A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us

[OBW]

Prepare for one of my entirely too long posts. And for me to step on some toes.

Here goes.


So America was blessed because:

• They mentioned God in the first inaugural address.
• There was prayer a few times recorded.

So America was blessed when:

• Its capital was burned in 1812.
• It destroyed more of its own lives over economic interests and slavery than have been lost in any war before or since. And if you think that war cured the problems surrounding slaves, then why MLKJr and Malcom X?
• It declared that it had "manifest destiny" and killed everything and everyone to the west to claim the land.

The fact is that societies and governments have risen and fallen over the centuries. Many of them enjoyed times of prosperity and peace for varying reasons. America enjoyed peace for many years because it was hard to send an invading force across vast oceans. So we could declare other countries in the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European forces because it was closer to home for us but not for them.

As I and others have said, we all need to pray and repent. But there is no Christian Nation with blessings to restore. That does not mean we need to repent less. But it is people who need to repent. Christians need to repent for denying justice in the name of their God. For carrying on in ways so un-Christian.

Those who are not Christian need to repent. They need to be saved. But the fact that they exist does not change the nature of the nation. It is a kingdom of the world, not the Kingdom of God.

This will get me in hot water, but I am mostly embarrassed to lay claim to the Christian faith when so many of my brothers and sisters rail against the nation (which is comprised of people, most of whom are not Christian) for not being pure enough to gain God's blessing on the nation. The way that so many of the spokespersons for the cause of Christian morality, any kind of so-called Christian nation, or those who try to legislate the lives of the nation according to Christian principles carry on is a shame to the gospel and to the God that they claim to represent.

Now, to go to the premise concerning some kind of view that the creation of America can be compared to the creation and continuation of the nation of Israel from the return from Egypt through the destruction of Jerusalem in about 72 AD.

Before Israel came to be, God made a covenant with Abraham to make a nation out of him, and beyond that, to bless the world through that nation. Who did God woo to leave their people to move the promised land and be made into a nation according to God’s promise? I can’t see even a huge stretch of the available facts getting to that comparison.

Abram was probably a happy man, living in Ur when God came to him. The Pilgrims, or whichever group you want to speak of concerning the creation of America, were out to beat the prophecy that we would be treated worse than our Master, Jesus. And even if you think you want to start with the Pilgrims, by the time of the 1770s where were they? The population of the area near to where they originally settled was populated mostly by others. Heavily a world of commerce, not of religion.

Not suggesting that Israel did not have commerce. But before there was an exodus; before there was Moses, Joshua, or Caleb; before the first or last of the judges; before Samuel; and before the first of the kings, God had made a covenant.

Israel did not become blessed because they decided to consecrate to God. They were blessed because God chose them as a people. And while it is correct to say that God is still choosing people, he is not choosing entire nations of people. The people of God are part of a “shadow nation.” A people who should be in, but not of the political nation in which they reside.

We chose to do our covenant in reverse. We decide that we would single-out bits of history, specific individuals, and even recast a few more, to patch together a declaration concerning the country that was not even hinted at during the day.

And among the founding fathers is one that is popular to read about with recent biographies available (John and Abigail Adams) we find a declaration that the country is not a Christian nation. In speaking/writing in the context of the conflict with the Barbary Pirates, John was explicit to state that the nation was not simply Christian. When I last read that account (a couple of years ago) I recall that it represented, to me, one of the most Christian responses in that it was righteous without being specifically Christian or favoring the Christian over the Muslim or followers of another god.

I will grant that some of the leaders did honor God in their statements. But no matter how many of such statements were made, what causes them to constitute a covenant with God that was endowed with God’s blessing? Even if we could accurately assert that they all intended to make such a covenant, remember that the pattern is God coming to Abram with a covenant. God gave Abram/Abraham and his offspring the land that the nation ultimately inhabited.

It might be easy to compare the battles required to evict the existing inhabitants of the “good land,” but just because there was such a series of battles does not make our continuing land grab comparable. Just because you can see an aspect of similarity does not make it comparable.

Last, even though I agree that all Christians do need to be in repentance, the first question that comes to mind is “since when did we not need to repent?” What makes being in America require it more than in France, Greece, Indonesia or Serbia? Maybe the real problem is that within the evangelical community out of which most of the “Christian Nation” rhetoric comes, we are too enamored with “victory,” “joy,” “glory,” improved spirituality, and much less with the constant realization of our need for grace and repentance. Yes, we speak of it, but we join together in worship to focus on ourselves and what God is doing for us rather than focusing on God and what we are doing to follow Him.

And most importantly, it is a misguided focus. It distracts from the real gospel of Christ. We are busy extracting ourselves from subtle errors buried in seemingly good theology, but too often trading one set of errors for new ones. Turning from a craving for “the ground” and “Christ and the church,” and replacing it with “Christian Nation.” In other words, get rid of one emphasis not actually found in scripture and replace it with another no more fundamental to the meaning and thrust of scripture. If the thrust is off, no matter how sound some parts of the call may be — praying and repenting — it is subservient to a misdirection of allegiance.

Consecrated to His purposes? America was forever consecrated to its own purposes. They set about to be more tolerant and righteous with all of their inhabitants, unlike the places they left which required allegiance to one sect of religion over all others. But their purpose was to be freer to pursue their dreams without government interference.

When he says that we still invoke his name, but it becomes hollow, how is it that we think it was ever more solid? Just because we want it to be so?

I was right. We do need to repent. We Christians. It is irrelevant that we are Americans. Nothing has changed. Christians continue to need to repent. Pointing to some special status of the nation is just a distraction. It is most definitely not “scriptural.”

By the way. We didn’t ban God from the public square. From its schools. The collection of people who are the nation, and who are not, in majority, Christian, did it. The nation was never more than a relatively just kingdom of the world.

I let the thing run some in the background for a while. I got to about 14 minutes. That is enough. This stuff is completely un-Christian. It is appealing to trite, man-centric thinking.

And guess what. We all learned how to be man-centric in the LRC. We may have left that place. We may even curse its existence. But we still declare that we are the center of the universe. We have now exchanged the LRC as the core of that center for America. Both are false. Both are idols.

And as I recall, there was a huge blow-up here some years back due to calling virtually everything an idol. And if there is an idol on display in this “house,” it is the “Christian Nation.” Some God-blessed overlay on the status of a political enterprise run by a majority of unbelievers.

If there was ever an argument for taking Bibles out of the hands of the average Christian, this is one of the best. “Me and my Bible” is one of the worst things to happen to the spiritual condition of good Christians everywhere.

I am not saying that we should not read our Bibles. But we need to have a focus that is not based on whatever crazy teacher comes along selling something. Ground, a me-centric religion, a me-centric nation, or whatever. Read the gospels and the epistles again and tell me that you really think that the transition from the Israel-centered religion to one of inclusion of all people somehow turns into a “Christian Nation.” It just isn’t there. The only way to find that kind of theology is to join those guys from a few years ago that declared that if they wrote it, it was scripture.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

... if there is an idol on display in this “house,” it is the “Christian Nation.” Some God-blessed overlay on the status of a political enterprise run by a majority of unbelievers.

I agree with this assessment, in an absolutist sense (being compared to the perfection of God in Christ) but relatively speaking, the founding of this nation and its establishment for 200+ years being dominated by the "Protestant ethic" was arguably fortuitous. The founding of the American colonies and the establishment of the political United States, when compared with elsewhere, both then and hence, was indeed aligned with God's will manifested in Christ Jesus.

That doesn't make America a "Christian Nation." But it sure beats the Ottoman Empire, the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (look that one up), and the Thousand-Year Reich.

Regarding the founders. Yes, they had imperfections. But compared to rulers and founders of political enterprises elsewhere, both at those times and even after, they hold up pretty well. When George Washington stepped down from office after 8 years, it was unprecedented.

Lastly, on a balancing note, what I learned most from reading about the founders is that as soon as they stopped fighting the British they started fighting amongst themselves. The amount of vitriol these former Revolutionary allies poured upon each other as they established the first political parties is quite sobering. So I don't idolize them. Nonetheless, I am thankful, and do I pray for those currently in positions of authority. Surely they need our prayers, and God wants our prayers.

[Thankful Jane]

I have a little time in my day, so I’d like to back-track and respond to a few statements made in an earlier post.

Originally Posted by OBW

Before Israel came to be, God made a covenant with Abraham to make a nation out of him, and beyond that, to bless the world through that nation. Who did God woo to leave their people to move the promised land and be made into a nation according to God’s promise? I can’t see even a huge stretch of the available facts getting to that comparison.

In the interest of biblical accuracy, in Genesis 17:4-6, God said to Abraham,

“As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. [5] Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. [6] And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.”

In Romans 4:17-18, Paul repeated this saying,

“(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. [18] Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”

Also, Jacob, in his blessing on Ephraim (Joseph’s second son) makes another such statement:

“And his father [Jacob] refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he [Manasseh] also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 48:19)

I am not saying I understand what these references to "many nations" or a "multitude of nations" mean, but someone brought them to my attention several years ago. In light of them, it isn’t accurate to say “God made a covenant with Abraham to make a nation out of him.”

The above statements are just the plain word of the Bible. God said them, not me. He said many nations would come out of Abraham and specifically a multitude of nations would come out of Ephraim.

A multitude of nations coming out of Abraham could be explained by the fact that Abraham had Ishmael by Hagar, who was an Egyptian, and nations came out of Ishmael. However, this explanation does not account for Jacob saying concerning Ephraim that his seed would become a multitude of nations.

Originally Posted by OBW

Israel did not become blessed because they decided to consecrate to God. They were blessed because God chose them as a people.

If they were blessed because God chose them as a people, then part of that blessed people was the seed of Ephraim, who became a multitude of nations, and accordingly, those nations would be blessed also.

I do not know what this means, but it means something. I’m just putting out some food for thought here J.

[OBW]

Overextension and overapplication. Israel is Israel. Remember that Ishmael was also born of Abraham. And he has become many nations as well. But to presume a blessing upon Ishmael's descendents in the same way as Israel is a serious misunderstanding.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

Overextension and overapplication. Israel is Israel. Remember that Ishmael was also born of Abraham. And he has become many nations as well. But to presume a blessing upon Ishmael's descendents in the same way as Israel is a serious misunderstanding.

I have no idea what you mean by overextension and overapplication. I made no application. If you are going to respond, it would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote in my post.

It strikes me wrongly for you to ask me to remember something that I had already pointed out in the post (about Ishmael).

Please do not ascribe ideas to me that I did not write and characterize them as a "serious misunderstanding." I made no comment, had no thought, and made no presumption about blessing (whatever you mean by that) on Ishmael's descendants.

My point was that God's promise to Abraham was not to make him "a" nation, as you had written.

I also pointed out that Jacob's blessing on Ephraim was that he would become a multitude of nations.

As I said, I do not know what this means, but it means something.

My post contained straightforward observations about the words of the Bible, and as I said, it was food for thought. Of course, I would be interested in what anyone thought about those verses.

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have no idea what you mean by overextension and over-application. I made no application. If you are going to respond, it would be nice if you would respond to what I actually wrote in my post.

It strikes me wrongly for you to ask me to remember something that I had already pointed out in the post (about Ishmael).

Please do not ascribe ideas to me that I did not write and characterize them as a "serious misunderstanding." I made no comment, had no thought, and made no presumption about blessing (whatever you mean by that) on Ishmael's descendants.

My point was that God's promise to Abraham was not to make him "a" nation, as you had written.

I also pointed out that Jacob's blessing on Ephraim was that he would become a multitude of nations.

As I said, I do not know what this means, but it means something.

My post contained straightforward observations about the words of the Bible, and as I said, it was food for thought. Of course, I would be interested in what anyone thought about those verses.

Thankful Jane

The point concerning Ishmael was that there was not the same promise of blessing for him. He was promised to be the father of many nations. And it is also stated that he would be problem for the family he was exiled from. He was not promised all the stuff that Israel was promised.

As for overextended, it is the reading of the mention of nations with the intent of implying that everything concerning the covenant between Israel and God (which, BTW, was on top of Abraham's covenant, not simply the same covenant) did not flow through any of these verses to other nations. As I recall, God came and asked if they were willing to be for Him and follow Him. Upon their agreement, the law was given. And the promises that attached to any specific nation were also given.

It seems that all of the "national" promises being mentioned are not really the outgrowth of the Abrahamic covenant, but the specific covenant between God and the nation of Israel at the foot of Mt Sinai.

So, once again, there appears to be an overextension of covenant, prophecy, etc. Finding what amounts to a data point in common between two different things does not cause one to flow onto the other.

In other words, I see a lot of dots being called connected when I do not see the connection.

And, if you read my most recent post in the new thread on politics, you will see a related problem for me. One which I have raised here in different terms. But I will rephrase it here within the scope of this discussion.

As this discussion has unfolded, it would appear that it is the lack of favorable treatment of Christian values, even in terms of how laws are made, that is a significant cornerstone of the claim of America's "fall from grace." Our response begins as something benign, or even positive. Repent and pray. That is good. Something we should do without buildings falling. That it took such a thing is a shame to us. Not to the nation, the government, or the laws that allow abortion and refuse prayer in schools.

But if, after our repentance and prayer, the secular government does not reinstate sanctioned prayer in schools, favored status as iconic symbols in our courts (such as the posting of the ten commandments), legal restrictions on abortions, reduction in the rights of gays, very generous reading of the 10th amendment and of the right to bear arms . . . then what does it mean? That the nation didn't really repent? Or that we didn't repent hard enough for it?

Is it, as has been suggested, an invitation to get very active in politics so that we can increase pressure to make those things legally required?

So how does that stack up with "love your neighbor"? With "eats with sinners"? Jesus ate with sinners. He didn't lambaste them, then wait until they were sinning no more. Paul said that even the language of angels can be wielded without love and is a clanging symbol. Do we eat with Zacchaeus first, or demand that he change first?

I do not fear a slippery slope here. It seems to be the unavoidable outgrowth of a movement to insist that a secular nation can repent and pray its way out of bad things happening.

The nation cannot pray. Only the citizens can. And they aren't all praying, therefore the nation is not praying.

And outside of all of this, my second fear with this kind of movement is that it is just as much of a distraction from what is the real call of the gospel as was in the LRC. It sounds so good. But I find nothing in the linkages of scripture that actually arrive at the conclusions about what could be spiritual truth.

Instead, I see myths of super-spirituality in the founding fathers, linked through genealogies of churches near ground zero, and so many other things. We are aligning our spiritual efforts because a 200+ year-old church was near ground zero and didn't fall. This story of a sycamore tree saving the building is quite questionable. Besides the insiders' writings, where is this published in a way other than repeating what one of these writers has published? Caught a few pieces of stray shrapnel? What does that mean? How does a tree with a diameter of few feet protect a building of many feet in width? If the tree and the church remained standing, the answer is probably that there was not an assault of debris in that direction sufficient to do such damage.

Where do we take a stand to live peaceably? To repent for ourselves? To pray earnestly? To live righteously, but as sojourners, not as if the actual citizens? (Not saying to avoid anything to do with politics.)

If your talk were focused upon me, you, and the rest of us repenting continually for our continual failings without reference to some funny overlay of special nation status, you would find me fully with you. The same for prayer. Even praying for the nation. But not as if it can gain favored nation status, but as if every man woman and child needs to meet the Savior. That we all need to gain freedom from the bondage of sin. Better laws concerning how Christianity is treated in this country is irrelevant to that effort. Making sin illegal civilly does not decrease sin. It just puts it in hiding and/or changes the sin of choice. Why? because we are talking about sinners. And sinners will sin.

The answer is in changed lives. What arises from praying for a return to some presumed Christian status as a nation is legislated lives. But it doesn't change even one of those lives.

[Cal]

But if, after our repentance and prayer, the secular government does not reinstate sanctioned prayer in schools, favored status as iconic symbols in our courts (such as the posting of the ten commandments), legal restrictions on abortions, reduction in the rights of gays, very generous reading of the 10th amendment and of the right to bear arms . . . then what does it mean? That the nation didn't really repent? Or that we didn't repent hard enough for it?

If enough people really pray and repent, eventually there is going to be a critical mass of changed American lives that affect laws. It doesn't make sense that a significant amount of Americans would experience spiritual revival and it not have some repercussions in the halls of state and Federal congresses. Your paragraph seems to be saying that there is no way to pray in a way that would result in more justice in America from our lawmakers. But there is. If the people change the laws will change. And are you so sure Cahn is not talking about people changing first? You don't think he realizes this is a democracy? How can the laws change in a democracy without the people changing?

Cahn is talking about real prayer, real repentance. Yes, change starts with changed lives, but changed lives start with prayer. If we just pray for more just laws without being just ourselves, obviously change is not going to happen. You need people who actually value those laws. Again, we are after all talking about a democracy.

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

No, just laws are not the end goal. But the idea that, all else being equal, God wouldn't prefer the most just laws we can establish, is a bit strange to me. Yes, he uses everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a preference.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

It is a sad fact that often the laws of the land have more impact upon our conscience than the laws of God. This is especially true for our next generation. When the media, the teachers, and their peers at school all convince our young daughters that sex is completely acceptable, then their parents' faith seems irrelevant. When the school and her classmates can arrange an abortion without mommy knowing, she can easily be convinced that she is doing "the right thing." That is, until the "problem" is gone, and she is left to consider what just happened to her.

Fact is, the conscience of our young people is definitely affected by the laws of the land. The same is true with adultery. The laws of the land say there is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the marriage bond via an extramarital affair. My Discover card is more binding than my legal relationship with my wife. God's word may say otherwise, but today's society seems for more impressed with "short-term" consequences.

If God was not so interested in laws and moral codes for his people, then we would never have heard about Moses at Mount Sanai or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

If enough people really pray and repent, eventually there is going to be a critical mass of changed American lives that affect laws. It doesn't make sense that a significant amount of Americans would experience spiritual revival and it not have some repercussions in the halls of state and Federal congresses. Your paragraph seems to be saying that there is no way to pray in a way that would result in more justice in America from our lawmakers. But there is. If the people change the laws will change. And are you so sure Cahn is not talking about people changing first? You don't think he realizes this is a democracy? How can the laws change in a democracy without the people changing?

I would not say that God does not care about our laws. But his concern is more about the lives of people. And if we are so certain that "doing it on your own" is meaningless, then all the laws we can dream up is not the answer. Accepting the Savior is.

I did not propose that it could not happen. But I have doubts at the kind of levels that we are talking about here. I said "what if." If at our best, and at the actual rate of conversion of people to Christ, we don't arrive at "critical mass" to begin to move the pendulum, what have the Christians of America lost?

Favored religion status. That is it. And we should never presume that of any government, even one that is supposedly based on Christian principles. Even with those principles in place, it is secular and is full of secular people.

Originally Posted by Igzy

But I think you are kidding yourself, OBW, if you think God doesn't care about just and righteous laws in America. I'm not saying he would have us outlaw every sexual peccadillo, but certainly God cares about what kind of laws we have. I think it's naive and presumptuous to assume he is completely happy with the current laws in this country, or worse doesn't give a whit about them.

I don't think I made any comment on God's happiness with or care about our laws. Or those of other countries.

I would agree that just laws are always preferable. Even in our own eyes. But decides what is just? For a secular nation, a question that we as Christians might answer one way might be answered differently by a sufficiently large number of people that to outlaw their position might not actually reflect justice or righteousness. I am required to live according to God's righteousness and justice. We can say that everyone is required. But that is semantics. They are not required to do so in this life. But their choice in the matter is subject to penalty in the next.

So when does life begin (to take the abortion question as an example)? We quickly point to the Bible and realize that God refers to us a known in the womb — even at conception. And you don't "know" inanimate objects. But for those who reject God and/or the Bible, how do you force the answer to conception so that they are legally required to obey the Christian perspective? I am not saying to give up. But you need to find the way to move it from nearly at birth back to significantly toward conception with an argument that they will accept. And you may not get that all the way back to conception.

Then you have the issue that this nation does not allow the taking of a life "without due process." So there will be legitimate petitions for termination of pregnancy where a mother's life is in serious danger. And if it requires a lengthy process, then no petition will be meaningful. So there will need to be some level of legislation providing guidelines.

I would prefer that we had an army of doctors (all of them) that had morality that we could simply trust to do the right thing at all times.

But even with this kind of process in place, how do you keep from requiring people with honest differences of opinion on the subject from becoming subject to civil/criminal penalty because of the insistence of Christians? I'm not saying is it not the "right way" if we were Israel of the Old Testament. I question whether it is not entirely contrary to the command to love our neighbor. Whether it is not at odds with the example of eating with the sinners and inviting them into a relationship with Christ that changes their lives. That ends the life of prostitution, or being a cheating tax collector. Or thinking that homosexuality is just "who I am" therefore OK. Or thinking that my financial comfort requires an abortion and it is OK.

I am not talking about something that could happen if we are able to get the laws the way we want them. It will be what we create by getting those laws.

Now if the government, on its own, moves toward better laws and administers them without favoritism and without reference to Christianity or God, then we will have obtained what we want without setting that chain of events in motion.

Or will we? We also want prayer in the schools. And the claimed references to God and Christianity in history to be returned to prominence. If we manage to get those, then we will find that we have failed to avoid the taint that comes with the change in laws.

Originally Posted by Igzy

No, just laws are not the end goal. But the idea that, all else being equal, God wouldn't prefer the most just laws we can establish, is a bit strange to me. Yes, he uses everything, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a preference.

As long as "we" is everybody and not just the Christians marching in the streets demanding that those evil abortionists and homosexuals be stopped, then you may be at least partly right.

But I think that God would prefer that men turn to Him more than that secular kingdoms of the world have the most just paws possible. And if getting the second results in antagonism of the people that God would like to turn His way, then is seems we have gone out of our way to push them further away. Of course, if we take "God works in all things" to its extreme, we can argue that God can even use our browbeating of the heathen. I guess that makes it all better. God can work through it anyway.

But if we are sojourners in this world, how is it that the laws of this passing world are so strongly on our radar that we drop almost everything else to go after them?

And more than that, we go after the best set of laws there are and try to make them better while horrible laws exist elsewhere. Laws that even deny the open preaching of the gospel.

If there is a mark, this is not it.

I have said enough. If you don't see it, then you don't see it.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

The point concerning Ishmael was that there was not the same promise of blessing for him. He was promised to be the father of many nations. And it is also stated that he would be problem for the family he was exiled from. He was not promised all the stuff that Israel was promised.

....

If your talk were focused upon me, you, and the rest of us repenting continually for our continual failings without reference to some funny overlay of special nation status, you would find me fully with you. The same for prayer. Even praying for the nation. But not as if it can gain favored nation status, but as if every man woman and child needs to meet the Savior. That we all need to gain freedom from the bondage of sin. Better laws concerning how Christianity is treated in this country is irrelevant to that effort. Making sin illegal civilly does not decrease sin. It just puts it in hiding and/or changes the sin of choice. Why? because we are talking about sinners. And sinners will sin.

The answer is in changed lives. What arises from praying for a return to some presumed Christian status as a nation is legislated lives. But it doesn't change even one of those lives.

Mike,

I did not finish reading your post. I tried twice and the second time my brain exploded. It is a miracle that I can write these lines.

I feel that you are talking at me with a waterfall of words that I'm sure make sense to you, but don't make sense to me. I simply don't have the time it would require to try and get your meaning, much less respond. Sorry.

Please be at peace. You don't need to rescue me from beliefs that I don't hold.

Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Mike,

I did not finish reading your post. I tried twice and the second time my brain exploded. It is a miracle that I can write these lines.

I feel that you are talking at me with a waterfall of words that I'm sure make sense to you, but don't make sense to me. I simply don't have the time it would require to try and get your meaning, much less respond. Sorry.

Please be at peace. You don't need to rescue me from beliefs that I don't hold.

Jane

Wow, how many times have I wanted to say that!