You are not nasty because you do not agree with me. You are just plain nasty in your reply.

Now: ‘Bye Don!

‘Bye, Don.

Comments are for responding to the post, many Blog hosts just delete comments they do not like. I have not done that with rare exception..

In all the comments over the last year or so. Yours is the only one that started and ended with a personal attack. Personal attacks are common place on certain public news groups. They will not be common place here.

For the record: I apologized for my attack earlier, and I told you that it was not meant to be an attack. I had read other things that you have posted and confused the subject.

I did not say you were not Christian - you may be. I only apoligized forconsidering that you were one that practiced as a result of your nasty, and now nastier, political reply.

One word of advise: Do not ask for comments if you cannot handle them!

(No doubt, this will also be considered an accusation, and perhaps you will not show it.)

It was not nasty to point out that you are making it up as you go along. I have responsibility to other readers as well. You are obviously using your own modified form of the historical view of Revelation. That view is a dead view even among most amillennal believers. The reason being is that history cannot produce the events in the book of Revelation. The papal system did not and could not possibly fulfill all the prophecies of the Beast/Antichrist.

Moreover, I was not even talking about the amilennal theology of Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon. I was commenting on your bazaar historical interpretation of Revelation events in the Popes visit and calling our President a King.

No theology has perfect agreement. If Biblical interpretation was that cut and dry there would be no theologians and discussions.

I find it really strange for anyone to make a remark like your final one, as if you can judge who is a Christians because of my reply to your strange end time allegory.

You started this conversation with a personal attack on my ability to read the Bible and you end it with a personal attack saying I am not a Christian. You have a problem because theological disagreement provokes personal attacks from you. Any further unfounded accusations about me will simply be deleted.

My theology is that of Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon. I cannot say that I am sorry for their understanding.

Besides I thought this was “not the place to argue amillennial verses dispensational theology.”

Just for the record, I cannot find two dispensationalist that agree on their dispensationalism. They do all, however, get very nasty, just as you did.

I apologise for considering you Christian.

I still believe the pope(s) fir this description because of his (their) eclesiastical and polital positions. I think the great wound was removal of total power by the Protestant Reformation. Howver, as recent events marching toward ecumenical and inter-faith communion indicate, the pope (and the institution) are in the mix - actual in control. The recent visit to our “king” highlights the deceitfulness of the pope and the blindness upon the people. I think the wound has healed, and power (think EU) are being restored.

In your model, you are looking for a literal temple and a less seductive evil ruler. In mine, I see the characteristics of the pope match the subtleness and beauty of the serpent. He does look as a lamb, and he does speak as the dragon. The world is becoming more and more involved with him. I look no further than the pope for the “Big A.”