that God warns that the knowledge of good and evil brings death, and that Bush and bin Laden, with so much pride in their knowledge of good and evil, revealed themselves to be such prolific spawners of death?

The Biblical story of Adam and Eve has been available to billions of English readers for some four hundred years now. It is as well known as any story in the history of the world and its meaning just couldn't be more clear and straight forward. Yet every commentary, no matter if found on papyrus or parchment or paper or in any of a gigazillion web sites, shows itself to be in the service of the denial of the obvious truth of this little fable. And the cause of this obliviousness to the obvious? - voodoo? - black magic? - or dare it be suggested, an actual miracle of God?

The ground is trembling and a tsunami, the likes of which the world has never seen, has already been unleashed. Our twenty-first century is to become an era of destructive and creative revelation which will forever alter both our material and spiritual landscape. Civilization is to learn that it is a house built on sand; the Talibaptists, i.e., those so sure they are wise like God, will learn that it is actually they themselves who are the antichrists, are contra God; and women will be restored to their God-given role as bearers of the chalice of love. While it is inevitable that decades to come will be the time for much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, life on Earth will not end. Ultimately the apocalypse brought on  by revelation means the end of the moral darkness, delusions and denials which has kept us so estranged from God, love and life. When Jesus first came into being, humanity's reaction was to nail him to a cross. This will not be the case though with the Second Coming, - God and Jesus will have their way and life will once again be nourished by the light of divine grace. (And yep, revelation of the Gospels shows that Jesus came to undo the damage wrought by original sin.)

Amen,

dipstick