The End-Timers are in an internet frenzy. Everybody's rocking the Isaiah. The 'red heifer' has been confirmed. The Prince has come. Prepare to rebuild the Temple On The Mount, not north or south of the Dome of the Rock, but right on the land where the Rock now sits.

Whatever standard you set for yourself as far as 'keeping it real', you may need to adjust that.

The postponement of these plans by the Neo Cons and the Born Agains and the Zionists may be ending. The tactical military and economic advantages currently enjoyed by the PNAC and Likud regimes are too tempting not to exert; who knows if Islam will ever be more vulnerable? Who knows when God's Empires will wane?

Are we overdue for World War III?

ISAIAH'S PROPHECY CONCERNING THE FUTURE DESTRUCTION OF DAMASCUS.

ISAIAH 17
1 The burden against Damascus.

"Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city;
And it will be a ruinous heap.

THE RED HEIFER

April 8, 2002 - A one month old red heifer, born in Israel, has been validated by rabbis to be kosher. The Temple Mount Institute says,

This heifer could indeed be a candidate to be used in the process of purification described in the book of Numbers, chapter 19. This is an important development towards the rebuilding of the Holy Temple.

THE GOG-MAGOG CONFLAGRATION:

The Gog-Magog War of Ezekiel 38-39, and amplified in both Isaiah 17-18, and Daniel 11, will ensue after the “Syrian card falls.” The unfolding of this massive campaign of “Islamic annihilation” and resultant Western supremacy in the region will Biblically unfold as follows:

(a) Immediately after the Israeli-Syrian-USA War (a.k.a., “Syrian Regime Change”) AND as Islamic Jihad is “declared” by both nations north and south of Israel/Iraq (i.e., north of Israeli/USA “influence” and south of it) the USA will FORMALIZE her “safety net” over Israel:

This is known in Scripture as “your covenant with death, and hell (Sheol) (Isaiah 28:15) and orchestrated by the “prince who is to come” (Daniel 9:27: “He shall confirm an agreement (i.e., an “accord, treaty, defense pact” or “a covenant” –not “the covenant” but “a covenant”).

This “defense pact” MAY necessitate a two-fold implementation: (1a) A “Memorandum of Understanding” primarily between the USA and Israel immediately following the Syrian War; and (2a) A FORMAL ACCORD which would be considered the actual DEFENSE PACT that will, after the Gog-Magog/USA-Israeli War result in an “International Agreement” wherein all parties of the Middle East and the “Coalition Forces” allied with the USA, concur with this Comprehensive Middle East Peace Settlement.

This Accord will allow Israel to finalize implementation of her “Temple Aspirations” (which aspirations have already commenced upon the conclusion of the Israeli-Syrian-USA War). Whether this AGREEMENT is a two-fold or singular diplomatic effort by the West, is irrelevant to the equation/scenario.

But can the prophets so clearly forecast the immediate demise of Syria?

Speak of Israel’s military alliance with the pre-positioned forces of “the prince who is to come”—leader of the “Mystery Nation/People” of Isaiah 18?

the road to damascus

biblical prophecy of the red heifer

I need the Cliff Notes.

Seriously Bob -- filter a few of these out, wouldya?

We're not all as rabidly interested in conflagrations. Some of your topics aren't so bad, but this one is just a non-starter for me.

stewie wrote:Seriously Bob -- filter a few of these out, wouldya?

We're not all as rabidly interested in conflagrations. Some of your topics aren't so bad, but this one is just a non-starter for me.

Seriously, Stewie- filter your own reading. If you want to ignore the religious fanaticism that is coursing through the veins of many of the world's most powerful people, then please, enjoy being blindsided by events that are instigated or manipulated to conform to prophecy.

Go read a book or something if you don't like it. Maybe the 9/11 Commission report will calm your nerves.

clocker bob wrote:

stewie wrote:Seriously Bob -- filter a few of these out, wouldya?

We're not all as rabidly interested in conflagrations. Some of your topics aren't so bad, but this one is just a non-starter for me.

Seriously, Stewie- filter your own reading. If you want to ignore the religious fanaticism that is coursing through the veins of many of the world's most powerful people, then please, enjoy being blindsided by events that are instigated or manipulated to conform to prophecy.

Go read a book or something if you don't like it. Maybe the 9/11 Commission report will calm your nerves.

I've posted about the religious zealots in power many times here before. I'm not ignoring it.

I'm saying that your post was just noise, and it didn't convey its message in any readable way. It was a mess of quotes and biblical references. It looks like it was pasted directly from an email you got from a conspiracy theory subscription service without any editing or thought for the intended audience.

Mark Twain once said, "I would have written you a shorter letter, but I just didn't have the time". If your post had been better edited and presented, we could be having a wonderful chat now about the religious neocons and their apocalyptic goals.

Oh, and I'm keeping "Conspiracy Theory Subscription Service" as a future song title. Hands off, bitches!

stewie wrote:I've posted about the religious zealots in power many times here before. I'm not ignoring it.

I'm saying that your post was just noise, and it didn't convey its message in any readable way. It was a mess of quotes and biblical references. It looks like it was pasted directly from an email you got from a conspiracy theory subscription service without any editing or thought for the intended audience.

Mark Twain once said, "I would have written you a shorter letter, but I just didn't have the time". If your post had been better edited and presented, we could be having a wonderful chat now about the religious neocons and their apocalyptic goals.

My post was lean on analysis, but nevertheless, you understood completely that I was referring to the neo cons and their apocalyptic goals, so how lacking in explanation was it? I made note of Damascus, the Temple Mount, and the Red Heifer, and then I left the room. The chat room is yours if you want it or don't want it.

Your first post didn't complain about the quantity of my presentation, your complaint was about my choice of subject matter, so I'm not sure why you have changed course.

stewie's original complaint, in its entirety wrote:Seriously Bob -- filter a few of these out, wouldya?

We're not all as rabidly interested in conflagrations. Some of your topics aren't so bad, but this one is just a non-starter for me.

And now you are interested in conflagrations, but you wish I had led the discussion in a more expansive manner? Be consistent.

Mr. Chimp wrote:I need the Cliff Notes.

I think ( I am no scripturalist ) that:

Israel maintaining the '67 borders

The fall Of Damascus

The rebuilding of the temple of Jerusalem

The appearance of the red heifer

( among other prophecies ), are meant to signify the second seal in the book of revelations, something to do with seven years of false peace for Israel, followed by the armageddon, followed by the return of Jesus, followed by the lifting up to heaven of the true believers.

The order of these events is available for welcome realignment and clarification by anyone who has read the bible more recently than age twelve ( that would be me ).

clocker bob wrote: My post was lean on analysis, but nevertheless, you understood completely that I was referring to the neo cons and their apocalyptic goals, so how lacking in explanation was it?

The sentence, "Moo mah oogeldy googeldy Hitler fooof de boop" is incomprehensible, but it's obviously something about Hitler.

Your post mentioned "the Neo Cons and the Born Agains and the Zionists" in the middle of all its oogeldy googeldy nonsense. So it was obviously something about them. What it was actually about, I have no freakin' clue.

clocker bob wrote:

stewie's original complaint, in its entirety wrote:Seriously Bob -- filter a few of these out, wouldya?

We're not all as rabidly interested in conflagrations. Some of your topics aren't so bad, but this one is just a non-starter for me.

And now you are interested in conflagrations, but you wish I had led the discussion in a more expansive manner? Be consistent.

My first post was written because I was so confused as to the point of your topic.

My second was an expansion on why I asked you to "filter these out" and an analysis of why your first post was so confusing to me. A change in direction for sure, but not an inconsistency in my eyes.

Bob, I'm not trying to be overly antagonistic. I like a lot of your posts, even though I disagree with a huge number of your conspiracy theories. I just think your viewpoint would be better served if (a) you reduced the signal-to-noise ratio by starting less topics and (b) you edited them for clarity and impact in the first place.

But whatever, I've got an avatar of a computer smoking a pipe, so who am I to criticize?

clocker bob wrote: My post was lean on analysis, but nevertheless, you understood completely that I was referring to the neo cons and their apocalyptic goals, so how lacking in explanation was it?

stewie wrote:The sentence, "Moo mah oogeldy googeldy Hitler fooof de boop" is incomprehensible, but it's obviously something about Hitler.

Your post mentioned "the Neo Cons and the Born Agains and the Zionists" in the middle of all its oogeldy googeldy nonsense. So it was obviously something about them. What it was actually about, I have no freakin' clue.

I think you had 98% of a clue after reading my first post, and if you didn't, that's why I closed with the helpful links.

stewie's original complaint, in its entirety wrote:Seriously Bob -- filter a few of these out, wouldya?

We're not all as rabidly interested in conflagrations. Some of your topics aren't so bad, but this one is just a non-starter for me.

clocker bob wrote:And now you are interested in conflagrations, but you wish I had led the discussion in a more expansive manner? Be consistent.

stewie wrote:My first post was written because I was so confused as to the point of your topic.

My second was an expansion on why I asked you to "filter these out" and an analysis of why your first post was so confusing to me. A change in direction for sure, but not an inconsistency in my eyes.

Whatever. You discarded your first complaint and selected a new complaint- a change in direction is an inconsistency. You didn't ask me to help you understand my post- you asked me to not make posts like it. Big difference.

I think you just thought you had a funny line about 'conspiracy theory subscription service' in reserve, and you invented a reply that enabled you to use it. Any one who read my post slowly ( and followed my links ) would have clearly understood that I was connecting the potential attacks on Syria to biblical prophecy. It's not my fault that you didn't follow the links and it's not my fault that 'Gog Magog' registers as gobbeldygook to you if you don't read the links.

Nobody wants me to make eight page posts that are at novice level. I left enough of an outline that, when combined with the links, made a coherent post, and I suspect that it was coherent to you, despite your claimed befuddlement.

You just don't like conspiracy theories.

I learned that a while back when you said that the FBI was hurriedly collecting surveillance video of the Pentagon on 9/11 rather than going to the scene of the attack because they were 'totally on the ball and in precision investigation mode', and the fact that the video hasn't been seen in five years doesn't dissuade you from that enthusiastic endorsement of the FBI's behavior that morning. Or you think the FBI has the right to withhold it because it exposes some embarrassing security lapse ( earwicker called you on that, and you had no answer as to what the suggested security lapse might be- if i recall earwicker's joke, it was, "what could the video possibly show- a guy holding a sign saying 'Pentagon-This Way'?" ) You also apparently decided there are no rights held by the citizens to request that the 9/11 commission force the release of that Pentagon video either, so you are a perfect candidate to dislike, distrust and discard conspiracy theories with a thought process like that.

So you'll have to understand that your advice on my 'signal to noise ratio' and the clarity of my posts is not from a source I welcome. Unconfuse yourself about what I write or change the channel.

stewie wrote:I just think your viewpoint would be better served if (a) you reduced the signal-to-noise ratio by starting less topics and (b) you edited them for clarity and impact in the first place.

But whatever, I've got an avatar of a computer smoking a pipe, so who am I to criticize?