Saturday, July 23, 2016

SAMUEL 10

1Samuel 10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.

https://vimeo.com/175831488 Samuel 10

https://youtu.be/KzRNP0eOUO8 Samuel 10

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/7-21-16-samuel-10.zip

ON VIDEO-

.In the 1800’s some people thought Blacks were inferior to whites.

.One of them came up with the science of Eugenics.

.Which said we should eliminate the inferior Black race- by speeding up the process of Evolution.

.Hitler practiced this science- not only did he gas Jews- but also the mentally disabled and handicapped.

.A famous woman in the U.S. saw the Black people in NYC [Harlem] and said if they keep breeding like ‘rats’ the inferior Blacks will ruin the superior White future.

.This woman’s name was Margaret Sanger- the founder of Planned Parenthood.

.Hilary Clinton has praised this woman for her ideas- and was asked- on video- how she could praise this woman.

.Hillary admitted all of the above [unbelievable] and said sometimes people do great things [Planned Parenthood] even though you might not agree with all of their ideas.

.That would be like praising Hitler- and saying ‘I don’t agree with everything he said’.

.More than 90 percent of the Black population will vote for a woman who praised another woman who referred to Backs as ‘breeding like rats and animals- who must be stopped at all costs’.

.If this is not delusion- then what is?

. ‘Is this all you talk about for the whole hour’ ? [ I know- this is not actually a bullet point]

.No- the last 15 minutes is on Samuel [notes below]

.Cruz- Trump [What did you think about Cruz John? See below- under News Links]

.Liberal scholar saw executive actions of Obama as ‘constitutional crisis’- Why?

.Immigration- detention centers

.Bishop Mulvey speaks out- will Duval County hear him?

.SCOTUS

.Galapagos Islands- what did he see?

NEW STUFF [past posts- verses below]

Samuel anoints Saul with the oil- showing God has chosen him to be the first King of Israel.

Samuel gives very detailed prophecies in this chapter-

‘you will run into 3 men- 1 carrying 3 young goats- another carrying 3 loaves of bread- and the last one carrying 1 bottle of wine’.

He tells Saul- when you meet them- they will give you 2 loaves of bread-‘but that’s it’.

Why so detailed?

I mean it would ‘sound’ more probable if Samuel said ‘they will share the food with you’.

Because it would seem more likely that they might cook one of the goats- eat some of the bread- and of course wash it down with the wine.

And even if that were the prophecy- it would still be pretty good.

But no- God is using Samuel to give detailed prophecies- that when they’re fulfilled- Saul will never forget this day.

Samuel goes on ‘Then you will run into a bunch of prophets- they will be worshipping God- and the Spirit of God will come on you too- you will prophesy and be CHANGED INTO A NEW MAN’.

Yes- the anointing on Saul will transform him- it’s associated with prophetic praise.

Later on in the history of Saul’s rule- we will see how he battles with ‘evil spirts’ and David [yes- the next king] actually has a music ministry for Saul.

There will be times when young David will play music for Saul- and the evil stuff will depart.

I find it interesting because even though Samuel will learn this day that praise is a key to everything- yet if we are not obedient- meaning actually cultivate a lifestyle of praise and worship- and yes- use a harp [harmonica] get a timbrel [tambourine] even some bells!

I do all of this every single day.

I finish my prayer time at night- with a song I penned from the book of Revelation- and I play my harmonica- using the words from this praise verse- and that’s the last prayer of the day.

I play my accordion- also in tune with other scriptures- and believe me- I do not know how to play any musical instruments.

But that doesn’t matter- it’s a spiritual principle- that unfortunately Saul will let slip down the road.

After the new king prophesies with the prophets- Samuel gives him more instruction ‘then go to Gilgal- I will meet you there [in his priestly role- this is important] and you will need to WAIT SEVEN DAYS FOR ME’.

Why is this important?

One of the downfalls of Saul- which we see later on- is the fact that he could not wait for Samuel to fulfill the priestly office of sacrifice- and Saul will jump the gun- get out of his role as king- and do it himself.

Of course God knows this now- but Saul does not.

Samuel functions in the prophetic- and even he might not know why he’s telling Saul- at this stage- to learn how to wait.

But God knows.

Eventually Saul makes it back home [remember- he left a few days earlier to find his dads donkeys] and his uncle asks him where he was.

Saul tells him they were looking for the donkeys- and they came to Samuel and asked him for advice.

Saul’s uncle says ‘what did he tell you’?

Now- remember- Samuel told/showed him- lots of stuff!

Saul will be the king- all the signs and stuff- the big party where Saul sat in the top chair- I mean a lot has happened since he left a few days ago.

And Saul replies ‘oh- he told us the donkeys were found’

And that’s it!

I think Saul is insecure [well- he is- we will see this many times].

But I also think Saul still had doubts- yes- even after all the detailed signs God is giving him.

At the same time- he is learning a good principle- not to tell everyone- all the precious things God is revealing to him.

Jesus told his men ‘don’t cast your pearls before swine’.

Meaning- there are indeed personal secrets of the kingdom- that everyone does not get in on.

And some of the kings of Israel will later get rebuked by God- because of this very thing- that they spill the beans to opposing nations- and reveal to them all the treasures of the kingdom.

When Samuel is finally ready to reveal Saul to the nation- they can’t find him- he is hiding ‘among the stuff’.

2 things- once again Saul seems to be not ready for all of this- I mean it changes your whole life.

Like running for president- you and your family will be under the spotlight from here on out.

But also- we see another kingdom principle.

Remember- when they came to take Jesus and make him a king [John’s gospel] Jesus passed thru them- and walked on.

It was not the time- or way- for him to be ‘king’ [yes- a Cross was first].

And in a way- Saul shows us that God picked a man- not because it was some great vison he had ‘wow- I always wanted to be top dog’.

But someone who- at first- avoided the seat- but took it in the end- because God chose him.

At the end of the chapter Saul goes back home- and some guys from his city reject him ‘Saul a king- no way!’

Much like what happened to Jesus when he was in his home town- the bible says he didn’t do a lot of great works- but healed a few people.

Jesus said Mark 6:4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

So- we see some good stuff in chapter 10- Saul saw some great stuff-

‘John- what a story- we bet the rest of it is tremendous’!

Well actually- it is not.

But we see the human condition as well- a man that started so well- chosen of God- all the signs-

And later we will see a portrait of Saul as megalomaniac- trying to kill David.

We will see a man on a downward spiral- his kingdom falling apart- the prophet who anointed him decreeing God’s judgment on him.

Yes- in a way the story is tremendous- but maybe not in the way you might think.

NOTE

- At the end of the chapter Samuel both ‘speaks’ the words of the kingdom to the people- and ‘writes’ them down.

In the gospels Jesus is speaking [called oral tradition] and later on his men ‘write’ called the 4 gospels.

The church is founded upon the Word of God- yes- true.

But our Catholic brothers and sisters also speak of the Church as the ‘pillar and ground of the truth’.

This is an actual verse- as well But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. Tim.

Protestants and Catholics debate the issue.

Protestants say ‘no- the bible is the foundation of truth’.

Now- this is true.

But yet- The Catholic position is true too.

Huh?

How can this be?

Because the BIBLE also says the Church [the people of God- all the people of God] is the pillar and ground of the truth.

God has used his people- thru out the ages- to speak the word of God.

We obviously do not have a record of every word God ever spoke thru all of his people.

It even says this in the gospel of John ³⁰And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

³¹But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John

But we do have the inerrant word of God- the bible.

Both Catholics and Protestants believe the bible is the word of God.

But we see in the prophet Samuel- he spoke- and wrote.

We see the same in the ministry of Jesus-

He spoke- his men wrote.

And we see the pattern in the great apostle Paul.

He wrote the majority of the great letters of the New testament- and he also communicated- by word- when he visited the communities he was establishing .

No word of a prophet- if it is a true word- will contradict scripture.

But God does indeed give specific words- detailed at times- thru his prophets.

In the case of Saul- we have the written record.

But in many other cases- we do not.

TYPES-

1- Bread, wine and a sacrifice to come-

We see 3 men [trinity] with 3 things [bread- baby goats- wine].

In the Old testament- the true sacrifice- the Lamb of God- has not come yet.

In the story of Abraham- he had a ram- and told Isaac ‘God will someday provide a Lamb’.

So- we could say we see a type of the Communion table here.

Bread- wine- and goats- the Lamb is still to come.

2- Two men at the grave.

One of the signs is Saul will see 2 men at the grave of Rachel.

In the New Testament there were 2 angels at the empty tomb- angels are often ‘seen’ as men.

MY LINKS- PAST POSTS- [verses below]

FAKE CLOCK? https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/9-29-15-fake-clock.zip

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

ON VIDEO-

.Was it a fake clock?

.Joan of Arc

.Montanism

.Russia, Syria and U.S.

.Eugenics

.Agincourt

.Planned parenthood

JOAN OF ARC- I mentioned her on the video- and did a document search of my past teaching- and realized I never wrote about her.

So- Joan was part of what we call the mystics- these were Christians who had supernatural experiences with God.

The common life movement was big into this- the most famous being Thomas A Kempis.

I have his famous book ‘the Imitation of Christ’- a classic.

So- Joan was a young Catholic girl who had visions and related some of the things I’m teaching in revelation to what she felt God showed her.

She claimed Michael the archangel appeared to her.

She convinced a prince from France that God told her to fight the English [they raided northern France].

And to everyone’s surprise- she won!

She actually dressed in White armor and road a White horse into battle [all images we see in the book of Revelation].

Joan was tried for witchcraft and heresy and burned at the stake in 1431- at the age of 19.

Yet she remained a popular figure- and the Catholic Church canonized her as a saint in 1920.

BATTLE OF ANGICOURT- One of the more famous battles of the 100 years’ war- Henry the 5^th defeated the French in Northern France against great odds.

The use of the Longbow by the English played a major factor giving the reality that the French outnumbered the English.

Yet when it was all said and done England took ground from the French and France lost around 6,000 men- English troops about 400.

The battle took place on October 25^th- 1415.

PAST POSTS [verses below]-

(1375) SOCIAL EVOLUTION- As I have been doing some blogging on other sites over the science of evolution, I thought it would be good to do a little on the philosophical ideas that spawned from it. Many sincere people do not realize the bias that comes along with a full embrace of a purely materialistic approach to life. There once was a woman named Margaret Sanger, she was a strong believer in Evolution and its sister science, Eugenics. Eugenics was an idea espoused by a relative of Darwin that taught that if you ‘quickened’ evolution by eliminating the so called ‘inferior races’ by human action, that this would advance the purer races faster and man would arrive at his Utopian state quicker. Darwin himself used the Black Aborigines tribes as an example of the inferiority of the ‘lesser races’. He looked at them as an in between race of people who were not fully human [like the white race] but were sort of a mix between man and ape. Anyway Sanger developed this idea to the point we she set up an organization that would assist the inferior races in the rush to eliminating their offspring; less child bearing, the quicker the more noble whites would advance. She received praise from another man who believed in the same principle, Adolph Hitler. After WW2 it became quite unpopular to continue to associate her organization with a megalomaniac who also carried out the same plan with the Jews, so she renamed her organization- today we know it as Planned Parenthood. Now as hard as this is to believe, the facts on this have been out there for many years. This is also why many advocates for minorities are upset that the planned parenthood clinics are located in poor minority areas, they see this as an attempt to get rid of minorities. The point today is the social construct of evolutionary theory has had disastrous effects; from biblical theology [documentary theory advanced by Wellhausen- he taught that the bible followed the ‘evolutionary model’ of mans advance from primitive religions to Monotheism, an idea espoused by the philosopher Hegel] to the public school systems embrace of evolution as the answer to all things from biology to cosmology. When Christians advocate a progressive-theistic evolutionary model, and when they do a worldwide ‘Darwin week’ [like we just did!] we need to also recognize the social effects of Darwinism as well as the scientific advances that some believe have been made thru the theory.

[parts]

ATHEISM- APOLOGETICS [links added- long version]

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/history-of-everything-1/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/2016/06/20/history-of-everything-2/

https://ccoutreach87.wordpress.com/qm/

MY RADIO LINKS-

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-7R Kant, Hume, Sartre

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-6E Apologetics- Kant, Hume

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-62 Apologetics

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-6F DaVinci code

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-7Q Something from nothing- Quantum Leap

http://wp.me/a4V5qQ-7O Multiverse

MY VIDEOS

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/10-18-15-nietzsches-twilight-of-the-idols.zip

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/10-28-15-jean-paul-sartre.zip

[parts]

PAST POSTS [verses below]-

[parts]

[1586] FREUD-NIETZSCHE AND MARX- Today I need to do a little more on our study of Modernity [the thinkers who have influenced Western culture/thought from the 1700’s- 2000’s]. At this time I have 3 separate studies I have started on-line; Classics of literature, Great Christian thinkers of history, and Modernity. As time rolls on- I will gradually post all new studies once a year in a monthly post [most of the time it will be February] and as I update them you can read the most recent ones from the most recent years.

Okay- I am skipping a bunch of stuff to jump into the thinkers who represent the most popular forms of atheism- Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. But first we need to take a look at Ludwig Feuerbach. L.F. [Ludwig Feuerbach] laid the groundwork for these other more famous rejecters of God and Christianity. During the enlightenment period it was rare for the critics of religion to hold an outright atheistic view- men like Hume and Voltaire- though true critics of the church- did not come out openly and deny the existence of God. It was also difficult [impossible?] to hold professorships in the universities if you were a doubter of God. Both Hume and Voltaire did not hold positions. F.S. was Hegelian in a way [he followed Hegel’s idea that ‘God’ comes to self consciousness thru the development of humanity] but F.S. was a Materialist- Hegel was an Idealist. Remember- idealism is the philosophical system that sees reality existing in forms/ideas first- then later comes the material thing. The great ancient philosophers- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all Idealists. F.S. espoused the idea that reality starts with the material existence of man first- and thru religion man ‘projects’ the idea of God/spirit into society- and as man and

[parts]

NEW STUFF- Sartre is one of the most famous 20^th century philosophers- also described as the father of existentialism.

I say ‘also’ because when we covered Kierkegaard- I said the same of him.

How can this be?

Well- Kierkegaard was a Christian- Sartre an atheist.

So you can divide existentialism between ‘Christian existentialists- and atheistic’.

Ok- it would be a lot to try and cover all of his ideas- but what I want to do is sort of contrast the thinkers who trended away from God with those who continued to believe in a creator- while at the same time engage in the intellectual world [many I could name- Descartes- Kant- etc.].

Though Sartre- like Camus- was indeed an intelligent man- when they tried to develop philosophies- ways to explain man- his purpose- what ‘it’s’ all about.

They have difficulty giving any real purpose or meaning to man.

Why?

Because if you believe [and teach] that man is really some sort of a cosmic accident- with no creator who made him- then how do you teach ‘that man’ that he has a purpose?

This would apply to all the great thinkers- who rejected God.

In the end- if you were born without a preceding purpose [which Christians teach is to glorify God] and when you die- there is no after life- then it’s common sense to see your life ‘without purpose’.

Sartre's most famous work ‘being and nothingness’ says it all in the title.

Some of his most famous ideas are ‘no essence before existence’.

Now- Christians usually criticize him for this [which I just did in a way].

But he sort of tried to apply this idea- and say ‘because we are not predetermined- then we are indeed responsible for our actions- we are ‘left alone- without excuse’.

When you study Philosophy- along with Theology [the study of God]. A big thing that is debated is predestination.

Many misunderstand the historic reformation doctrine of Predestination –and they see it as a form of fatalism- meaning ‘whatever will be- was meant to be’.

You can do a whole debate on this subject- in studying theology alone.

Yet it also ‘bleeds’ into philosophy- because many thinkers were trying to figure out the problems of man- and some thought the doctrine of original sin taught a form of fatalism.

Actually- it does not.

But that’s why you see these ideas pop up – that we can act without our past having power over us.

So- in a sense- though Sartre was an atheist- this was an attempt [I think] to try and give man the ‘freedom’ to act on his own will.

But without belief in God- there really is no grounding authority to values- ethics.

Where would they come from? [that’s a long debate- but if in effect ethics- right and wrong- were simply some sort of value system that was majority rule- then when the majority gets it wrong- slavery- abortion- etc.- then these values do not really ‘mean’ anything].

From the Christian view [they do debate between predestination by the way] Values- worth- purpose- do indeed ‘precede’ existence.

God had a purpose for us before we were born- and values are the revealed ‘rules’ that God gave to man.

The Nihilistic thinkers [those who admit that there really is no purpose] in the end have a hard time teaching their ideas- and at the same time instilling self-worth in people.

Camus summed it up when he said-“There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (MS, 3).Oct 27, 2011

Sartre [like Kierkegaard] wrote plays- poetry- etc.

One of Sartre’s dramas was called ‘NO EXIT’

He depicted Hell as a place where people are forever ‘observing’ one another- with no way out [obviously he did not really believe in Hell].

But why would he see it this way?

Sartre had a unique insight [though an atheist- he was indeed smart].

One of the things that Sartre believed- was subjectivity- he taught that if man were to be truly Free- he could not be an Object [lots has been said in the last few years on objectifying people- seeing them as objects degrades them].

So in Sartre's mind- belief in God objectifies people.

How?

If there is an ‘all seeing’ creator who is always looking/seeing into people’s lives [and intents- hearts] then they are not truly free.

All the thinkers who rejected God- did not do so for the same reasons.

Freud- and those who taught Hedonism- said it was the moral constraints on man [from God and the church] that was the problem.

So in Freud’s mind- we should deny God- and man should live out all of his most base desires.

It was a failed idea for sure- but that was the Hedonists view.

Sartre did not espouse unrestrained passion- actually even though he was an atheist- he believed that men should live with some type of ethic.

So his rejection of God was based on the idea that God is always ‘watching you’ and a man cannot truly be free- if someone is always watching him. It was an interesting idea [and yes- God is always watching- but from the Christian view he is not watching as some type of cosmic voyeur- but as a Father watches over his children.

Or- as the bible says ‘as a mother hen watches over her chicks’. So Sartre was right about God always seeing us- but he disagreed with the Christian view of omniscience [all knowing God] and said this ‘constant watching’ makes us an object- and to Sartre- the basic attribute of human character is subjectivity- if he is not a subject- with no previous ‘essence’ [remember- his other famous idea was ‘existence precedes essence’] he is not truly free.

So to Sartre- man and reality are simply things- and we develop life from this materialistic view.

He rejected universals- there is not a universal category of ‘mankind’ but simply individual people.

Another famous atheist thinker was Camus [‘there is only one really serious question left- suicide’].

Even though some of the atheistic thinkers ‘meant well’ yet- in the end- as Kant said- if there is no God- then society cannot function without the basic understanding that we are all accountable- and will someday give an account.

In Kant’s view- he rejected the classical idea that you could ‘prove God’ from reason and nature.

But some said he ‘let God in the back door’.

Because for Kant- if you reject God outright- then society cannot function.

For instance- if there is some type of injustice- maybe framed for murder and you sit in jail your whole life- never being vindicated.

For Kant- the person can survive- because he knows- in the end- the truth will come out [if there is a God].

And not only will it come out- but those who wronged the man will give an account.

So Kant saw the need for there not only to be an ‘all seeing God/judge’.

But that Judge had to also have all power- so he could carry out justice in the end.

But for Sartre- and Camus- and the other atheists- they grappled with the problem of where moral laws come from [or if there is even such a thing].

How can we really define ethics if there is no real meaning to our existence?

If ‘nothing matters’ [no essence before existence] then in the end- WE don’t matter.

And you come to the same conclusion as Camus.

The question of suicide has been pondered for centuries- it has made it into the plays of Shakespeare [below]

Many are familiar with this famous line- but read it carefully- it’s Hamlet’s struggle- whether it’s nobler to ‘go thru stuff’ or- end it.

That’s why I think the Camus’ and Sartres of the world don’t help- in the end.

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.

Hamlet

PAST POSTS I WROTE THAT RELATE-

TELOS [What’s your purpose?]

https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/7-3-15-telos-or-jack-nichols-n-the-3-dollar-tip.zip

A telos (from the Greek τέλος for "end", "purpose", or "goal") is an end or purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology," roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. It is central to nearly all philosophical theories of history, such as those of Hegel and Marx. One running debate in contemporary philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological language (as in the "purposes" of various organs or life-processes) is unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that can ultimately be spelled out nonteleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological vocabulary: on Davidson's account, an action is just something an agent does with an intention--that is, looking forward to some end to be achieved by the action.

In contrast to telos, techne is the rational method involved in producing an object or accomplishing a goal or objective; however, the two methods are not mutually exclusive in principle.

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]

1Peter 2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,
1Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

1Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but

[parts]

[1623] CHRIST CHURCH? A few weeks back I was going to write a post from the words of St. Peter found in the New Testament ‘The time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God [Christ’s church= house of God] and if it starts there- what will the outcome be for the rest of the world?’ [paraphrased it]. Right after the ‘thought’ the major events off the coast of Japan hit and we have this trilogy of disasters to deal with [Earthquake, Tsunami, Nuclear meltdown]. I did find it ‘strange’ that the recent events started with Christ Church New Zealand- and seemed to spread from there. I heard a Geologist the other night- he had previously predicted the earthquake that hit Ca. during the World Series a few years ago. He said the sign of the dead fish recently washing up in Ca. was not a coincidence- he said the fish can sense a change in the earth’s magnetic field [prior to an earthquake] and that in Japan these fish kills are actually called ‘earthquake fish’. Wow. You do hear lots of talking heads during these types of events- yet it would be nice to know the truth on these types of things. The last year or 2 we had earthquakes along the Pacific Rim; Chile, New Zealand and of course Japan. If you look on a map you see the Pacific Ocean and you can draw a circle around the perimeter- the part that affects us is the West coast- so they already have a run on Iodide pills [fear of the radiation crossing the Pacific from Japan] and some are predicting an earthquake. The other night I caught a quick news flash of Saudi Arabia sending troops into Bahrain to fight back against the protestors- as it flashed by quickly- I said ‘geez- this is a major event- and it’s getting lost in the media frenzy’. Then O’Reilly spent 15 minutes on a real important life changing story- a stripper who works with a snake- the snake bit the woman on her breast- the snake died from the silicone from the breast implant. Another news show spent almost the whole hour on sports- even the president did another March madness prediction- at a time when the world has protestors in the streets- who thought we would help them [Libya] and they are actually saying ‘Obama- where are you- where’s Bush?’ Now- whatever your view is on intervening [no fly zone- etc.] the fact is if the feeling around the globe is that we are not taking these things seriously enough- then the image of the president doing March Madness picks does not look good. So what do we make of it all? When Peter said ‘judgment must 1^st start at Gods house’ he of course was not directly talking about the city of Christ Church, New Zealand. Yet in a prophetic sort of way- these types of things can be signs of what’s to come. One of the important developments has been the fact that the Arab/Persian nations have indeed chosen to ignore the pleas from the U.S. to go easy on the protestors- and they simply have said ‘screw you- look at what you did to Egypt- we are gonna go the Gadhafi route’ [to a degree]. Saudi Arabia crossing into Bahrain- a small Persian Gulf nation where we have lot of troops stationed [and the 5^th fleet docked] is a major development. The markets [both Asian and U.S.] have fallen over the fears that the Nuke disaster is already as bad as Chernobyl- and the unrest in the Middle East and Africa is not getting better. So we pray- we show the world that we don’t just throw our hands up and say ‘the end of the world is here’ but we also recognize it is in mans nature to deny the reality of judgment- the reality that mankind faces times where things build up and the planet suffers for it. In the 19^th century there was a movement in Christian theology called ‘Liberal theology’- not liberal in politics- but a whole genre of teaching/thought that challenged a lot of the ‘old time’ beliefs [like original sin] and focused on the ability of modern man to rise above the ignorance of the past [even in religious thought] and man was on the road to a true Utopian society that would never fail. This belief was strong- both in the universities of Germany as well as in the politics of the Western world. Then you had the world wars- 8 million people killed in the first one- and 50 million in the 2^nd one. Men like Karl Barth [a Swiss theologian- teacher] would challenge the liberal view of mans ‘inner divinity’ and he would blast the Christian world with his famous ‘the epistle to the Romans’ his commentary on Paul’s famous treatise- released in 1918. Though Barth is what some describe as 'Neo- Orthodox’ [the strong Reformed teachers don’t appreciate Barth very much] yet he did bring the church back to the biblical doctrines of original sin and mans inability to ‘save himself’. Barth saw the reality of the WW1 and rejected the Utopian belief that man was so advanced that he would reach for the sky- and grab it! Today we see lots of shaking in the world- some are focused on March madness- some find it profitable to do a story on a stripper- we need to keep our eyes [and bibles] open- mankind is in need of God- man has gone thru stages where he thought the ‘old belief’ in God would fall away- to the contrary- the govt’s of man [apart from God] seem to be the thing that’s falling away.

They were a true warrior nation- trained to fight from their youth- and this defeat sent the people of Athens into a time of disillusionment.

They questioned the power of their gods- and a sort of malaise fell over Athens after the defeat.

This was when Socrates entered the fray- when the people had many questions about life.

He was called the Gadfly of Athens- a title that would also be given to the 19^th century Danish father of existentialism- Soren Kierkegaard.

They were called Gadfly’s- because they were like flies that would pester you- and elicit a response.

The leadership of Athens saw Socrates as one that was stirring up the youth of his day- and creating discontent among the populace.

He rejected the many god’s of the day- but did have a belief in a single deity- he- like the Christians 4 centuries later- would be accused of atheism- because of his rejection of multiple god’s.

He was sentenced to death in 399 BCE- and his form of execution was drinking Hemlock.

His most famous student- Plato- spoke with him before his death.

Many were surprised at how willingly Socrates faced his demise- and this willingness had a great impact on those who witnessed it.

Socrates never wrote anything- but most of what we do know about him comes from the writing of others- most notably from Plato’s Dialogues.

Plato wrote down what Socrates taught- In his writings we see Socrates engaging in this method with various people- thus the name of Plato’s works- Dialogues.

There is a debate about how much of what was written about him was actually true- Plato did add his own ideas into these debates- and the controversy about this is so strong that we actually have a name for it- the ‘Socratic Problem’.

During the time of the disillusionment of the Athenians- there were a group of philosophers known as the Sophists.

The word comes from Sophia- meaning wisdom.

Philosophy itself means The Love of Wisdom.

In our day the words Sophomore- Sophistry and Sophisticated are derived from this root word.

The Sophists were the original Pragmatists.

Pragmatism is a form of belief that says ‘do what works- regardless of the ethical implications’.

We will get to Pragmatism at the end of this whole series on Philosophy.

But for now- we see the division between what Socrates taught- and the

Now- I do not ‘spiritualize’ everything in the book of Revelation- and over time I might teach the various views on the book [historic- future- a mix of both- etc.]But what I want you to see in this post is the primary ‘enemy’ that Christ wars against- is Satan’s tactic to deceive man- thru sin- and the way sin effects the mind.

I read a book on addiction a few years ago [read a few] - and one of them was quite interesting.

It was a book on addiction recovery- from those who left AA.

The new program they started [and have good results] was based solely on recognizing the ‘addictive voice’.

Over time- thru many personal stories- they learned that sin/addiction starts in the mind- many testified to the fact that before they sinned- they actually found themselves ‘mouthing’ words like ‘I can’t believe I’m going to do this’

They taught- at that point- reject [rebuke] the voice.

[ that the image of the beast should both speak ,]

Many spoke about images of sin in their ‘mind’s eye’- Jesus warned against sin- saying ‘if your eye is evil- your whole body will be full of darkness’.

As you read these references I posted from revelation- you see an aspect of this

‘Those who worship the beast- and his image’ ‘those MARKED in their minds/hands’.

At the end of the book we read of those who overcame the beast- they ‘stood