Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1996-14 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: "QMGATE" <QMGATE@qmgate.corp.apple.com>
Date: 18 Mar 1996 11:28:39 U
Subject: Cork Ethernet down until 1P
To: love-hounds-digest@gryphon.com
Sender: owner-love-hounds@gryphon.com
Mail*Link(r) SMTP Love-Hounds digest V12 #91
!!! Original message was too large.
!!!
!!! It is contained in the enclosure whose name
!!! is the same as the subject of this message.
!!!
!!! A preview of the message follows:
Love-Hounds digest Monday, 18 March 1996 Volume 12 : Number 091
In this issue:
Not Enough To Hurt
P.O.V.: Nasty lies or silly stories?
Clarity on old post and "marche"
Just a joke, no Kate content
ERMINATE HUMAN KINGDOM, REALIZE GOD'S KINGDOM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cbullard@HiWAAY.net (Len Bullard)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:21:35 -0600
Subject: Not Enough To Hurt
This isn't a flame. This is a rebuttal. The old canard,
"Can you read music? Not enough to hurt." is one
of the contributors to the mediocrity that permeates
modern pop music. Ask Quincy Jones or Take 6.
[Bryan Dongray]
>Anyway I understand many artists have not had lessons either.
>I understand from a few interviews that if they had, they would have
>followed the "rules", and not produced excellent modern pieces which
>often break the rules, but sound so right. Such as the above B/E which
>is technically dischordant, and would not be "normally" allowed
>(if I understand some rules I have read about writing music "properly"
> - stupid book).
Discord is just as much a part of "technically correct" music
composition as concord. Any book that teaches otherwise
is incorrect both historically and musically. Someone schooled
in composition is taught this and only somone unschooled
believes otherwise. The result of a solid musical education
is to enhance one's own understanding of the possibilities
as well as the best way to execute them.
The finest pop and jazz musicians I have known were technically educated,
then tempered with years of performing experience. Most
of the "naturally talented without a lick of training" players I
know have serious defects in their technical execution
(e.g., three fingered scales for diatonic passages that force
them to change positions without cause, thus losing fluidity).
While their natural skill can still enable them to do marvelous work, there
are some compositions which are forever denied them.
Most of these players lament their lack of formal training;
they don't exult in it. The only result of such poverty is
to have to work twice as hard, remember half as long,
and be denied some gigs because they do not have
the necessary skills. There are plenty of "one trick
pony's" in the business. The musician who works the
most is also the most rounded.
The use of a dissonance in the bass is a regular part
of all music. It's application is mainly determined by
intonation (hard to achieve without proper technique),
duration, harmonic neighbors, and orchestration.
A music education is rooted in music *theory*
and the practice of works which contribute to skill.
All said, it is the ear of the composer that is the final
authority for the piece, the skill of the player for the
rendering, and the taste of the listener for the pleasure.
I hated atonal music, but if one has to do a thunderstorm
or a psychotic killer, it is pretty evocative of the mood.
It is emotion that good musicians are after. That
is hard enough to do and the less one has to think
about it, the better it works. The better one is trained,
the less one has to think during the execution of the
work. This takes knowledge which once absorbed,
one can put it away and let music happen. Don't make a
solid education a carpet for your own insecure
steps in composition. Don't let a theory get in
the way of expressing your intent.
BTW: There is a local congressman in my state who
is trying to pass a federal law outlawing the use of
tritones in commercial music. Now that is stupid.
len bullard
------------------------------
From: violet@slip.net
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 08:21:53 -0800
Subject: P.O.V.: Nasty lies or silly stories?
Fiona wrote:
>I was struck by the part of this note that said Vickie once spent some time
on
>a chat channel arguing with some guy who thought Kate had a relationship with
>some punk rocker. Could this by any chance be Hugh Cornwell of the
Stranglers?
>(this part is true, not made up) I recall some stories about the time of the
>first album that
<<<<<< Attached TEXT file named "Love-Hounds digest V12 #91" follows >>>>>>
Received: by qmgate.corp.apple.com with SMTP;18 Mar 1996 11:17:58 U
Received: from gryphon.com ([192.216.168.20]) by federal-excess.apple.com
(SMI-8.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA21040 for
<Gerard_O_Sullivan@qmgate.corp.apple.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:16:45 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by gryphon.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) id JAA10707
for love-hounds-digest-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:00:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199603181700.JAA10707@gryphon.com>
From: owner-love-hounds-digest@gryphon.com
To: love-hounds-digest@gryphon.com
Subject: Love-Hounds digest V12 #91
Reply-To: love-hounds@gryphon.com
Errors-To: owner-love-hounds-digest@gryphon.com
Precedence: bulk
Approved: wisner@gryphon.com
Love-Hounds digest Monday, 18 March 1996 Volume 12 : Number 091
In this issue:
Not Enough To Hurt
P.O.V.: Nasty lies or silly stories?
Clarity on old post and "marche"
Just a joke, no Kate content
ERMINATE HUMAN KINGDOM, REALIZE GOD'S KINGDOM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cbullard@HiWAAY.net (Len Bullard)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 08:21:35 -0600
Subject: Not Enough To Hurt
This isn't a flame. This is a rebuttal. The old canard,
"Can you read music? Not enough to hurt." is one
of the contributors to the mediocrity that permeates
modern pop music. Ask Quincy Jones or Take 6.
[Bryan Dongray]
>Anyway I understand many artists have not had lessons either.
>I understand from a few interviews that if they had, they would have
>followed the "rules", and not produced excellent modern pieces which
>often break the rules, but sound so right. Such as the above B/E which
>is technically dischordant, and would not be "normally" allowed
>(if I understand some rules I have read about writing music "properly"
> - stupid book).
Discord is just as much a part of "technically correct" music
composition as concord. Any book that teaches otherwise
is incorrect both historically and musically. Someone schooled
in composition is taught this and only somone unschooled
believes otherwise. The result of a solid musical education
is to enhance one's own understanding of the possibilities
as well as the best way to execute them.
The finest pop and jazz musicians I have known were technically educated,
then tempered with years of performing experience. Most
of the "naturally talented without a lick of training" players I
know have serious defects in their technical execution
(e.g., three fingered scales for diatonic passages that force
them to change positions without cause, thus losing fluidity).
While their natural skill can still enable them to do marvelous work, there
are some compositions which are forever denied them.
Most of these players lament their lack of formal training;
they don't exult in it. The only result of such poverty is
to have to work twice as hard, remember half as long,
and be denied some gigs because they do not have
the necessary skills. There are plenty of "one trick
pony's" in the business. The musician who works the
most is also the most rounded.
The use of a dissonance in the bass is a regular part
of all music. It's application is mainly determined by
intonation (hard to achieve without proper technique),
duration, harmonic neighbors, and orchestration.
A music education is rooted in music *theory*
and the practice of works which contribute to skill.
All said, it is the ear of the composer that is the final
authority for the piece, the skill of the player for the
rendering, and the taste of the listener for the pleasure.
I hated atonal music, but if one has to do a thunderstorm
or a psychotic killer, it is pretty evocative of the mood.
It is emotion that good musicians are after. That
is hard enough to do and the less one has to think
about it, the better it works. The better one is trained,
the less one has to think during the execution of the
work. This takes knowledge which once absorbed,
one can put it away and let music happen. Don't make a
solid education a carpet for your own insecure
steps in composition. Don't let a theory get in
the way of expressing your intent.
BTW: There is a local congressman in my state who
is trying to pass a federal law outlawing the use of
tritones in commercial music. Now that is stupid.
len bullard
------------------------------
From: violet@slip.net
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 08:21:53 -0800
Subject: P.O.V.: Nasty lies or silly stories?
Fiona wrote:
>I was struck by the part of this note that said Vickie once spent some time
on
>a chat channel arguing with some guy who thought Kate had a relationship with
>some punk rocker. Could this by any chance be Hugh Cornwell of the
Stranglers?
>(this part is true, not made up) I recall some stories about the time of the
>first album that said Kate was indeed going out with M. Cornwell, but the
>relationship broke up about the time Hugh spent a few months as the guest of
>Her Majesty (i.e. in prison) for possessing some naughty substances.
>Reference to this rumour is made in the "Great Pop Things" cartoon (series
that
>runs in the New Musical Express) that satirizes Kate's career.
>Can anyone confirm/deny?
I don't know anything about this, but I will point out the obvious fact
that Kate DID, in fact, have a romantic life before Del. It's not a dirty
secret that she dated people. Didn't she and Del get together around the
time of the tour, which was after the first album? This would have made it
possible for Kate to have been dating someone around the time mentioned
above. Honestly, though, at this point in time, who would this really
matter to?
We can't begin to know the names of the guys she went out with. She's not
a tramp, but she's not the Virgin Mary, either. She's simply a woman, and
she's had a past the same as all of us. It's normal.
Anyway, I agree that it's not really doing well to talk of Kate's "amours"
anymore. I didn't see it as starting out as possible food for rumors, but
only as a fun way of telling real whoppers that I thought halfway smart
folks would plainly see as being way over the top of reality. Now I
realize that there must be some people who cannot tell a whopper from the
truth and who must be traveling the world at this very moment looking for
Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Babe. Oh well. Frankly, I think Kate would
find this all very funny. I believe it would be obvious to her that not an
ounce of spite was intended, and she might even be flattered. I've heard
way worse things said about her by people who MEANT them, and she's just
shrugged them off. The difference between nasty lies and silly stories is
intent, and my intent was only to have a little sunny fun for a day or two.
I am sorry if anyone was upset. Truly.
Violet
xoxox
P.S. BTW, Vickie, all's swell. You know what I mean. ;)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ "Jesus is coming... Look busy." +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
------------------------------
From: violet@slip.net
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 08:21:44 -0800
Subject: Clarity on old post and "marche"
I originally wrote:
>
>>>To add my own nitpicking remark to Rolf's, who made mention of lyrics
>>>to "Feeling Like a Waltz" listed somewhere and quoted the line "L'amour
>>>--mon choux avec un etranger: I'm surprised by that line to begin
>>>with. See, I believe it's "L'amour marche avec un etranger" which is
>>>"Love walks with a stranger" meaning of course that love is with
>>>someone somewhere, but certainly not with her.
Jonathan replied:
>
>>
>> Good suggestion, although would it not be marcher? Mon choux always
>> makes me think cauliflowers rather than love anyway, so I'm grateful
>> for your interpretation.
Then he also added:
>
> I wish I had my French verbs at work! Marche it would be, although that
> leaves us with only one syllable. Doesn't she sing two?
I wrote another post around that time and opted not to send it to this list
after all, since most of the stuff had been covered since, so I only sent
it to a couple of Love-Hounds privately. But it contained a crucial piece
of information on this topic. Here is what I wrote on this back on Feb.
22:
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm repeating myself, but again I will throw in the ring my opinion that
Kate is saying "L'amour marche avec un etranger" (Love walks with a
stranger). As in the other French language songs Kate has done, she
vocalises the e's at the end of words as is common in the South of France
(where Kate has spent time in the past), so her "marche" comes out as two
syllables instead of one.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sort of important, wasn't that? Sorry for not posting it with the other
stuff. Hope it makes more sense now.
I have now noticed another problem here. I believe she says marche, but
even if she IS saying "mon chou" it has no X. "Choux" is plural for either
cabbages, cream puffs, or darlings, so Kate would be saying "_Mes_ choux,"
which she does not. So since it seems clear to most that she doesn't say
"mes," it must be "Mon chou." N'est-ce pas? :)
Violet
P.S. I also wrote the post on the 22nd thinking that the first "Old Post"
had gotten on the list already and no one had said anything. I didn't
realize at the time that my mail server was ill and would soon be chucking
it back up on me.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ "Jesus is coming... Look busy." +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
------------------------------
From: violet@slip.net
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 08:21:51 -0800
Subject: Just a joke, no Kate content
Stu wrote:
>Go stand in that
>corner and beat yourself with a rolled up copy of Homeground until I tell
>you to stop!
And this reminded me of one of my favorite jokes. This has nothing to do
with Kate, but I guarantee you that this won't bother you when you're
repeating it to all your friends for the rest of the week. ;) It goes like
this:
A cop is sitting and watching a stop sign. After only a few minutes, a car
comes along and does a (Hollywood stop/California
stop/whatever-it-is-called-
in-your-town-when-someone-just-slows-down-at-a-stop-sign-instead-of-stopping
stop). The cop pulls the guy over and tells him, "I'm giving you a ticket
because you ran that stop sign back there." The guy says, " But I slowed
down." And the cop says, "You didn't STOP." And the guy again says, "But I
slowed down." So the cop has the guy get out of the car and he begins to
beat him with his nightstick. "Now," the officer says, "do you want me to
stop, or do you want me to slow down?"
nyuck, nyuck, nycuk
I like that joke. My ex was a cop and he's the one that told it to me. He
had motorists say that to him all the time -- "But I slowed down..." -- so
he would tell them that joke. It seemed to get the idea across to them and
made them laugh, too.
Violet
xoxox
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ "Jesus is coming... Look busy." +
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
------------------------------
From: zion@home.nature.com (Message from the Throne)
Date: 18 Mar 1996 16:56:30 GMT
Subject: ERMINATE HUMAN KINGDOM, REALIZE GOD'S KINGDOM
************************************
*** TERMINATE THE HUMAN KINGDOMS ***
************************************
Peace and freedom is the common goal for all mankind. It is what people
hope for. It is also something God planned people to have since He
created them.
However, For over six thousand years, this has only been a hope. Nowhere
on
earth is there true freedom and true peace. There are racial conflicts
and
international disputes everywhere. The inscription on a plaque at the
United
Nations square reads, "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and
their
spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither
shall they learn war anymore." These words are a great mockery against
the
United Nations Organization (UNO). This year happens to be the 50th
anniver-
sary of the UNO. More than 180 heads of state gathered in New York for a
grand
celebration. But what was there to celebrate? What has the UNO done in
the past
50 years? What has it brought to mankind? We did not see swords turning
into
powshares. What we saw were atomic bombs turning into nuclear bombs.
Their
"arms reduction" was merely replacing out-dated weapons with new, more
advanced ones. Is there any nation that is unarmed? Is there any nation
that has
not been building up its military? No, So internatlonal conflicts go
unresolved.
The six-thousand year history of mankind can be called a history of
chaos! And
what is the source of these problems? These problems come from what he
world
calls "Nations." The nations are the source of all problems, and are
solely
responsible for the world's chaos.
THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN KINGDOMS
- ----------------------------
From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into
their
lands, everyone accordrng ta his own language, according to their
families, into
their nations" (Gen 10:5). "These were the famllies of the sons of Noah,
accordlng to their generations, in their nations; and from these the
nations were
divided on the earth after the Flood"(Gen 10:32).
There were no nations for mankind in the beginning. Man only began
to divide lands and form nations after the flood. Actually, God intended
earth to
support every man and every creaeture. He did not make land for any
nation or
regime to occupy. A nation must first have land to exist, but the earth
has no need
for any nation. Human kingdoms [nations) are merely the products of
degen-
eratd men--men who have dcparted from God. They are autonomies formed
by dividing the earth created by God. The nations are continually being
overthrown, divided revolutionized, built... They are very unstable,
man-made
systems. They can be divided and can disintegrate. Some people say, "If
a city
falls, none if its inhabitants will be safe; if a country disintegrates,
there will be
no home." But actually, "home' existed long before man formed any
nation.
Human klngdoms did not exist at the creation. Human kingdoms are the
chief culprits that have stolen the land and destroyed God's order of
creation.
THE NATURE, OF ***** HUINAN KINGDOMS *****
- ------------------------------------------
Mankind builds nations according to their race, language and land.
Every
nation on earth has its land borders. Therefore, human kingdoms are
earthly, and
not heavenly. The descendants of Noah divided themselves into nations.
There-
fore, the nature of the human kingdoms is to divide men into groups;
they cannot
unite men as one. When the human kingdoms first appeared and grew,
mankind
thought of building the tower of Babel, whose top was in the heavens, in
order to
make a name for themselves (see Gen. 11:1-9). They wanted to exalt
themselves
above God. Basically, human Kingdoms do not want God. They choose their
own kings and rulers. However God is the King of kings. He is the Ruler
of
all mankind. But the human kingdoms do not want God to be their King;
they
want to be kings themselves. Today, on such a small planet, man's
kingdom have
multiplied to over 100 countries with over l00 kings. And the nature of
all these
human kingdoms is to reject God. The nature of the human kingdoms is to
establish their own sovereignty and deny God's rule and soverignty. God
never intended the human kingdoms to exists. The more they develop, the
less
they bring peace and harmony to mankind. The human kingdoms and what
they do are the most abnormal entities in the universe. Unfortunately,
until
today, man is still unable to see the true nature of human kingdoms. He
continues
to live under the rule of the nations, thinking it is normal. Therefore,
he never
questions their existence.
PATRIOTISM IS A CORRUPT SENTIMENT OF DEGENERATE MAN
- ---------------------------------------------------
As the human kingdom develop, horrible, degenerate culture, and
corrupt
ideas take control of man. What are degenerate culture and corruptideas?
They
are the concepts of having nations and loving them. It is natural to
have
self-love and a love for others. So are loving one's homeland and
family. But
loving your country (patriotism) is not natural. No one is born loving
his country.
For a nation differs from a homeland or a family. Countries did not
exist in the
natural order of God's creation. They are artificial products create by
man
for political reasons. A country was never in the original plan for the
universe.
"Patriotism" must be instilled into people. Nations purposely create
political
symbols (such as national flags and national anthems) to make people
recognize
them. And subconsciously, patriotism is perceived as being a virtue.
However, if
man sees that a country is a mere, unstable, man-made system, he will
realize
that Patriotism should not be regarded as an advanced sentiment.
Under the ideologies and education of degenerate man, patriotism has
become a very high virtue. Citizens are taught to love their country.
And everyone
must sacrifice himself for his country. Actually, human kingdoms are not
ours.
Only God's kingdom belongs to us. If you want to be patriotic, then be
patriotic towards God's kingdom. Regrettably, many people are so
patriotic for
the human kingdoms that they sacrifice themselves for them. They feel
that such
sacrifice is valuable. But ask yourself this: Is dying for a country the
highest
possiblc realm? Is it really worth it? Many Scots died for Scotland and
many
English died for England. But since Scotland and England became one
country
in the l8th century, should the people be patriotic towards Scotland or
England?
Now that the war has ended, didn't those who died for Scotland and
England die
for nothing? If Taiwan and China have conflicts, the Kuomingtong will
surely tell
the Taiwanese troops to love their own country and destroy the Chinese
Commu-
nists. The Chinese communist govemment will likewise tell its troops to
be loyal
to their country and destroy the Taiwanese. So, since the people are
under a
divided political regime, what should they do? How can they love their
country?
Wouldn't the Taiwanese killing the Chinese communist troops be killing
their own
people? And if the Chinese troops kill the Taiwanese troops, wouldn't
they also
be killing Chinese people? How can man show his loyalty? How does one
love
his country? Is it worthwhile for a person to love his coumry and
sacrifice his life
for it?
Such patriotism is tragic! Nevertheless, most people never realize
it. They
think that dying for one's country is highly honorable. In Taiwan, there
is a national
martyrs' memorial at Yuan-shan. Every year many go there to commemorate
the
dead. They feel that those who die for their country are great. And why
are they
so great? Because they died for the country. However there are more than
100
countries in the world. Which country should one die for to be
considered great?
Which one should we love? Wouldn't loving one's own country be in
conflict with
the interests of other countries? Is it really worth it to love a
country and sacrifice
for it? Is it worth it to fight for the human kingdoms? Is it worth it
to die for the
human kingdoms? No, not at all! Being unpatriotic is not immoral, and
should
not make you feel guilty. However, since the concept of loving the
country has
been deeply rooted in the hearts of man, man has developed an erroneous,
degenerate concept called patriotism. So patriotism is mistaken by man
as a
virtue. But actually, it is a corrupt sentiment of degeneration.
THE LOVE FOR COUNTRY IS THE ROOT OF EVIL AND CHAOS IN SOCIETY
- -------------------------------------------------------------
"For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
And
there will be famines, pestilences and earthquakes in various places.
All these
are the beginning of sorrows" (Matt. 24:7-8). It is a sorrow for nation
to rise
against nation and kingdom against kingdom. It is a disaster for
society. However,
many political figures like people to call them "saviors of the
people." But who
are they meant to save? The Chinese? The Blacks? The Whites? Actually,
the
rulers are not saviors at all, but chief of disaster! To "save and
protect" their
people, they are willing to kill other peoples. Therefore, the love for
country will
bring endless destruction.
Everyone shows his love for his own country. The Chinese love China.
The
Americans love America. The English love England: The Germans, Germany;
and
the French, France. This bond, once established. causes one to attack
other
countries to show his loyalty to his own country. War is a result of
patriotism.
For the love of his people and his country, everyone is willing to
fight till
the end. So nation rises against nation,and kingdom against kingdom. How
much
blood will be shed! How many corpses will pile up! How frightening! How
foolish! This is the beginning of sorrows. The so-called love for nation
is
indeed the root of evil and chaos in society! For more than six thousand
years,
these bonds with the country have been deeply rooted in the hearts of
man.
This is the strong fortress of the devil Satan which has taken the
hearts of
man captive. Countries have become large prisons. In these prisons,
there are
mililaty, politics, economy, Judiciary systems, culture, productions,
entertain-
ment, drugs, and religions. These are the systems Satan uses to harm
man. They
bring endless tribulations tragedies, murder, death.... Therefore, the
God of
heaven will destroy this fortress, and utterly remove this root of
sorrows.
*****************************
*** REALIZE GOD'S KINGDOM ***
*****************************
THE MOST HIGH SHALL DESTROY ALL HUMAN KINGDOMS
- ----------------------------------------------
In 1980, God inspired the Prophet of All Nations to preach "Mt.
Zion--the
Great Mountain--Shall Fill the Whole Earth" (see Dan. 2:35). Then God
moved him to preach another epochal message from the same book in the
bible
"The Most High Will Destroy Great Image--the Human Kingdom" (see
Dan. 2:44). This message exposed Satan's deception for the pas six
thousand
years: That the human kingdoms are the greatest image (idol) Satan uses
to
receive man's worship. Satan robs God of His deseived worship from men.
Since
childhood, people are constantly brainwashed by the systems of the human
kingdoms. The country is deified. Even the political symbols--nation
flags
and anthems--have become objects of adoration. Don't they know what the
God who created heavens and earth is the only Most High? Yet, whether
they are great or small, all human kingdoms emphasize their own inde-
pendence and sovereignty. This is aIl Satan's ploy intended to deny
God's
soverignty and rule. He causes man to place God's dominion outside the
boundaries of man's kingdoms. Thus, he restricts man's worship of God
within religion. And so, the nations and kings go their own way, doing
whatever they wish, greatly offending and opposing God's soverignty.
Satan
then causes the human kingdoms to be in constant conflict. And many
people,
under the deception of patriotism, follow blindly. They even think that
dying for
the country is highly honorable. For several thousand years, countless
souls have
fallen into Satan's tricks and the human kingdoms' deceptions. They
assume that
it is proper for nations to exist. Therefore God must overthrow the
thrones of
kingdoms and destroy the strength of the Gentile kingdoms (see Hag.
2:22).
God send the Lord Jesus to come and destroy the works of the devil and
to
cast out the rulers of this world (see 1 John 12:31). When this
happens, all roots of confusion and sorrow will end, and the original
order
and harmony will be restored on earth.
GOD IN HEAVEN SETS UP A KINGDOM AND A KING
- ------------------------------------------
"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a
kingdom
which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to
other
people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall
stand forever" (Dan. 2:44). Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this
world"
(John 18:36). The kingdom God sets up is the kingdom of the Lord--the
church of the living God. All those who have reccived the full truth of
Blood,
Water and Holy Spirit, and follow the apostles' leading, are the
citizens of this
holy kingdom (see Phil. 3:20). They are fellow citizens with the saints
and
members of the household (church) of God (see Eph. 2:19).
Rulers of the human kingdoms join hands, to deny God's sovereignty.
But
when they take counsel together, against the LORD and against His
Anointed, God
issues His solemn decree, "Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of
Zion"
(see Ps. 2:1-6). This King of Zion is Jesus Christ the King of kings. He
is the
King set up by God (see Acts 17:7). God bas not only set up a kingdom,
but a
king as well. This kingdom is unshakable (see Heb.12:28). When Christ
reigns,
He will end all rule and authority and will deliver the kingdom to God
the Father
(see 1 Cor 15:24-25). When the human kingdoms are crushed, the kingdom
of
this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and
He (our
Lord Jesus Christ) shall reign forever and ever! (Rev.11:15). This
kingdom and
this king shall remain forever! The gospel of the Lord Jesus is the
gosple of this
everlasting kingdom. It will be preached in all the world as a witness
to all people.
And then the end will come.
Union of Church and State? Or Separation of Church and State?
- -------------------------------------------------------------
The kings are only in power temporarily, but the Lord Jesus shall
reign
forever. Satan uses the "kings in power" to attract the attention of the
world and
to oppress the people. The world mass media reports only the acttivities
and words
of the rulers. No matter how they came to power-self-appointed, through
royal
lineage, by coup, or elected democratically--the rulers have become the
focal
point of all people. To become kings, they do not mind if the people
lose their
lives or their hard-earned money. And the people must humble themselves
under
the rulers' contemptuous air. Even the religious leaders, who claim to
serve God,
consider the rulers of the human kingdoms (Caesar) as their only king
(see John
19:15). So the freedom to serve God has become a permitted right under
man's
constitution, and faith is forced under the control of the human
kingdoms. As a
result they debase and even enslave the church. The relationship between
man's
kingdom and the church has become one of "church and state." This topic
has
evolved into the irrelevant debate over "Union of Church and State
versus
Separation of Church and State."
In reality, that stone cut out of the mountain without hands (ths
church
of the living God-the New Testament Church) is the "terminator" of the
human kingdoms (see Dan. 2:44). How can the terminator and the
terminated
be united? However, talk about separation of politics and religion is
also a fallacy
that debases the church. Both the union and separation of church and
state
approve the existence of human kingdoms. So this is an erroneous
concept,
because God has destined to crush the human kingdoms. They do not have
a relationship wlth God's church. Political-religious relationship may
improve,
and each entity may even benefit the other. But the relationship between
the
church of the living God and the human kingdoms wlll never improve. To
the
church of God, the human kingdoms are only organizations which must be
destroyed. Therefore, man's kingdom and the church of the living God
have no
political-religious relationship, and issues like "separation of church
and state"
are irrelevant.
END HUMAN KINGDOMS REALIZE GOD'S KINGDOM
- ----------------------------------------
The devil's seat is the human kingdoms (see Rev. 17:15), and the
human kingdoms are his camp and ruling territory (see Rev. 17:18).
Through
thousands of years of development, the politics, economy, military,
technology,
culture and other systems of man's kingdom have made astounding
progress.
This is indeed the great city of Babylon recorded in the Bible. Satan
controls all
the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and they are his trump-card
for gaining
the worship of Ihe world (see Matt. 4:8). But the great city of Babylon
will fall
in one hour and all her glory will become worthless (see Rev. 18:1-4).
To sacrifce one's self for any human kingdom is to become an accom-
plice of human kingdoms. Such a sacrifice will be in vain. The nagure of
man's kingdom is to be independent from God and be at enimity with Him.
Therefore, loving these man-made organizations (the great image), which
were never meant to exist, is not a virtue, but a degenerate emotion
from the
devil Satan. The end of the human kingdoms is near. The Kings of kings
shall
strike all nations (see Rev.19:15). All people should come out of
Babylon, lest
they share in her sins (see Rev.18:4).
People should come out of the maze of patriotism, and cease from
participating in its related activities. God created man; man should
give
themselves to God. They do not belong to any human kingdom. The prophe-
cies of the prophet concerning man's kingdom shall all come true. God
will
terminate the human kingdoms. This is something He will accomplish in
the
last days (see Rev.1:19). Smashing the human kingdom is not destructive,
but constructive. Ending the human kingdoms is realizing God's kingdom--
the universal, and harmonious kingdom of Christ. This is the holy
obligation
of the NTC: To execute God's sovereignty, end human kingdoms, and
realize
God's kingdom. This is the only way for mankind to enjoy peace and rest.
- ---
GRACE OF JESUS CHRIST CRUSADE
Mount Zion, Chiahsien, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Tel: (7)6701218-24
1995.11.3
- ---
<eof>
------------------------------
End of Love-Hounds digest V12 #91
*********************************