[betty boop]

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Thus we are warned away from all such spectacles and enterprises, dearest sister in Christ!

But will we heed God's warning?

God's warning does not deal with "world governance" per se. It seems to me it is addressed to individual human souls.

Share International seems to be trying to "organize" religion itself, to make it serve — as a sort of lackey — the global secular purposes of the self-selected wise rulers who propose to relieve us of all independent conscience as the price to be paid for the rise of their own pet utopia. And at the end of the day, I expect this proposition bottoms out in: You WILL get on board — or else.

Yet it's worth recalling that "utopia" is the New Latin word for "nowhere."

Meanwhile, it seems to me no purpose is served by different religious confessions attacking each other on doctrinal points. The problem we face transcends doctrinal dispute altogether. Or so it seems to me. In short, what it all boils down to is the need for widespread, absolute rejection of the very thing that what's-her-name the Anglican primate is proposing. Which is the utter severance of the God–Man relation altogether, so that a "new god" can be hoisted onto the newly vacant Seat of Truth, Justice, and Love.

I don't "buy" what these folks are "selling," not in the least.

And so I wonder: Do we Christians prefer to contend with each other, rather than unite against our Common Enemy?

Thank you ever so much for your elegant essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!

[Quix]

But will we heed God’s warning?

God’s warning does not deal with “world governance” per se. It seems to me it is addressed to individual human souls.

Share International seems to be trying to “organize” religion itself, to make it serve — as a sort of lackey — the global secular purposes of the self-selected wise rulers who propose to relieve us of all independent conscience as the price to be paid for the rise of their own pet utopia. And at the end of the day, I expect this proposition bottoms out in: You WILL get on board — or else.

Yet it’s worth recalling that “utopia” is the New Latin word for “nowhere

= = =

WELL SAID, FOR SURE.

I assume you do realize that some of us are trying hard to

WAKE UP

those called “Christian” of all flavors

TO THE REALITIES of globalism including global religion etc. all headed ultimately by satan but already well ensconced around the world and firmly in control of our U.S. Senate, the House leadership and obviously the MSM, the universities, OThuga, Industry etc.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Share International seems to be trying to "organize" religion itself, to make it serve — as a sort of lackey — the global secular purposes of the self-selected wise rulers who propose to relieve us of all independent conscience as the price to be paid for the rise of their own pet utopia. And at the end of the day, I expect this proposition bottoms out in: You WILL get on board — or else.

Precisely so. That's why I think they are a better 'fit' for the prophecy. For a belief set on absolute altruism, non-compliance cannot be tolerated. Even if they swear they are non-violent, I don't buy it.

Meanwhile, it seems to me no purpose is served by different religious confessions attacking each other on doctrinal points. The problem we face transcends doctrinal dispute altogether. Or so it seems to me. In short, what it all boils down to is the need for widespread, absolute rejection of the very thing that what's-her-name the Anglican primate is proposing. Which is the utter severance of the God–Man relation altogether, so that a "new god" can be hoisted onto the newly vacant Seat of Truth, Justice, and Love.

Indeed. This is our common "enemy" in this world. It is anti-God and more specifically, anti-Christ.

And so I wonder: Do we Christians prefer to contend with each other, rather than unite against our Common Enemy?

Seems that around here many are willing to engage on differences concerning doctrine, genealogy, tradition and the like.

But few engage the non-Christians and especially the anti-Christians except on the science threads and an occasional philosophy thread. Perhaps the subject matter and/or correspondents are more difficult?

At any rate, it's a start.

And I know you are always there, on the front lines. And I thank God for you.