At least those talking about it in Modern America. I've watched a lot of stuff from the recent conference held at the Denver Sanctuary, and I've read Robin Parry and David Bentley Hart's responses to "The Devil's Redemption". And when people talk about the history of Universal Salvation proponents they'll talk about Gregory of Nysaa who should perhaps always be the first we mention, they'll talk about Origen in-spite how problematic he is, they'll talk about George MacDonald who's main claim to fame was as a writer of fiction. But never Gerrard Winstanley?
I can't help but suspect that it's because so many of them come out of American Evangelicalism and are thus still a little tied to American Political Conservatism. So the fact that the person who introduced this Gospel into the English Speaking world was also one of the founding fathers of Communism isn't something they want to emphasize.
But it's a natural connection to make in my view, so many of the points from Jesus' parables about how God isn't a respecter of Persons or of Meritocracy which definitely imply Universal Salvation when applied Metaphysically, also utterly condemn the foundational logic of Capitalism when applied to this life. And I feel both those applications are important to what Jesus wanted us to take from them.
When Peter Hiett is preaching on Revelation and explaining what "Pornea" that Book is really condemning, it's like he's coming so close to arguing that the Whore of Babylon is Capitalism, but can't quiet go all the way.
Yet the failure to connect these two things also happens on the other end, "Liberation Theology" seems to have become a Sadducean tradition, so they aren't bringing up Gerrard Winstanley either.
Update: In a Facebook group I was provided these links.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A66686.0001.001
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/winstanley/1652/law-freedom/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR1uKpsJgwVUx4X_QePIUn1pgVfU4A5etY3442A8agt4NDSm_dMtc9uOnZs
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66685.0001.001?view=toc&fbclid=IwAR2sBqz1nB3kXAYL85fMQ0lFUgmzc8RWI3z-WfHPjWWV8wC5LQlHCnmanno
http://www.diggers.org/diggers-ENGLISH-1649/NEW-LAW-OF-RIGHTEOUSNESS-1648-Winstanley.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2mb_Z_awI2FP9M3UEkqdRj5xKRqXRESlIMUHziASp5F2WOb26Z6iHtx24
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Monday, October 28, 2019
Emperor Constans, The Homosexual Champion of Trinitarian Christianity.
There are numerous forms of Christianity today that for one reason or another feel The Church marrying The Roman Empire was overall a net negative. And I myself am still largely of that way of thinking. But I also understand the nuances and complexities of Ancient History enough that I really can't agree with how strongly these traditions tend to demonize Constantine himself.
Constantine wasn't perfect, but neither was David. I oppose human Monarchy on principal, but if it's possible for Ancient Israel to have relatively good Kings, and for a Pagan King like Cyrus to be spoken of very positively in Scripture, then it's possible for some Roman Emperors to be at least okay.
I think the Milvian Bridge Vision story is fictional, but I think that because I think he was raised a Christian by his mother Helena (who I theorize descended from the Abgars of Osroene) and the conversion myth simply made a better story.
Some websites talking about the History of Imperial Christianity's persecution of Jews will claim it started with Constantine himself, but these claims are quite vague and unsourced. The truth is the Edict of Milan granted Freedom of Religion to all religions, and Constantine stuck by that, the reason some accuse him of embracing the Arian Heresy in his last days is mainly just because he wasn't persecuting them.
But I'm not making this post to talk about Constantine, instead my interest today is the youngest of his three sons.
Constantine wanted his sons and his nephews to inherit The Empire together, but after he died in 337 AD the nephews were massacred. You'll often see this incident described as if all three of Constantine's sons were equally culpable in it, but when this happened two of them were already over 20 while Constans was only 13 or 14, so clearly one is less morally accountable for what happened then the others.
The firstborn son Constantine II inherited France, Britannia, the Iberian Peninsula and a little bit of North Africa, the Straight of Gibraltar basically. Constantius II got what we would call the Eastern Empire. And the youngest Constans got Italy, Dalmatia and most of North Western Africa. But because Constans was still a minor Constantine II was also his protector.
Constantius II embraced the Arian Heresy (though some will argue he was really more Semi-Arian) and proceeded to depose and exile Athanasius. He was also the first Christian Emperor to use Caesar's sword against the Jews, indeed his persecution of The Jews provoked their first open rebellion against the Empire since the defeat of Bar-Khocba. It was also under him that oppression of the Pagans began.
Constantine II felt like he should have got more then he did as the firstborn, and when Constans became of legal age he basically tried to kill him but it failed and he died in 340 AD resulting in Constans having the entire West.
Constans passed a law banning some Pagan Sacrifices, but he was Tolerant of the Jews. And even that Law agaisnt Pagan Sacrifices was made in 341 when he was still not 20 yet.
Constantine wasn't perfect, but neither was David. I oppose human Monarchy on principal, but if it's possible for Ancient Israel to have relatively good Kings, and for a Pagan King like Cyrus to be spoken of very positively in Scripture, then it's possible for some Roman Emperors to be at least okay.
I think the Milvian Bridge Vision story is fictional, but I think that because I think he was raised a Christian by his mother Helena (who I theorize descended from the Abgars of Osroene) and the conversion myth simply made a better story.
Some websites talking about the History of Imperial Christianity's persecution of Jews will claim it started with Constantine himself, but these claims are quite vague and unsourced. The truth is the Edict of Milan granted Freedom of Religion to all religions, and Constantine stuck by that, the reason some accuse him of embracing the Arian Heresy in his last days is mainly just because he wasn't persecuting them.
But I'm not making this post to talk about Constantine, instead my interest today is the youngest of his three sons.
Constantine wanted his sons and his nephews to inherit The Empire together, but after he died in 337 AD the nephews were massacred. You'll often see this incident described as if all three of Constantine's sons were equally culpable in it, but when this happened two of them were already over 20 while Constans was only 13 or 14, so clearly one is less morally accountable for what happened then the others.
The firstborn son Constantine II inherited France, Britannia, the Iberian Peninsula and a little bit of North Africa, the Straight of Gibraltar basically. Constantius II got what we would call the Eastern Empire. And the youngest Constans got Italy, Dalmatia and most of North Western Africa. But because Constans was still a minor Constantine II was also his protector.
Constantius II embraced the Arian Heresy (though some will argue he was really more Semi-Arian) and proceeded to depose and exile Athanasius. He was also the first Christian Emperor to use Caesar's sword against the Jews, indeed his persecution of The Jews provoked their first open rebellion against the Empire since the defeat of Bar-Khocba. It was also under him that oppression of the Pagans began.
Constantine II felt like he should have got more then he did as the firstborn, and when Constans became of legal age he basically tried to kill him but it failed and he died in 340 AD resulting in Constans having the entire West.
Constans passed a law banning some Pagan Sacrifices, but he was Tolerant of the Jews. And even that Law agaisnt Pagan Sacrifices was made in 341 when he was still not 20 yet.
He championed the Nicene faith creating conflict with his brother in the East.
Constans was a Homosexual, which created some conflicts even with the Nicene Clergy he supported since Platonist Homophobia was already taking hold in the Greco-Roman Church. And I think this is the sole reason some accounts of this Emperor speak badly of him.
Constans was a Homosexual, which created some conflicts even with the Nicene Clergy he supported since Platonist Homophobia was already taking hold in the Greco-Roman Church. And I think this is the sole reason some accounts of this Emperor speak badly of him.
And of course like many demonized Homosexuals there was a desire to paint him as a "Pederast", but those who applied that Trope to Constans seem to have overlooked that he never even lived to see 27.
A Usurper's rebellion against him resulted in his death in February of 350 AD, Constantius II then went to war against the Usurper and for a time ruled the Entire Empire.
Later about 380 is when the Prophecy attributed to the Triburtine Sybil is believed to have first emerged, the earliest form of the Last Roman Emperor tradition. I find it interesting that in this original from it was the name Constans not Cosntantine that was given to this future Emperor. I think the common people of Nicene Christianity continued to view Constans as a Hero even as the establishment sought to either smear or forget about him.
While Tyranny in the Imperial Church began with an Arian Emperor, later Nicene ones would prove no better. Theodosius (both I and II) and Justinian are the ones far more worth condemning as the Tyrants who turned The Church into an instrument of oppression.
A Usurper's rebellion against him resulted in his death in February of 350 AD, Constantius II then went to war against the Usurper and for a time ruled the Entire Empire.
Later about 380 is when the Prophecy attributed to the Triburtine Sybil is believed to have first emerged, the earliest form of the Last Roman Emperor tradition. I find it interesting that in this original from it was the name Constans not Cosntantine that was given to this future Emperor. I think the common people of Nicene Christianity continued to view Constans as a Hero even as the establishment sought to either smear or forget about him.
While Tyranny in the Imperial Church began with an Arian Emperor, later Nicene ones would prove no better. Theodosius (both I and II) and Justinian are the ones far more worth condemning as the Tyrants who turned The Church into an instrument of oppression.
Friday, October 18, 2019
Monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople, condemns two "heresies", Monoenergism and Monothelitism, and in turn affirmed Duoenergism and Duothelitism. In laymen's terms, they decided that Christ had two Energies (Divien and Human) and two Wills (Divine and Human), and condemned teaching He had only one of either of those.
This is probably the least talked about of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The first two are about the beginning of Christianity as the mainstream religion of Western Civilization and a State Religion, the next two are about Schisms that still exist to this day. The fifth exists in the context of those schisms and the internet's favorite Byzantine Emperor and is often alleged to be relevant to the debate about Universal Salvation. And the Seventh and Final one is a dispute the protestant reformation reignited. However the sixth is about things modern English speakers have trouble even comprehending what they're talking about.
It seems people who do comment on it feel this decision was the logical follow up to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, where it was decided Christ had two Natures (Divine and Human). However the Calcedonian Definition also says Christ is one "Person", as in "Personality". indeed Chalcedonians and Miaphysites base their condemnation of Nestorious and Theodore of Mopsuesta on the accusation that they split Jesus' Person in two, that accusation however is false.
While it might be correct to assume one's position on Christ's "Energy" should be the same as His Nature (I have no idea what "Energy" even means in this context). I feel one's "Will" is definitely part of their Person not their Nature.
Both these controversies had their origins during the reign of Heraclius and his Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius. Monoenergism came first, and indeed when arguing for it Sergius added that "the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills".[9] Suggesting that the default position before anyone disputed it was Jesus having One Will.
I stumbled upon an Orthodox Blog insinuating that Calvinism basically teaches a form of Monothelitism (while assuming it's condemnation as Heresy was valid). However I feel both Calvinism and Arminianism are founded upon an erroneous assumption that Divine and Human Will conflict with each others, and only disagree on which Will prevails in the end.
In my view Jesus has One Will, that All shall be Saved.
Update November 2019: Energy or Action?
Doing some more reading on this I've seen "Energy" in reference to this dispute being alternatively translated "activity" or "operation". As if while one issue is about Christ's Will, the other is about how He Acts on said Will.
If that's what it's about then I definitely feel I should take the same stance on Monoenergism as I do on Monotheletism. Like Duoenergism is how Arminians can agree with me that God Wills everyone to be saved but can still act in opposition to that will because of Human Will.
But again I'm unsure what "Energy" ever meant in these contexts.
Update August 2020: If however "Energy" means the same thing Sailor Moon is talking about when it talks about Energy, that it would make sense to take the same position on as you would Christ's Nature.
This is probably the least talked about of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The first two are about the beginning of Christianity as the mainstream religion of Western Civilization and a State Religion, the next two are about Schisms that still exist to this day. The fifth exists in the context of those schisms and the internet's favorite Byzantine Emperor and is often alleged to be relevant to the debate about Universal Salvation. And the Seventh and Final one is a dispute the protestant reformation reignited. However the sixth is about things modern English speakers have trouble even comprehending what they're talking about.
It seems people who do comment on it feel this decision was the logical follow up to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, where it was decided Christ had two Natures (Divine and Human). However the Calcedonian Definition also says Christ is one "Person", as in "Personality". indeed Chalcedonians and Miaphysites base their condemnation of Nestorious and Theodore of Mopsuesta on the accusation that they split Jesus' Person in two, that accusation however is false.
While it might be correct to assume one's position on Christ's "Energy" should be the same as His Nature (I have no idea what "Energy" even means in this context). I feel one's "Will" is definitely part of their Person not their Nature.
Both these controversies had their origins during the reign of Heraclius and his Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius. Monoenergism came first, and indeed when arguing for it Sergius added that "the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills".[9] Suggesting that the default position before anyone disputed it was Jesus having One Will.
I stumbled upon an Orthodox Blog insinuating that Calvinism basically teaches a form of Monothelitism (while assuming it's condemnation as Heresy was valid). However I feel both Calvinism and Arminianism are founded upon an erroneous assumption that Divine and Human Will conflict with each others, and only disagree on which Will prevails in the end.
In my view Jesus has One Will, that All shall be Saved.
Update November 2019: Energy or Action?
Doing some more reading on this I've seen "Energy" in reference to this dispute being alternatively translated "activity" or "operation". As if while one issue is about Christ's Will, the other is about how He Acts on said Will.
If that's what it's about then I definitely feel I should take the same stance on Monoenergism as I do on Monotheletism. Like Duoenergism is how Arminians can agree with me that God Wills everyone to be saved but can still act in opposition to that will because of Human Will.
But again I'm unsure what "Energy" ever meant in these contexts.
Update August 2020: If however "Energy" means the same thing Sailor Moon is talking about when it talks about Energy, that it would make sense to take the same position on as you would Christ's Nature.
Update October 2020: from looking at the New Testament's usage of various forms of this word and how it gets translated the Activity and Operation meaning seems to be correct.
So I have to say I'm willing to identify as both a Monothelite and a Monoenergist.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Biblically Jesus died the Death of an Oppressor
Galatians 3:13 tells us the Crucifixion of Jesus fits Deuteronomy 21:32 “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” And the Author of The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, probably a Jew who lived before Jesus was born, also saw Roman style Crucifixion as fitting that.
Many Christians have stressed this connection, but failed to fully paint the picture that comes from tracing the history in the rest of the Hebrew Bible of times individuals died this death.
Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and in chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. These were the tyrant Kings of the Canaanites that Joshua is leading the Israelites in liberating the Promised Land from.
In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree. Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab. They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone for Saul's sin against them, because he had oppressed them.
When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian customs and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected. That's possibly the most famous oppressor in The Hebrew Bible.
Jesus died for the Sins of ALL, I have argued against Limited Atonement on this Blog and that is still my position. But he died the Death of an Oppressor for a few obvious reasons. One being that is the worst Sin, Paul called himself the Chief of Sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15, his Sin was being an oppressor, oppressing a religious minority. And also because it is the powerful who's sins often go unpunished in this life, the ones I named above didn't, but many have. Meanwhile everyone who's poor and oppressed has probably suffered more then enough in this life for whatever their sins are.
Even though I am absolutely a Leftist in my politics, I have a few things against "Liberation Theology", one was addressed in this blog's previous post. The other is that they are kind of Calvinists, at least 1 point Calvinists in that they seem to believe in a kind of Limited Atonement, Jesus Died and Rose only for the Oppressed and not their Oppressors.
You see rather then using Scripture to Interpret Scripture they are going off what Crucifixion meant to Rome and those Rome conquered, it was a form of Execution generally carried out on defeated rebels (I believe Barabbas and the two men executed next to Jesus were such rebels, "thief" is an incomplete translation).
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness". It was foolishness to the Greeks (Paul means Gentiles in general here) because they had none of the Biblical context, to them it was a form of execution designed to humiliate the defeated, what God would die like that or allow their Son to? But the Jews had the context they needed but just couldn't quite piece it together. They were not against The Messiah dying or being killed by their enemies, they expect that to happen to Messiah Ben Joseph. The reason a Crucified Messiah was a problem for them was because they knew that kind of Death as a judgment on their enemies who oppressed them.
And now mainstream Christianity has spent centuries making that worse by oppressing The Jews in the name of Christ Crucified. Calling them "Christ Killers" when Jesus said of all those guilty of persecuting Him (Jew and Roman) "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Many Christians have stressed this connection, but failed to fully paint the picture that comes from tracing the history in the rest of the Hebrew Bible of times individuals died this death.
Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and in chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. These were the tyrant Kings of the Canaanites that Joshua is leading the Israelites in liberating the Promised Land from.
In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree. Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab. They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone for Saul's sin against them, because he had oppressed them.
When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian customs and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected. That's possibly the most famous oppressor in The Hebrew Bible.
Jesus died for the Sins of ALL, I have argued against Limited Atonement on this Blog and that is still my position. But he died the Death of an Oppressor for a few obvious reasons. One being that is the worst Sin, Paul called himself the Chief of Sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15, his Sin was being an oppressor, oppressing a religious minority. And also because it is the powerful who's sins often go unpunished in this life, the ones I named above didn't, but many have. Meanwhile everyone who's poor and oppressed has probably suffered more then enough in this life for whatever their sins are.
Even though I am absolutely a Leftist in my politics, I have a few things against "Liberation Theology", one was addressed in this blog's previous post. The other is that they are kind of Calvinists, at least 1 point Calvinists in that they seem to believe in a kind of Limited Atonement, Jesus Died and Rose only for the Oppressed and not their Oppressors.
You see rather then using Scripture to Interpret Scripture they are going off what Crucifixion meant to Rome and those Rome conquered, it was a form of Execution generally carried out on defeated rebels (I believe Barabbas and the two men executed next to Jesus were such rebels, "thief" is an incomplete translation).
Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness". It was foolishness to the Greeks (Paul means Gentiles in general here) because they had none of the Biblical context, to them it was a form of execution designed to humiliate the defeated, what God would die like that or allow their Son to? But the Jews had the context they needed but just couldn't quite piece it together. They were not against The Messiah dying or being killed by their enemies, they expect that to happen to Messiah Ben Joseph. The reason a Crucified Messiah was a problem for them was because they knew that kind of Death as a judgment on their enemies who oppressed them.
And now mainstream Christianity has spent centuries making that worse by oppressing The Jews in the name of Christ Crucified. Calling them "Christ Killers" when Jesus said of all those guilty of persecuting Him (Jew and Roman) "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Saturday, October 12, 2019
I am a Christian Leftist, but I am not a Leftist Christian
I believe that Communism is not just compatible with The New Testament but to some extent called for by it.
But The Gospel itself is not a Political Message, it's the message that every person, every sinner no matter how bad, will be Literally Bodily Resurrected to live forever on this Earth in the New Creation.
What I've sadly found is that those who say they're a Leftist first seem to want to make The Gospel itself the same Gospel Karl Marx preached, and that misses the point.
Jesus had plenty to say to the rich and the ruling class. But he kind of attacked the Pharisees the most, and something a lot of people don't get is they were NOT the ruling class of that time, the Priesthood was controlled by the Sadducees and the Herodian Dynasty favored the Essenes. Those rebelling against Rome in 66-73 AD all came out of the Pharisees, the Zealots and Sicarii were both offshoots of the Pharisees, and contrary to how some want to paint it those groups were NOT looking for a Messiah, they were explicitly anti Monarchial.
One thing I've noticed that a lot of Christians on both the Left and the Right don't want to accept is that the New Testament is NOT very anti Rome. In Acts the Roman authorities are constantly the good guys, the ones making trouble for the early Church were local mobs and businesses, sometimes Jewish and sometimes Pagan, but the Roman authorities were always trying to keep the peace. Pilate is portrayed very sympathetically, the few times a modern depiction gets that right everyone loses their minds. And Jesus also praised a Roman centurion for having greater Faith then any of the Jews.
Besides how you interpret the Book of Revelation (I view the Beast is Rome but it's prophetic of the future when Rome became Christian, it's not condemning Pagan Rome), the only thing in The New Testament that makes Rome or Caesar seem bad is when in John 19 those calling for the Crucifixion said "we have no King but Caesar". So the State is only spiritually bad when you're choosing it over your true King Jesus.
When Jesus said to "Love your Enemies" and "Pray for those who Persecute you" the specific cultural context was Him talking to an indigenous people being oppressed by European colonizers. But modern Wokeism want to make it seem like Jesus was doing the Opposite of that.
So I was watching one YouTube video where two Leftist Christians were saying they had a Universalist phase but as they became more Leftist they became uncomfortable with letting the Evil they see in the World go "unpunished" and so are now basically Sadducees, allegorizing away our future Hope.
I'm going to say something really radical, if you truly have a Christ Like Heart, then you desire the Salvation of Adolf Hitler just as much as you desire the Salvation of Anne Frank.
All the Evil that the tyrants and capitalists have done will be undone by Jesus, so demanding "Justice" is utterly pointless. The only true Forgiveness is forgiving the unforgivable.
But The Gospel itself is not a Political Message, it's the message that every person, every sinner no matter how bad, will be Literally Bodily Resurrected to live forever on this Earth in the New Creation.
What I've sadly found is that those who say they're a Leftist first seem to want to make The Gospel itself the same Gospel Karl Marx preached, and that misses the point.
Jesus had plenty to say to the rich and the ruling class. But he kind of attacked the Pharisees the most, and something a lot of people don't get is they were NOT the ruling class of that time, the Priesthood was controlled by the Sadducees and the Herodian Dynasty favored the Essenes. Those rebelling against Rome in 66-73 AD all came out of the Pharisees, the Zealots and Sicarii were both offshoots of the Pharisees, and contrary to how some want to paint it those groups were NOT looking for a Messiah, they were explicitly anti Monarchial.
One thing I've noticed that a lot of Christians on both the Left and the Right don't want to accept is that the New Testament is NOT very anti Rome. In Acts the Roman authorities are constantly the good guys, the ones making trouble for the early Church were local mobs and businesses, sometimes Jewish and sometimes Pagan, but the Roman authorities were always trying to keep the peace. Pilate is portrayed very sympathetically, the few times a modern depiction gets that right everyone loses their minds. And Jesus also praised a Roman centurion for having greater Faith then any of the Jews.
Besides how you interpret the Book of Revelation (I view the Beast is Rome but it's prophetic of the future when Rome became Christian, it's not condemning Pagan Rome), the only thing in The New Testament that makes Rome or Caesar seem bad is when in John 19 those calling for the Crucifixion said "we have no King but Caesar". So the State is only spiritually bad when you're choosing it over your true King Jesus.
When Jesus said to "Love your Enemies" and "Pray for those who Persecute you" the specific cultural context was Him talking to an indigenous people being oppressed by European colonizers. But modern Wokeism want to make it seem like Jesus was doing the Opposite of that.
So I was watching one YouTube video where two Leftist Christians were saying they had a Universalist phase but as they became more Leftist they became uncomfortable with letting the Evil they see in the World go "unpunished" and so are now basically Sadducees, allegorizing away our future Hope.
I'm going to say something really radical, if you truly have a Christ Like Heart, then you desire the Salvation of Adolf Hitler just as much as you desire the Salvation of Anne Frank.
All the Evil that the tyrants and capitalists have done will be undone by Jesus, so demanding "Justice" is utterly pointless. The only true Forgiveness is forgiving the unforgivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)