 
Review of Christianity

Published by Bill Etem at Smashwords

Copyright 2015 Bill Etem

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Cover Art by rebecacovers at fivver.com

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. The Complexities of Christianity.

Chapter 2. Angels from Heaven. Angels from Hell. Leverage: The Power to Move Things and People.

Chapter 3. Christian Zionism.

Review of Christianity

Chapter 1. The Complexities of Christianity.

The most difficult part of Christianity deals with John 6. 53-55, where Jesus tells us in so many words that you must celebrate the Eucharist if you want to attain heaven and escape perdition, and it also pertains to 1 Corinthians 11. 27, where St. Paul tells us it is a terrible sin to celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. So, complexity enters into the equation because we have to know what is an unworthy manner and what isn't. If you take communion in a church which gives the bread and the wine to people who make no secret that they push heresies, who make no secret that they push Anti-Christian doctrines, and yet this church you are in goes ahead and shares communion with them anyway, then you are guilty of celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner when you take communion with people who openly push heresy. Suppose a person says that under the New Covenant Christians don't have to keep the Sabbath Day holy, then, is this a heresy, a satanic doctrine which leads people away from heaven and straight to eternal perdition? Though one can find instances in the New Testament where it seems as if Jesus takes a liberal sort of view of the Sabbath Day, nevertheless, the New Testament never says Christians are free to violate the Sabbath. We have the 10 Commandments. And obviously, Jesus and the apostles never said that Christians are free to murder, and are at liberty to steal, and may commit all the adultery they want, and may bear false witness with impunity, and are free to take God's name in vain as much as they want. St. Paul is very hostile to the sin of covetousness, which he likens to idolatry. It just sort of crazy and insane to argue that 9 of the 10 Commandments are still enforced, but Christians are free to violate the Sabbath Day, and don't have to keep it holy. Nothing in the New Testament says Christians are at liberty to go ahead and ignore the Commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy. So, though you personally might keep the Sabbath Day holy – you yourself might not labor and might not buy or sell on the Sabbath - but if you are taking communion in a church which gives communion to people who make no secret that they are Sabbath violators, or if you are taking communion in a church which teaches that it is OK to work and / or buy and sell on the Sabbath, then it stands to reason that you are celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner. And 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says that's a terrible sin. Of course millions of Christians have convinced themselves that they are saints destined to attain heaven. And if you are a saint destined to attain heaven, then you can what? Celebrate holy communion in an unworthy manner? Violate the Sabbath day? You actually might be a saint destined for heaven, if so, then...well, we'll get to what all this implies.

Of course the typical Christian reasons that his church leads people to heaven and not to perdition, and therefore the typical Christian says to himself there is no reason to rebel against the teachings of a church which leads people to heaven, such as by declaring that that church celebrates holy communion in an unworthy manner. If his church gives the bread and the wine to Sabbath violators then he reasons that there is nothing wrong with giving the bread and the wine to Sabbath violators.

Suppose you are a Roman Catholic, and suppose the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, Mathew 16. 13-19. Then, if you want to attain heaven and escape perdition, it would be rather stupid of you to rebel against God's True Church, Rome, such as by rejecting one or more of Rome's official teachings. Now if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then this changes things. But if Rome is God's True Church, then you don't want to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church.

My other religious books focus on the Roman Catholic Church quite a bit, but let's move on, let's keep the focus on Protestant churches which say they uphold the New Testament, but which, in fact, betray the New Testament. Every church claims to lead people to heaven. No church brags that it drags souls down to eternal perdition! But you have to use some common sense! If a church celebrates holy communion in an unworthy manner then it is a false church.

Take a church like Reverend Al Sharpton's church. You might ask yourself: how likely is it that Rev. Al Sharpton's Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock? That's somewhat of an unproductive question, because if you have evidence saying Al Sharpton's Church is a false church not God's True Church, then just get on with presenting the evidence that says Rev Al's church is not God's True Church, just present the evidence which says it's a false church, and false churches lead people away from heaven and to perdition. And what might this evidence be? If you guessed that it has something to do with John 6. 53-55 and 1 Corinthians 11. 27, then give yourself a gold star!

I was amazed by how much hatred there was in You Tube comments over the Central Park 5 controversy. Naturally most people in the USA don't want to investigate the matter, because 1) these gang rape cases get really ugly and nasty, tons of nasty depressing details, and who wants to read tons and tons of depressing details? And, 2) to really become an expert on these sorts of cases you have to invest hundreds of hours in researching the cases, you have to discover what are the facts, and all of this takes lots of time and effort. On You Tube you find people saying you are an evil white devil if you say those 5 in the Central Park 5 case are guilty. And I imagine you can find people who say you are an evil black devil if you say those 5 are innocent. Now let's suppose you are in some church and let's suppose you are taking holy communion with people who are very vocal and very in your face about pushing evil slanderous diabolical opinions about the Central Park 5 controversy, then it stands to reason you are celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner when you celebrate holy communion with people who push evil opinions, and so you are on the road to perdition. You can't be celebrating holy communion with people who push diabolical opinions! That's celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner, a terrible sin as St. Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27. Three women are at the heart of the controversy: there is the jogger, the victim, then there is Ava Duvernay who pushes the innocence of the 5 accused, and there is Ann Coulter, who is the most prominent media personality insisting those 5 are guilty. The situation gets weird, because, in a religious sense, your true friends are the people who tell you the truth when you are wrong, but you might see these people as enemies not as true friends. And your true enemies are people who flatter you and they tell you that you are right when in fact you are preaching the party line, but the party line is a big lie, one which puts you on a road leading you straight to perdition. And what is the truth about the Central Park 5 controversy? Things break down sort of like this. If you say all 5 are guilty of an evil diabolical crime, but if one or more is innocent, then you are pushing a slander when you say all five are guilty of an evil crime. Recall that in ancient Greek the word `devil' means slanderer. On the other hand, if you are saying all 5 are innocent, but if in fact one or more is guilty of a very evil crime, and then if you are calling people white devils if they refuse to agree with you, then you are rather like the devil yourself, you see. So, if you are a slanderer who calls people evil white devils if they don't agree with you and your evil opinion that all 5 are innocent, and then if you go to church and your church gives communion to people like you – though you are like the devil because the devil is also an evil slanderer – then your church celebrates holy communion in an unworthy manner, and so your church is not God's True Church, it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, it is just some false church which leads people to perdition not to heaven.

The above lays out the religious aspects of the Central Park 5 controversy, but I never answered the question: where does the truth lie in the Central Park 5 controversy? Who is guilty and who is innocent? Well there are all the ugly facts which you first have to wade through, and then there's this general impression that one gets that a mob mentality has taken control of millions of enslaved minds: scammers tell the mob what the mob wants to hear in order to make themselves look good in the eyes of the mob. Yes, of course, everyone knows this! But am I talking about a white mob that holds blacks in chains for century after century, or am I talking about a black mob that has gone crazy evil and slanderous? Well, obviously, if you know anything at all about the facts of the Central Park 5 controversy, if you are not merely some scammer who is just trying to make yourself popular with some evil mob...

So, in this little chapter entitled _The Complexities of Christianity,_ where we are looking primarily at Protestant churches which claim to lead people to heaven, then, if we can find Protestant churches which give the bread and the wine to Sabbath violators, to devilish slanderers, to adulterers, to fornicators, to gay marriage advocates, to pro-choicers etc., etc., then you can build a case saying the people in these Protestant churches are deluding themselves when they say their church leads people to heaven because it is God's True Church, because, in fact, these are false churches, and false churches lead people to perdition not to heaven. I've written some other books which focus on the cross, the crucifix, the Roman Catholic Church. These are really quite simple issues. The tough part, the confusing part about Christianity pertains to 1 Corinthians 11. 27, the part about it being a terrible sin to celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. Take the issue of abortion for example. Suppose you got a doctor who is ripping babies in the womb apart on Tuesday, and then on Wednesday he converts to the pro-life philosophy, and if he receives holy communion on Sunday then...what? Or suppose that guy who kidnapped and then raped Elizabeth Smart every day for a few years converted and joined your church, and suppose your church is all about giving communion to him as soon as he confesses his sins. One faction in your church might say you are evil scum who will burn in hell if you celebrate holy communion with such people. Another faction in your church might say other things. The pro-life side has political reasons to be kind and forgiving to ex-pro-choicers to entice them to convert to the pro-life side. If you lay heavy guilt trips on pro-choicers and ex pro-choicers then you're making it harder to convert pro-choice people to the pro-life side, and the pro-life side is all about converting pro-choicers. But if you are celebrating holy communion on Sunday with a guy who was ripping babies apart last Tuesday, then it is sort of like you are saying it is OK to share communion with guys very recently guilty of vicious crimes. It's like you are saying it is OK to share holy communion with the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart and then raped her every day for 9 months as soon as he confesses and claims he has repented. So the True Church must have a chart which guides it on these matters. For instance, if a wife finds out that her husband has been looking at classic editions _Playboy_ Magazine, then she shouldn't run to the nearest church and tell everyone her husband is a dirty filthy sex-crazed pervert, but if she can't persuade him to get rid of the smut then she has to go to the church and the church has to excommunicate him until her repents. But how long do you keep people excommunicated for 2nd offenses, 3rd offenses etc? Suppose a husband discovers that his wife has a storage unit filled with trashy novels, or suppose a husband finds out that his wife is addicted to soft-core porn, then if he can't persuade her to repent then he has to take things public, with the church, so that the church can administer to discipline, to try to get her to repent, so that she is not cast into a lake of fire at the Last Judgment, recall Revelation 20. 12-15. If you excommunicate people who need to be excommunicated for too short a period of time, or if you excommunicate them for too long, then you run the risk of damnation by way of 1 Corinthians 11. 27. Of course all of this is about as meaningful as Greek to the typical Christian. The typical Christian says go ahead and give the bread and the wine to some guy who claims he has repented even though he was aborting babies in the very recent past. And once you give the bread and the wine to these people then there's pressure on you to give the bread and the wine to lots of other people who were doing really bad things in the recent past. The typical Christian is seen by other typical Christians as doing great if he can at least put up a good front and defend Christianity. Suppose you are watching You Tube clips of disasters, like the tsunami that hit Japan on 3.11. Some lady will leave a comment saying `Thank God more people didn't die,' and then some guy will write, `There is no God, you ignorant fool!' and then someone else will say: `God doesn't do shit to help people,' and then another person will write in saying `praise the Lord for chastising the sinners in Japan,' and then another lady will saying, `You fool, it was the Devil that made that tsunami' etc., etc. At its most basic level Christianity teaches that Christians will have to endure tribulation during our lives on earth, but if you uphold the True Faith, if you know God and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, recall 2 Thess 1. 8, then you will have your name written in the Book of Life, and you will not be cast into the lake of fire at the Last Judgment, recall Revelation 20. 12-15. So the key thing is to uphold the True Faith. And to do this you can't celebrate holy communion in an unworthy manner. But as I say, things get very confusing. If a church will give the bread and the wine to a guy who was ripping babies apart last Tuesday, then it will give the bread and the wine to pretty much anyone, and so that church makes a big mockery of holy communion.

You would think there must be a way to determine whether or not you are celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner. But this is the complex part about Christianity. Most Christians are so ignorant they can't even name all 10 of the 10 Commandments. If they can't handle the simplest parts of Christians how will they ever handle the most complex aspects? Suppose you were in a church where everyone in your church was fond of murdering people, and fond of stealing. Then it seems sort of farfetched to think you are actually in God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, right? At least somewhat farfetched? OK, so suppose you were in a church which gave the bread and the wine to people who took God's name in vain, and gave the bread and the wine to to people who violated the Commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy...

In the USA the Liberal Christians take the Conservative Christians to task for supporting Donald Trump. Acts 26. 13-18 and Galatians 1. 8-12 lay out St. Paul's authority. If you accept these scriptures then you will accept what St. Paul teaches. If you reject those scriptures then you reject Christianity. St. Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10 when he says revilers and other sorts of sinners will not go to heaven. You get the sense that Trump would go crazy if he couldn't get his shots in at people, calling Ms. Omoroso a dog, calling Mike Bloomberg shorty, saying that Steve Bannon begged for his job, sloppy Steve, calling Ted Cruz a liar etc. The Left has gone crazy Anti-Christian evil in its support for abortion, but it's also crazy to think Trump, though a Christian, is a on the road to heaven. He's an unrepentant reviler. Anyone with any sense can see he's a reviler! To give him his due he is very courageous, and certainly he has excellent sense on many things, but if you stray into unrepenting mortal sin in one aspect of your life, even though you are perfectly sound in a hundred other aspects of you life, then you are still on the road to eternal perdition. Anyone can read 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10 and learn what Christianity teaches about revilers. You're not obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ if you are a reviler. Recall 2 Thess 1. 8. And then there are the divorces. In Christianity getting divorced and then remarried is the same as adultery. But there are some extenuating circumstances. It gets contentious. Christianity says you are guilty of adultery if you divorce your spouse and remarry, unless the first wife was guilty of sexual immorality, in which case it is OK to remarry after a divorce. I don't think Jesus meant to imply that you can't get a divorce from a husband who beats the hell out of you, and you can only get a divorce from a guy provided you first prove to the True Church that he is sexually immoral....But let's not get lost on this tangent. At some time, sooner or later, you have to give communion to Christians who have repented of the sin of adultery. But you don't share the bread and the wine with unrepentant revilers, homosexuals, fornicators etc., you don't share the bread and the wine with people who haven't repented. That's called celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner. That puts you on the road to perdition. Christianity, you see, is very liberal in the sense that you can be guilty of tons of sinning and yet all these sins are forgiven, and then you are on the road to heaven, provided you sincerely repent. But Christianity is very harsh in the sense that Christianity teaches that you will be cast into a lake of fire if you refuse to repent, if you refuse to live the way good Christians are commanded to live. John 15. 6, 2 Thess 1. 8, Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 13. 3-5, Luke 16. 19-31, Revelation 20. 12-15, Malachi 4. 1 etc., are very clear on this issue.

We were on the subject of John 6. 53-55 and 1 Corinthians 11. 27. It makes no sense to give an ex-abortionist who made money ripping babies apart in his job as an abortionist the bread and the wine before you give the bread and the wine to an ex-adulterer. It's not clear how long you have to wait before you give the bread and the wine to people guilty of monstrous crimes. Some of the murderers in the Manson family became born-again Christians in prison. How long do refuse to give the bread and the wine to people guilty of their sort of vicious evil? The pro-life side has political motivations to be lenient to pro-choicers, because the pro-life side wants to convert pro-choicers to the pro-life side. But you don't want to be too lenient. If God says you will burn in hell if you are too quick to celebrate holy communion with an ex-abortionist who was recently ripping babies apart, then you don't want to be too hasty in rushing to celebrate holy communion with such people. You don't want to be too lenient with them. But then you don't want to be too strict either. How long do you keep ex-abortionists and ex-pro choicers excommunicated? Well, of course, the True Church will know how to handle these complex matters. And, of course, you first have to locate the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19, you first have to find God's True Church, the Bride of Christ, the saints. You have to check and double-check to make sure you haven't gotten some false church which drags people down to eternal perdition confused with God's True Church.

No doubt one could argue all day long about who is more Anti-Christian, the Liberal Christians in the USA or the Conservative Christians in the USA, but let's not get into a big debate about who are more Anti-Christian between the Liberal Christians in the USA and the Conservative Christians in the USA. Let's review a few of the basic things which might confuse Non-Christians about Christianity.

Non-Christians might be a bit put off by John 6. 53-55, and this part about needing to eat the body of Jesus in order to attain heaven and escape perdition. Long story short, the New Testament teaches us that Jesus is God. Psalm 2 from the Old Testament implies the Son is God. Isaiah 9. 6 says it explicitly. The New Testament scriptures which say Jesus is God include John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16, Matthew 1. 23 etc. So, we have 2 options: 1) Jesus is God, and, 2) Jesus is not God. Suppose the New Testament leads us Christians into blasphemy and sacrilege. Suppose it is blasphemy and sacrilege to say Jesus is God. Then those of us who are Christians would have to worry about Malachi 4. 1, which is probably the clearest hellfire scripture in the Old Testament. Christianity claims to be the New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Things get a little confusing because some parts of the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, are part of the New Covenant, and some parts are not. For instance, under the Old Law the Jews were commanded to execute enchantresses, homosexuals, adulteresses, Sabbath violators, blasphemers, children who cursed their parents etc. Under the Old Law the daughter of a priest who became a harlot was to be burned alive. Under the New Law Christians are not to execute such people, recall that Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone at the adulteress. Ezekiel 20. 25 tells us that God gave the children of Israel bad laws because He was angry with their rebelliousness. And again Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is the main Old Testament prophesy about a New Law to replace the Old Law. The Old Testament has lots of scriptures saying the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is an eternal law, and so Christians interpret this to mean it will be eternally remembered but not all of it will be eternally enforced. The 10 Commandments are still enforced. You have to obey these or else you put yourself on the road to perdition. But not all of the Mosaic Law is enforced under the New Law. All blood sacrifice of animals for the atonement of sin is gone under the New Law If you were on the Divine Schedule to be damned to hell if you didn't obey all of the Mosaic Law, then you would have to start executing homosexuals, start executing Sabbath violators, start executing adulterers, start executing...

So, we have the easy parts of Christianity and we have the complicated parts. The easy stuff deals with questions such as: Is Jesus God? Now it might take you a month of hard work to review the evidence which says Jesus is God. You first have to read all of the Old and New Testaments. And it might take you a month of hard work to review the evidence which says Jesus is not God. But over the course of a lifetime, 2 months is really nothing, hardly any time at all.

Obviously most non-Christians are put off by the Christian hellfire scriptures: John 15. 6, 2 Thess 1. 8, Malachi 4. 1, Revelation 20. 12-15, Luke 16. 19-31, Matthew 25. 31-46 etc. Under the Christian system, one's dearly departed Non-Christian ancestors will be cast into a lake of fire for rejecting Christianity, for refusing to worship a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for refusing to worship Jesus as the Divine Son, for saying Jesus is unworthy to be worshipped as God etc., etc. One might speculate that the Christian Trinity will be merciful and will at same time remove most or many of the non-Christians from the lake of fire, and will put them some place in eternal perdition where they can be more comfortable. This makes sense to me, but it's just speculation. These hellfire scriptures can be ambiguous. Many don't tell us how long the damned remain in the lake of fire. Some theologians assume the damned remain in hellfire forever. Other theologians say a benevolent merciful God will give them some mercy at some time.

Aside from hellfire some other General Complaints against Christianity from Non-Christians might be classified as follows:

1. Promises, Promises.

John 15. 7 has Jesus saying, `If you abide in Me and My words abide in you, then you will ask for what you wish and it will be granted to you.' You can imagine a Christian turning Atheist is his prayers go unanswered. If one is praying earnestly for God to save a dying relative, a mother dying perhaps of cancer, but the Lord's Prayer tells us to pray for God's will to be done. So if Christ's words abide in you then you will seek God's will not your own will.

2) Absurd or Not So Absurd Scriptures.

Atheists don't like scriptures which seem absurd: a talking serpent in the garden of Eden, a talking donkey, the account of Noah's Ark, the suggestion that the earth was created in 6 days around 6,000 years ago, the miracles performed by God through Moses and Aaron etc. My advice is to treat those accounts which you find too far-fetched to believe as literal historical fact as parables. Jesus taught in parables – fictions which teach spiritual truths. And he told His disciples He was speaking in parables but He didn't tell most of His listeners that he was giving them fictions which contained spiritual truth. What does it really matter if the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is literal truth or a parable which teaches the truth? The account is all about suffering, no end of suffering, no end of hell that you will suffer if you disobey God. One was ordered to not eat the forbidden fruit, the order was disobeyed, and the result is no end of suffering for humanity. As long as that message is true, then what does it matter if the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is literal truth or if it is a parable which teaches the truth? You have the ten wise virgins and the ten foolish virgins. What does it matter if these virgins never actually existed? As long as the parable teaches the truth then that's all that matters. So it is rather nonsensical to argue that since the Bible presents far-fetched stories, therefore the Bible must be a fraud.

3) Slavery.

Critics say the New Testament supports slavery, supports evil, therefore these critics say Christianity is false and evil. Evil Christians have perverted Christianity and have said Christianity supports slavery but this is a lie. It's true St. Paul and St. Peter told slaves to obey their masters but what were they supposed to say? If they told the slaves to rebel the Romans would have tortured the rebels to death. If they told Christians to free their slaves, well, in the ancient world, the idea of free labor was still far in the future. Labor was performed by slaves in the ancient world. There were no corporations, no Wal-Marts, no temp agencies to give jobs to freed slaves. You weren't doing a slave any favors if you told him to get off your property and go find employment at some other place. To support a family a freed slave could become a prostitute, or a gladiator, or he could serve in the Roman Army – which was often just a position which required you to act like a brigand – none of these occupations can be done by Christians, because they are all Anti-Christian occupations: they all lead one to perdition. The best St. Peter and St. Paul could do was tell the masters to be fair and not abusive to the slaves. Now the African slave trade was something quite different than the slavery that St. Peter and St. Paul were facing. The African slave trade was simply evil perpetrated by evil Christians, albeit it was also Christians, and Non-Christians, who ended the African slave trade.

4) The Contention that Men Have Authority over Women. St. Paul said he did not permit a woman to have authority over a man. But St. Paul would also have told Christians to obey a Queen as long as she wasn't giving Anti-Christian orders: ordering people to worship her image, ordering people to murder for her, steal for her etc. St. Paul would have told slaves of a Christian woman to obey her. In the Christian system one is either a heretic or else one teaches the True Faith correctly. St. Paul never would have said a woman must obey a man even if he is a heretic. Take the Roman Catholic Church for example. Rome has a male-only clergy. Now if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then it would be crazy for a woman to throw herself into hell by rebelling against God's True Church, it would be crazy to throw her chance for eternal life in paradise away merely because Rome doesn't allow for female priests and bishops. And if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then it's crazy for a woman to want to be a priestess in a false church which leads people to perdition.

A person is either a heretic or else she teaches the True Faith correctly. If a person is a heretic she has no authority in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, in God's True Church, the Bride of Christ. Why would you want to obey someone who will lead you to eternal perdition? If a woman teaches the True Faith correctly, then it is evil to rebel against her. I threw together a playlist on You Tube called `The NBA on NBC to Catching Fire – Poison Fog.' It gives one some practice on learning to recognize the difference between things which are Anti-Christian and things which aren't Anti-Christian. For instance there are some clips of some girls dancing, but you wouldn't say their dancing is lascivious or Anti-Christian. But then I have some other clips of other girls dancing...I have quite a few clips from men and women who say they were sexually assaulted in the US military. So we have to determine if there is something rotten and Anti-Christian about the way the US military deals with this issue. Obviously rape is evil and Anti-Christian, but suppose there is something evil and rotten about the way many generals and admirals operate, if so then Christians need to know about these corrupt, evil Anti-Christian operations. This playlist also gives tons and tons of clips on pop culture. My thinking is that a movie can have some violence, and some risqué material, and some bad language in it and not be Anti-Christian, but it's always Anti-Christian to have actors take God's name in vain. Of course a film can be anti-Christian even if it doesn't take God's name in vain, even if it just shoves lots images and language at you which add up to something Anti-Christian.

There are quite a few clips on Climate Change. There are quite a few clips which are arranged in a way to get you thinking: either Climate Change is a scam run by honest but misguided people, or run by con artists / scammers, and therefore it is Anti-Christian, or else Climate Change is not a scam, and you stray into Anti-Christian areas if you deny the evils perpetrated by greedy people pushing for big profits in the oil and gas and coal businesses etc.

Got some clips on dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again, you're being asked if that sort of thing is Christian or Anti-Christian. Got some clips on abortion, all from the pro-life / pro-Christian side of course, plus clips on Venezuela – are US sanctions part of an Anti-Christian plot to overthrow Venezuela to take control of that nation's oil reserves? Found sort of a gold mine in the Jimmy Dore Show. He's very bright. If he cleaned up his language some he could be a big star, though I suppose a lot of the humor relies on the brutally direct language. Found another gold mine in _The Sarah Connor Chronicles_. That show on Fox was cancelled after a few seasons; they pushed the relationship angle between a robot and a human about as far as it can be pushed. The lead actress, Summer Glau, is in the same class in terms of star power as Joan Crawford, Marilyn Monroe, Gene Tierney, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lawrence, Grace Kelly etc. Lots of clips on the battles between Real Housewives, lots of clips that pertain to the hate between the Pro-Trump faction and the Anti-Trump faction. Got some clips on the Arab versus Israeli hate. We'll review later in this book why it is Anti-Christian to be Anti-Zionist. Zionism is the doctrine that the Jews have a right to live in peace in their own nation in the Holy Land.

St. Paul wanted men to pray with their heads uncovered, and he wanted women to pray with their heads covered. We have no scripture however which says he wanted violators of these wishes to be excommunicated, so we seem to have some discretionary leeway. Of course the smart thing to do is just do what St. Paul advised. Scriptures such as Acts 26. 13-18 and Galatians 1. 8-12 explain St. Paul's authority; these explain why it is lethal to not listen to him. The Second Commandment is very hostile to images. But Jesus didn't order all painted pictures to be destroyed, so Christians tend to say that photos, and motion pictures and paintings are not forbidden under the 2nd Commandment, though if you took a strict construction of the 2nd Commandment then they are forbidden.

John 1. 1-14 tells us, in so many words, that Jesus is God, the Creator of the Universe. In the Old Testament Psalm 2 implies the begotten Son is God and Isaiah 9. 6 explicitly says the Son is called `almighty God.' So Christianity depends on the trustworthiness of the New Testament scriptures which tell us Jesus is God: John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, Romans 9. 5, 1 Timothy 3. 16, Matthew 1. 23 etc. If these scriptures are falsehoods, then those of us who are Christians are led into blasphemy by those scriptures. If the True God says Jesus is a false god, then it is blasphemy to worship Jesus as the True God. But if the New Testament scriptures which tell us Jesus is God are true, then it is the non-Christians who stray into blasphemy, because the non-Christians insist Jesus is a false god. Malachi 4. 1 is perhaps the clearest hellfire scripture from the Old Testament. The New Testament hellfire scriptures are nothing to worry about if the New Testament pushes falsehoods and blasphemies in regards to Jesus being God. But if you can trust the New Testament when it tells us Jesus is God, then you can trust the New Testament's hellfire scriptures. Revelation 20. 12-15 says that those who do not have their names written in the Book of Life will be cast into a lake of fire at the Last Judgment. You might speculate that God will have mercy and will take some or most of the damned out of the lake of fire and consign them to some place in eternal perdition where they can be reasonably comfortable. The scriptures seem very clear in stating that once a person is cast into the lake of fire he never is admitted into heaven. But one might be wise to think it possible that a merciful Deity will have some mercy on those who get cast into the lake of fire.

John 14. 23-26 tells us that those who love Christ keep His words. A lot of Christians says they love Jesus, but if they don't keep His words then they don't love Christ. This is reminiscent of 1 John 5. 3, which says you must obey the commandments in order to love God, you recall the commandments: keep the Sabbath Day holy, don't take God's name in vain, don't commit adultery, don't covet etc., don't celebrate holy communion with Sabbath violators, with people who take God's name in vain...

John 15. 6 says those who do not abide in Christ are like sticks which are gathered up and tossed into the flames. So, if Jesus is God, if you can trust John 1. 1-14, 1 Timothy 3. 16, Psalm 2, Isaiah 9. 6 etc., then you can trust what God is saying in John 15. 6.

John 15. 6 is much like other scriptures on perdition, for example: 2 Thess 1. 8, Matthew 25. 31-46, Revelation 20. 12-15.

It's interesting that right after John 15. 6 we get another scripture of amazing importance. John 15. 7 says that if Christ's words abide in you then when you ask God for something your request will be granted. So this gets you thinking that there's a trick, or some sort of legalese going on here, because Christians ask God for lots of things, but this doesn't mean God gives everyone what they ask for. Well, of course if Christ's words abide in you then you know from the Lord's Prayer you are supposed to ask for God's will to be done, not for your will to be done, so that's the catch with John 15. 7. Anyway Christianity all falls apart if you can't trust John 1. 1-14, if Jesus is not God. Why would you trust John 14. 23-26, or John 15. 6, or John 15. 7, if John 1. 1-14 is voodoo? But then if John 1. 1-14 is true, as those of us who are Christians insist, if Jesus is God, then you can trust what Jesus / God says throughout the New Testament, such as in all the controversial scriptures. Matthew 5 gives us the beatitudes but also a sermon on hell. Matthew 25. 31-46 deals with hell, Luke 13. 3 – repent or perish – we've been over John 15. 6.

All of my religious books push 3 main bullet points,

1) Jesus is God and the Christian scriptures are trustworthy. There is some question as to whether every scripture in the Old Testament is literally true. I leave things basically at this: We know Jesus taught in parables, which are fictional lessons which teach spiritual truths, and so I think it possible that various Old Testament scriptures might be parables.

2) Don't commit sacrilege with the cross, or with anything else for that matter. Sacrilege, without repentance, is a sin which leads one straight to eternal perdition.

3) Again, Jesus tells us, in so many words, in John 6. 53-55, that you must celebrate the Eucharist in order to attain heaven and to escape perdition. And St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27 that it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. Jesus tells us in Matthew 16. 13-19 that He founded His True Church on a rock. So, obviously, you want to celebrate communion in God's True Church, not in some false church. Of course every church claims to lead people to heaven. No church claims it is a false church which drags people down to eternal perdition. No church claims to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. But you have to use your wits to try to get to the bottom of the mystery: where do we find God's True Church? Obviously, if a church is celebrating communion in an unworthy manner, and dragging souls down to perdition in the process, then that church is a false church not God's True Church.

As to point 1 from above, again, Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6 from the Old Testament don't say that Jesus is God, but they certainly support the doctrine that the Son is God. And of course we have some New Testament scriptures which tell us Jesus is God: Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc.

You'll notice that points 1 and 2 from above are rather simple. But point 3 is complicated. I mean, with point 1, Jesus is either God or else Jesus is not God. You could be clueless on the issue, but you still have a 50% chance of making a correct guess, albeit you also have a 50% chance of guessing wrong. Same with the cross. You either keep the cross or you get rid of it. The cross is either sacred or it is not sacred. The cross either symbolizes no evil or else it symbolizes some evil. Keep it or get rid of it.

But with point 3 everything gets complicated. At one time Chapter 1 of `Constitutional History of the Western World' was a concise and readable chapter pertaining to the sign of the cross. But I wasn't getting as many downloads as I wanted so I started making changes to it, and then more and more changes, and then it became the huge sprawling thing that it is today. Christianity is so simple in many ways. John 1. 1-14 is simple. If John 1. 1-14 is false, Christianity is false. If John 1. 1-14 is true then Christianity is true. John 6. 53-55 is simple. John 14. 23-26 is simple. John 15. 6 is simple. But John 15. 7 is a little complicated. And John 3. 16 is also a little complicated. Merely because a person claims to have true belief in Christ doesn't prove he actually has true belief in Christ. Look at all of Christians who supported the African slave trade. They claimed to have true belief in Christ. There were Nazis in Nazi Germany who claimed to have true belief in Christ. I devoted some energy in `Constitutional History of the Western World' explaining why the apostles had to tell slaves to endure their changes. But this doesn't mean Christianity supports slavery. If you need an explanation for this see Chapter 1 of `Constitutional History of the Western World.' That chapter became a sprawling massive thing because Christianity gets a little complicated, or at least Christianity takes lots of explaining. As I stated in the first chapter of _Constitutional History of the Western World_ we had some famous mass murderers, some people in the Manson family become born again Christians while in prison. How long do you wait before sharing communion with someone guilty of heinous crimes? Suppose someone is murdering people on Monday and then they convert to Christianity on Thursday and then if you are celebrating communion with them on Sunday, then, don't you think you are celebrating communion in an unworthy manner? If you say that these sorts of questions are questions for the bishops in God's True Church to decide then you have to make sure these bishops you are talking about are actually bishops in God's True Church, and are not simply bishops in some false church which leads people to eternal perdition.

Consider all of the pressure on a clergyman when he tells someone that he is excommunicating him or her. He watches as her face changes from smiling to anger and perhaps hatred in a split second! And then some nasty words might begin to gush forth. It's an odd sort of deal! When you excommunicate someone you are, in theory anyway, being their friend, and showing them love, because you are helping to discipline them, you are helping them get off the road to perdition and get on the road to heaven via your tough love. But people don't like discipline. They don't like it when you tell them they need to shape up and make some improvements in their behavior, or else, without the improvements in their behavior, they will go to hell. It's a distressing job for a clergyman to confront people and watch them go from smiling and happy one moment, to see them staring daggers at him the next moment, even though he is just trying to be their friend, just trying to save them from hell, just trying to save the flock from hell as well, by not having the congregation celebrate communion in an unworthy manner by celebrating communion with people that God wants excommunicated.

So, a clergyman has inducements to let things slide, to make life more comfortable for himself, to not excommunicate people who need to be excommunicated, as it is a very unpleasant task to turn happy smiling people into angry hostile people. And this job of excommunicating people is not just a clergyman's responsibility. If a lay person is celebrating communion with people that he knows needs to be excommunicated, then this lay person might want to read what is written in 1 Corinthians 11. 27.

And then there are fiscal considerations. If a clergyman hates for example the pro-choice philosophy; if he insists it is evil and anti-Christian, but if he also knows that if he excommunicates every pro-choicer in his congregation he will drive his church into bankruptcy, then he might reason that since God doesn't want him to drive his church, which he assumes is the True Church, into bankruptcy, the clergyman determines that it is right to give communion to pro-choicers, even though he is convinced the pro-choice philosophy is evil, even though he is perfectly able to read what is written in 1 Corinthians 11. 27.

Whenever Christian A does something in public which is Anti-Christian, then other Christians must excommunicate him, and keep him excommunicated until he repents of his Anti-Christian behavior, and perhaps even after he repents. Check out Acts 26. 13-18, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, Ephesians 5. 5 etc. If good Christians celebrate communion with someone who God says must be excommunicated, then the good Christians celebrate communion in an unworthy manner, and so they cease to be good Christians, and so they put themselves on the road to perdition. Apropos of evil and heresy, the abortion issue, and the gay marriage issue, are 2 big conspicuous issues. If a Christian openly espouses evil and heresy, and if you are celebrating communion with someone who openly supports evil and heresy...

I suppose there are hundreds or thousands of ways one could be guilty of celebrating communion in an unworthy manner if, for instance, you are celebrating communion with various famous politicians / sinners / world leaders. If a politician makes some sort of Anti-Christian law on Tuesday, or adopts some sort of Anti-Christian position on Thursday, and then if you are celebrating communion with him on Sunday.

Getting back to the Central Park 5 controversy. There's no end of hatred generated by the whole thing, well at least that's my impression after spending a few days reviewing comments on You Tube. Those who accept Ava Duvernay's film _When They See Us_ as Gospel Truth see you as being on the Devil's side if you refuse to agree the Central Park 5 are innocent. Who's on the Devil's Side? Who's on God's side? Are all 5 of the Central Park 5 like sweet angels from heaven? Are all 5 of the Central Park 5 devildogs from the pit of hell? You'll just have to do some research to find out.

Of course most people don't want to review the facts of the case. The facts are very brutal and very depressing, so, naturally, most people don't want to get depressed by reviewing the brutal depressing facts. Anyway, we don't have to review the Central Park 5 controversy here. That's a very time-consuming process. My point is that in these _cause celebres_ , where, on one side, you have the Devil's side, and on the other side you have God's side – think of the Crucifixion of Jesus, the Galileo Affair, the Dreyfuss Affair, the Dred Scott Affair, the Joan of Arc Affair, the Blood Libel of the Middle Ages, the Holocaust etc – well, you don't want to be celebrating communion with people who are on the Devil's side, because that is celebrating communion in an unworthy manner, and 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says that's a terrible sin: so eternal perdition etc. If the facts of a controversy are obtainable, and if any honest person can determine which side is the Devil's side, and which side is God's side, in the controversy, then it is evil to celebrate communion with the people on the Devil's side.

If an American Christian can't be troubled to learn the facts of the CP5 case, how is he going to learn the facts of similar sorts of controversies in Ireland, Ecuador, Kenya, Canada, Chile, France, Germany etc? Again, if you got a heinous crime, or some sort of controversy involving evil, and some people are on the side of the Devil, and other people are on the side of God, then how are you supposed to know which side is the Devil's side and which side is God's side unless you do some research? You can't just trust the first person who comes along, for example, some guy you might meet online, like me, or some guy you meet in a bar, and take his word that he knows the facts of the case. He might steer you to God's side, or he might steer you to the Devil's side, and you don't want to find yourself on the Devil's side.

So, everything is sort of easy with points 1 and 2 from above. Don't commit blasphemy with Jesus, and don't commit sacrilege with the cross. But there are so many ways that you can put yourself on the road to perdition by making errors with point 3, there are so many ways you can make a slip-up and put yourself on the road to perdition by celebrating communion in an unworthy manner. Suppose you are celebrating communion with people on the Devil's side of some controversy, or suppose you are deluded enough to think that some false church which celebrates the Eucharist in an unworthy manner every Sunday is God's True Church. That's a delusion that leads to perdition.

My books make a big issue of Revelation 13. 1-8, which describes the world worshipping a multi-headed beast. I take a figurative interpretation, as I don't think people will ever literally worship a beast with literal multiple heads. So, quite simply, the way I see it, is the people who worship false gods worship this multi-headed beast. Those of us who are Christians don't have any problems in believing that the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists etc worship false gods, so they worship this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8. And then we have to figure out if God loves the sign of the cross or if God hates the sign of the cross. If you worship a god who loves the cross then you worship a false god if the True God hates the cross, and vice versa. Suppose the True God loves the cross, then, when we look for this Church which Christ founded on a rock you look among all these churches which don't reject the cross. Of course, if the cross is in fact the mark of the beast, then, if you worship a god who loves the cross, then you are basically worshipping the Devil. People who love the cross will insist they worship the True God, but if the True God says the cross is the mark of the beast, and if you worship a god who says the cross is sacred and holy, then you more or less worship the Devil, or at least you worship this beast with multiple heads mentioned in Revelation 13. 1-8.

Suppose the True God says the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, then if you worship a god who says Rome is a false church, then you worship a false god, hence you worship this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8.

Or suppose the True God says the Mormon Church is His True Church, then if you worship a god who says the Mormon Church is a false church, you worship a false god, so you worship this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8.

So you see the pattern here. We don't have to repeat all this info for every church. You can see how it goes! Suppose the True God says the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which leads people to perdition. Well, if you worship a god who says Rome is the True Church, then you worship a false god, you worship this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8.

We don't have to run through every scenario with every church! The ELCA, the Russian Orthodox Church....You recall what is written in 2 Thess 1. 8 of course, of course.

The Jews claim to worship the True God, but in Revelation 2. 9 Jesus called the Jews a synagogue of Satan. If Jesus is in fact God, and if you refuse to worship Jesus as God, then you can claim all day long that you are not in a synagogue of satan, but you are in a synagogue of satan if in fact Jesus is God and if you refuse to worship Jesus as God. My other books go into some detail explaining how Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but not the cross, the material cross, anyway, I've either strayed into satanic heresy, or else I haven't strayed into satanic heresy. Real helpful, I know. As I say, Revelation 14. 11 is quite specific in saying some people will burn in hell forever and ever, and these people have some sort of a mark on their foreheads or their right hands. And, really, the only reason for putting any sort of mark on your forehead, during the great tribulation, is because you are 100% convinced it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, the seal of God which saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9.

So, as we know, if you have no mark whatsoever on your forehead or right hand then you will never be shipped off to hell to burn in hell forever and ever for the sin of having an evil mark on your forehead or your right hand. So this gets me thinking that you don't want to put the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand.

So, it is very important to not make a botch of things with Jesus and with the cross. You make a big mistake here, on one or both of these issues, and you're on the road to eternal perdition. If you don't make any mistakes with points 1 and 2, if you're not committing blasphemy with Jesus, and if you're not committing sacrilege with the cross, then you move on to the complicated one, point # 3: Don't celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. Don't make a botch of things with #3! Don't celebrate communion with people who are on the Devil's side, such as in that Central Park 5 controversy, or any other controversy.

Suppose Jesus is God, suppose you can trust John 1. 1-14, then you can trust what God is saying in all the hellfire scriptures: Matthew 25. 31-46, John 15. 6 etc. And you can trust what God is saying in Matthew 16. 13-19: God has founded His True Church on a rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against this True Church. You basically have to accept all of the New Testament, as it would be idiotic not to, once you make the determination that Jesus is God. If you can trust John 1. 1-14, then you can trust John 14. 23-26, and John 15. 6 and Matthew 16. 13-19 and Matthew 25. 31-46. If you can trust John 1. 1-14 and John 14. 23-26 and John 15. 6 and Matthew 16. 13-19 and Matthew 25. 31-46, then you can trust 2 Thess 1. 8. If you can trust 2 Thess 1. 8 then you can trust 2 Thess 2, and if you can trust 2 Thess 2 then...

About point #2 from the previous chapter – don't commit sacrilege with the cross - my books push the idea that Christianity is true but they also push the doctrine that the cross is evil. So, of course, most Christians would say I'm a fool for saying what I'm saying here, saying the cross is evil. I'm saying Christianity is true. I'm saying Jesus is God. But I'm also saying it is a sacrilege to say the cross is sacred to God.

So, of course, most Christians would say I've stupidly fallen into sacrilege, and into even satanic heresy, and have put myself on the road to perdition, by saying the cross is evil. Most Christians say that God says the cross is sacred, and so, if in fact God says the cross is sacred then it is a sacrilege to say the cross is evil. But then, on the other hand, if God says the cross is evil, then it is a sacrilege, a sin which leads to perdition, to say the cross is sacred.

I say these Christians under the cross have been led astray, they have fallen into satanic heresy, they are on the road to eternal perdition. My books give lots of extracts from famous historians documenting the evils perpetrated over the centuries by people carrying crosses, and I'm saying these evils are reflected in the cross.

My strongest argument against the cross pertains to these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11. The 3rd angel mentions people who have an evil mark on their foreheads or right hands burning in hell forever. So, my reasoning says that if you have no mark whatsoever on your forehead or right hand then you will never be shipped off to eternal hellfire in punishment for having an evil mark on your forehead or right hand. So, this sort of reasoning got me thinking that the cross is just one of the many symbols that you don't ever want to put on your forehead or right hand.

It's a strange sort of situation. Suppose the cross is sacred to God. Suppose the cross is the holiest symbol in the Universe. Suppose the cross is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, and suppose you have people coming at you saying stuff like: `Please, Please put the mark of a cross on your forehead because doing this will save you from the tortures described in Revelation 9, because the cross is the seal of God which saves you from the tortures described in Revelation 9.' But suppose you are fearful to put the mark of a cross on your forehead – perhaps you are not 100% sold that the cross is the seal of God which saves one from the tortures described in Revelation 9. Then the fans of the cross might be calling you a satanic heretic if you refuse to put the mark of a cross on your forehead. It's a really strange sort of deal, because, though these people who are calling you a satanic heretic, if they are right about the cross, if you must put the mark of a cross on your forehead to escape the tortures mentioned in Revelation 9, then these people are your friends, even though they are calling you nasty names: fool, brainless idiot, satanic heretic etc.

Of course, on the other hand, if the cross is evil in the sight of God, if putting the mark of a cross on your forehead will cause you to be tortured forever and ever in hellfire, then, obviously, you don't want to listen to those people who are calling you a gutless coward and a satanic heretic should you continue to refuse to put the mark of a cross on your forehead. They might be saying to you they have spoken directly with God on this matter with the cross, they might seem to be quite zealous and pious, they might give you the impression that they are good Christians, but if they are misinformed, if they are making a big slip-up with the cross, and if they lead you to make a big error with the cross, one where you end up burning in hell forever... Of course you might be saying that I'm making a big mistake with the cross, you might say I stray into sacrilege for saying the cross is evil, you might be saying that the cross is most definitely the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. Well, if you are right then you want to have the mark of a cross on your forehead during the great tribulation, see Revelation 18. But if you are wrong....

Again, it is all sort of simple. I mean Revelation 14. 11 is quite specific in saying that these people who have an evil mark on their foreheads and right hands are tortured in hellfire forever and ever, so the way I have it figured is that if you have no mark whatsoever on your forehead or right hand then you can't possibly be shipped off to hell to burn forever and ever in hell...I know lots of non-Christians will say that both Revelation 14. 11 and Revelation 9 are like voodoo. They are crazy superstitions followed by crazy Christians, according to non-Christians. Yes, but what if the non-Christians are all wrong for being non-Christians? I mean if all non-Christian religions, and all false versions of Christianity lead people to perdition, but if the True Version of Christianity leads people to heaven, then you have to find the True Version of Christianity to attain heaven and escape perdition. Do you sort of see how there was a change in Christianity in the 4th century? There were always false brethren, going back to Judas, but the people under the cross began to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner when they began to celebrate communion with some very evil people in the 4th century. Recall what 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says about celebrating communion in an unworthy matter. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and so the Nazi swastika is no good. The people under the cross shared communion with people who perpetrated evil for century after century. Gibbon writes of the 4th century Catholic Emperor Valentinian and his judges,

`They easily discovered, that the degree of their industry and discernment was estimated, by the Imperial court, according to the number of executions that were furnished from their respective tribunals. It was not without extreme reluctance that they pronounced a sentence of acquittal; but they eagerly admitted such evidence as was stained by perjury, or procured by torture, to prove the most improbable charges against the most respectable characters. The progress of the inquiry continually opened new subjects of criminal prosecution; the audacious informer, whose falsehood was detected, retired with impunity, but the wretched victim, who discovered his real or pretended accomplices, was seldom permitted to receive the price of his infamy. From the extremity of Italy and Asia, the young, and the aged, were dragged in chains to the tribunals of Rome and Antioch. Senators, matrons, and philosophers, expired in ignominious and cruel tortures...The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, `Strike off his head;' `Burn him alive;' `Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;'....He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death; he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favor of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage.'

So, obviously, if the cross is indeed the mark of the beast then every church under the cross is a false church which leads people to perdition. If the cross is the mark of the beast, then when some church under the cross tells you that you have nothing to fear if you put the cross on your forehead, but then when you end up burning in hell forever, because of that cross on your forehead, because the cross is the mark of the beast, then, obviously, it wasn't God's True Church which led you to burn in hell forever. It was just some worthless false church which leads people to eternal perdition which gave you the bad advice which led you to burn in hell forever and ever.

You know how it is with a lever. It gives you the power to move things which can't be moved unless you have a lever, to give you some leverage. If a person is a True Catholic, if he insists the Popes are the Vicars of Christ and insists the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and if he obeys Rome, such as he venerates Capistrano, and Borromeo, and Pius V., and all the other problematical saints, if he obeys Rome in all of Rome's official doctrines, then what sort of leverage is there to be used on him? How do you move him out of his position, assuming he must be moved out of his True Catholic position to escape perdition, assuming the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which leads people to perdition? But with the Cafeteria Catholics it seems so easy to find leverage to move them. I mean the Cafeteria Catholics say Rome is God's True Church but then they dive into madness by saying it is sometimes wise to rebel against God's True Church. But any child ought to be able to see the folly of the Cafeteria Catholics. If you are right when you say Rome is God's True Church, and since you will always go to heaven if you always obey God's True Church, but you might go to hell if you rebel against God's True Church, then it is not smart to be a Cafeteria Catholic. Of course if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church, then it makes no sense to be any sort of Catholic.

The Muslims seem so entrenched in their false religion! How do you move them out of it? And the Buddhists and the Hindus seem so entrenched in their false religions! What leverage is there to move these lost souls out of their false religions, and move them to the True Religion, to Christianity?

Obviously, if some Christian prophesies came true, for instance, if these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 were to show up, or if the Antichrist / man of sin / son of perdition / beast from hell – recall 2 Thess 2, Revelation 19. 19, 1 John 2. 18 etc. – was to show up, or if Jesus was to start ruling the earth with a rod of iron – recall Psalm 2 – or if the prophesies given in Revelation 18 were to come true – economic collapse - then Christians would have some leverage to use on the non-Christians, some leverage to move them out of their false religions which lead people to perdition and move them to the True Religion, to the religion which leads people to heaven, which is the Christian religion.

Chapter 3. Christian Zionism.

What do you think: is it Anti-Christian to reject Zionism? Zionism is the philosophy which says the Jews have a right to live in peace in their own nation in the Holy Land. The argument runs as follows: If one rejects Christ's words at the Last Supper, Matthew 26. 28: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...' \- then Christianity says one is damned, that is, one is damned if one never repents, if one persists in rejecting Christ's words at the Last Supper. If one accepts those words which Christ announced at the Last Supper then one will accept Jeremiah 31. 31-34:

`Behold, the days come, sayeth the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt; which My covenant they broke... but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days sayeth the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, sayeth the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.'

If one accepts Jeremiah 31. 31-34, then one will also accept Ezekiel 36. 24-28. This is because one will accept one Old Testament scripture which says God will write His law on the hearts of the Jews if one has already accepted a different Old Testament scripture which says God will write His law on the hearts of the Jews. Ezekiel 36. 24-28 has God saying,

`For I will take you out of the nations. I will gather you from all the nations and bring you back into your own land...I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My Statutes, and you will keep My statutes and do them...you shall be My people, and I will be your God.'

This scripture has two parts. Christians don't believe that it makes any sense to say that the first part of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 was fulfilled when the Jews returned to the Holy Land after the Babylonian Captivity, because, Christians don't believe the Spirit of God was soon put into the Jews after the Babylonian Captivity, because, a few more centuries after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, Jesus railed against Jews and their evil ways, and of course Jesus was crucified with the approval of a great many Jews, and therefore Christians don't believe that God put His Spirit inside the Jews after God gathered the Jews into the Holy Land after the Babylonian Captivity. But, if we turn to the Zionist movement in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, we might get better answers when we look for answers to the meaning of Ezekiel 36. 24-28.

It's true that, as of September 2019, Christians don't believe that God has put His Spirit inside the Jews. But what do we read in Ezekiel 36. 24-28? First, God will bring the Jews back into the Holy Land, and, then, a little later, He will put His Spirit inside the Jews, and will cause the Jews to walk in God's Statutes and to keep them.

Christians have no way to interpret Ezekiel 36. 24-28 other than by the doctrine which says that God will bring the Jews back to the Holy Land, and then, a little later, God will put His Spirit into the Jews, and this Spirit will be a Christian Spirit. If this Spirit was not a Christian Spirit, then Christianity would be a false religion, and, as you might recall, Christians don't proclaim Christianity to be a false religion.

Ezekiel 36. 24-28 obviously supports Zionism. If one rejects Zionism then one rejects Ezekiel 36. 24-28. If one rejects Ezekiel 36. 24-28 then one rejects Jeremiah 31. 31-34. That is, if one rejects one Old Testament scripture which says God will put His Spirit in the Jews, and write His laws on their hearts, then one will reject another Old Testament scripture which says God will write His law on the hearts of the Jews. So, if one rejects Zionism one rejects Ezekiel 36. 24-28. If one rejects Ezekiel 36. 24-28 one rejects Jeremiah 31. 31-34. If one rejects Jeremiah 31. 31-34 then one rejects Christ's words are the Last Supper. If one rejects Christ's words at the Last Supper - `this cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for the remission of sins,' - then, Christianity says, one is damned.

Therefore, Christian logic says: unless you repent, you are damned if you oppose Zionism.

One will not be able to sell this pushy conclusion to people who reject Christ's words at the Last Supper, but Christians ought to be able to grasp the logic at work here.

Pope Pius X, the most recent Pope to be canonized, was hostile to Zionism. He reasoned that Zionism was hostile to the will of God unless the Jews converted to Roman Catholicism. Well, if the Church of Rome is the True Church, if the Church of Rome is the Church which Christ founded upon a rock, then Pope Pius X certainly won't be damned for his anti-Zionism. But if the Church of Rome is not the Church which Christ founded upon a rock, if the Church of Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then Rome does indeed lead people to perdition. Rome sort of clarifies matters for us. If Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads souls to heaven, then there is an argument which says one is acting like a dumb-ass if one refuses to profess and obey every official Roman Catholic doctrine. It doesn't matter if she makes a few mistakes. As long as she is God's True Church then you win if you obey her in all things, and you lose if you rebel in any way against God's True Church. But, on the other hand, if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads people to perdition because Rome has fallen away and Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then there is an argument which says one is acting like a dumb-ass if one refuses to renounce Rome.

Isaiah 59. 20-21 is another Old Testament scripture which is similar to Ezekiel 36. 24-28 and Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Isaiah 59. 20-21 states,

`The Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," says the LORD. "As for Me," says the Lord, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants' descendants," says the LORD, "from this time and forevermore."'

Christ Listed Foolishness as a sin in Mark 7. 22. Furthermore the Parable of the Talents refers to maximizing the spiritual and intellectual gifts God has given us. Christians are not supposed to be lost and confused. If one is a fan of evil laws, or idiotic laws, then, one obviously doesn't have a Divine Law written on ones heart. If one advocates insane ideas then one simply can not have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on ones heart.

Consider the insanity shouted at us from the jacket of Paul Johnson's A History of the Jews. Mr. Johnson is an excellent historian, but, unfortunately, one of his editors did him a disservice, and this editor's nonsense runs as follows:

`This provocative 4,000-year survey covers not only Jewish history but the impact of Jewish genius and imagination on the world. The Jewish invention of ethical monotheism led to the evolution of Judaism with its democratic philosophy and its notion of equality under the law. The Jews also played a major role in the creation of the modern world.'

It is absurd to write in praise of the `Jewish invention of ethical monotheism,' because, in Scenario 1, in the scenario where the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists, it is blasphemously absurd to speak of the Jews inventing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And in Scenario 2, where the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob does not exist, and thus Judaism is a superstition, it makes no sense to consider the fabrication of a superstition, which is merely a system of falsehoods, as anything which might be construed as ethical or praiseworthy. If one concludes that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a myth, one might also conclude that the dreams and delusions and feverish hallucinations of religious zealots are rather worthless when one is seeking the Creator of the Universe. One may have sympathy for the deluded, but, nevertheless, the superstitious fictions of even well-intentioned people can not be considered ethical or praiseworthy. If Judaism is a human fabrication, one must have some conception of the amount of human suffering which has resulted from this fabrication in order to accurately assess Judaism. The Jews suffered frightful persecution, for centuries, in Russia, Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc. Everyone knows about the millions of European Jews who suffered under the Nazis. But, for centuries filled with truly diabolical forms of torment and misery inflicted on the Jews, there's nothing comparable to the Middle Ages under the sign of the cross.

If the Jews had renounced Judaism many centuries ago - assuming still that Judaism is a human fabrication \- then millions of Jews would not have suffered terribly in the either the Middle Ages - at the hands of cruel Christians and murderous Muslims - or in modern times, at Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Sobibor etc. Mr. Johnson informs us that across the seventh century in Christendom Jews were flogged, executed, dragged to the baptismal font, tortured and murdered. Will Durant told us in The Age of Faith that the Frankish chieftains intermarried with the remnants of the Gallo-Roman senatorial class and produced the aristocracy of France. The same nobles showed amazing contempt for justice: their baptism into Catholicism had no regenerative or redeeming effects upon them. Gibbon wrote of the triumph of barbarism and religion. Assassination, torture, slaughter, treachery, adultery, fornication and incest were the favored expedients by which nobles and peasants relieved the ennui of medieval life. By 600 there were Jewish colonies in all the major cities of the Franks. The Merovingian Catholics persecuted the Jews with pious ferocity. King Chilperic decreed that Jews were to embrace the Catholic Church or have their eyes torn out. The Council of Toledo of 633 ruled that those Jews who had submitted to baptism, and then fell back into Judaism, were to be bereaved of their children and sold into slavery.

Heinrich Graetz told us in his History of the Jews (The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, 1894) that the Council of Mácon, in 581, ordered all Jews to stand before Catholic priests until they were bidden to sit. Malefactors who violated this decree were to be severely punished. The matricide King Clotaire was considered a model of Catholic piety in his time. His son, Dagobert, another `faithful son of the Church,' gave the Jewish population in his kingdom the ultimatum of either accepting baptism or suffering death. The Council of Narbonne forbade Jews to sing Psalms at funerals. The Council of Carthage made Jewish testimony against Christians inadmissible in court. The Council of Toledo authorized the persecution of forcibly baptized Jews who refused to abandon Jewish practices. Children were to be taken from backsliding parents and raised in monasteries. Salo W. Baron asserted that under Pope Paul IV. It was illegal to address a Jew as "Sir." Peter De Rosa said Pope Paul IV. filled a house full of `state-of-the-art instruments of torture.' Guido Kisch writes in his `The Jews in Medieval Germany' (The University of Chicago Press, 1949):

`It is well known in the history of criminal law that, beginning in the late Middle Ages and up to the seventeenth century, punishments were imposed on the Jews which differed considerably from those fixed by law and applied to Christian delinquents. They intensified the medieval system of penalties, cruel enough as it was. The motives of ridicule and degradation received especial emphasis, when hanged on the gallows, for instance, a Jew was suspended by the feet, instead of the neck. It became customary to string up two vicious dogs by their hind legs beside him, to make the punishment more ignominious and painful...In some provinces a Jewish thief hanged by the neck would have a Jews' hat filled with boiling pitch placed on his head...transgressions of similar prohibitions such as that against appearance in public on Good Friday, reviling the Christian religion, or engaging in conversionist activities, besides subjecting them to the appropriate penalties, deprived them of protection under the penal law which was otherwise guaranteed. As every Christian was bound to sacrifice his life for his faith if it were dishonorably attacked, so would he be acquitted in case he slew a Jew, heretic, or heathen in active defense of his faith. The general principle is thus pointed out in the Regulae juris, J155: "No Jew shall defame our Law. If he did so and were found guilty, he should be burnt." Regulae juris, J164: No Jew shall convert a Christian if he values his life." Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) renewed for medieval Christendom the old prohibition of the Christian Roman Empire against forced baptism of Jews. Once a Jew was baptised, however, even if by force, he had to remain faithful to Christianity, according to canon law...Be it even that they have been compelled to receive baptism, yet they shall remain steadfast in their Christian faith. This is so because no one can be deprived of baptism once received...It was Pope Innocent III who, in his letter to the archbishop of Arles in 1201, clearly stated that even those who under direct or indirect compulsion had accepted baptism had become members of the church and thus were to be compelled to the observance of the Christian faith...In 1267, relapse into Judaism was, in fact, explicitly equated with heresy by Pope Clement IV...This was done only after the foundation of the Papal Inquisition which brought all violations of the faith before its tribunals.'

Benzion Netanyahu tells us in The Origins of the Inquisition (Random House, 1995) that a plot was hatched by the Spanish authorities to slanderously accuse Jews and Marranos (Jewish Christians) of using black magic in a scheme to murder Christians and to destroy the `Holy Office,' the Inquisition, which Pope Sixtus IV. had sanctioned in Spain in 1480. The Spanish plot depicted the Jews uttering satanic incantations over the heart of a kidnapped Christian child, and above a stolen, consecrated host. The Jews, so the slander ran, crucified the child in a Black Mass. Jews were to be arrested and tortured by the Spanish authorities until they confessed to a crime they never committed. These confessions would then be published throughout Spain, and, with the image of Jews torturing a Christian child to enrage all of Spain, mobs could be counted on to be driven into a murderous frenzy against the Jews. Thus the Spanish authorities would be given a pretext to protect the Jews by driving them from Spain, as the Spanish Crown wanted to be seen as the protector of innocent Jews. Such was the plot behind the Holy Child of La Guardia, which indeed was put into action. Jews were arrested and tortured. When the confessions were not forthcoming, more excruciating torturers were applied until the confessions were forthcoming. In Avila (11.14.1491) five Jews and six Jewish Christians were condemned for desecrating the Host and torturing a Christian child to death in an effort to secure the aid of Satan to murder Christians and to put an end to the Inquisition. The Spanish authorities executed these innocent people by tearing the flesh off their bodies with red-hot pincers.

Consider Joseph Boyarsky's `The Life and Suffering of the Jew in Russia' (Los Angeles, 1912),

`In the year 987 A. D. the Russians were a wild and savage tribe, settled along the River Dnieper; the main camp being where the city of Kieff now stands. They were idolaters; in some cases offering up human sacrifice. They worshipped an idol, "Peroon."...Vladimir ordered the idol...cast down. Then Vladimir ordered all the population, men, women and children, to go and bathe in the Dnieper, waist deep, and all were baptised. Thenceforth the Russians became Christians...There was no preaching nor converting; the Russians were ordered to become Christians, and they obeyed...Tartars...In the year 1533 Ivan the Fourth, "The Terrible," became Czar of Russia...At the conquest of Polotsk, Ivan the Fourth ordered that all Jews who declined to adopt Christianity should be drowned in the River Duna...Ivan the Fourth amused himself by letting bears loose outside the gate of his palace, and watching the killing and maiming of pedestrians...Maliuta Skuratov was Ivan's evil genius...Ivan the Terrible...as a result of all his crimes, began to see the ghosts of the men he had ordered to be executed...all the household would be awakened by his screams. He would rush to the church...where he would pray very earnestly...knocking his forehead on the stony floor...The next day more executions - then more prayers...It must be remembered that the Russian Church is more progressive now than it was up to the time of Peter the Great, and Nikkon, the Archbishop, who reformed and elevated the service. Peter the Great was marked for assassination by the Russians that adhered to the old views. Those opposed to Nikkon's teachings are called to the present day "Starobriadzi"...

I shall never forget an experience I had with one of these fanatics in Southern Russia. When I was a boy about eight years old, I was sent on an errand by my father to deliver a message to a Starobriadetz. Arriving at the Russian's house, I found the door ajar; I shouted, calling his name, but as there was no response, I waited. It was a sultry summer day and I was thirsty. On the table inside of the room I could see a pitcher filled with water, and a glass at its side. Being too thirsty to wait for a response to my knock, I crossed the threshold into the room, filled the glass with water, and drank. I had no sooner tasted the water than I was seized from behind by the collar, the glass was snatched from me, and I heard it fall and break in the yard. The pitcher followed it, with the same result; then I was wheeled about and looked with fear into the savage face of a big bearded Russian who hissed at me, "Thou anti-Christ! Thou Christ-killer! Thou Christ-seller! Thou accursed Jew." And the next thing I knew I was sent sprawling at length into the yard. My offense, from the Russian's standpoint was this: I had not removed my hat when entering the room where in the right corner, were the ikons (images). As a Jew, I had, according to his religious beliefs, defiled his house by entering therein; had defiled the water, the pitcher and the glass; neither he nor his family could use them any more. He had to burn incense to drive out the evil spirit that I had brought into the house. The very spot where I stood had to be scrubbed with hot water...

Jewish parents were always in dread for their boys' safety. A child would be sent to a Jewish school in the morning, - an hour later the teacher would come running to the child's home, informing the parents that their Abe or Aaron had been seized by the "catchers" and hurried away from the town to a military post. The child was lost to his parents forever...Nicolas the First died in March, 1855....Alexander the Second...the serfs were emancipated in 1861...the Russian Jews did not forget the suffering and injustice their forefathers had endured in Poland. They had suffered from the Polish clergy, who accused them of using Christian blood for ritual purposes...the Jew had to bow and to flatter the Polish nobleman...A Polish nobleman, while walking in the street, heard the Russians coming, and in order to hide himself, he entered a Jew's house...The Jew suggested the best place for concealment would be inside a large brick oven. The Russians would not look into the oven for a Polish nobleman. The nobleman crawled into the oven and entered the furthest corner. A few minutes later the Jew heard the Pole calling out "Zydzie Zdym Chapke Bo to jest Pan." (Jew take off your hat, because a nobleman is present.) While crouching in the corner of the oven, with the noise of the Russian soldiers ringing in the Pole's ears, trembling for his life, he still insisted upon his honors as a Polish nobleman. The above...happened in 1863, sixty-eight years after the final partition of Poland...

In "Nijni Novgorod," a city on the Volga, a Christian child, a girl of about six years, tried to cross a muddy street in the early Spring, just before the Jewish Passover and Easter Sunday. The child stuck in the mire. The more the little girl tried to extricate herself, the deeper she sank. She cried. A Jewish woman passing by at the time pulled the child out and took her to a nearby Jewish house to wash and clean the dirt from her garments. The child's mother missed her little one, and became alarmed. She inquired of her Christian neighbors if anyone had seen her child. One Russian woman remembered seeing the Jewish woman leading the little girl away. An alarm was raised, the Jews being accused of kidnapping the child with the intention of killing her for ritual purposes. The ignorant and superstitious Russians fell upon the Jewish inhabitants and killed and crippled many of them before the child was restored to its mother, safe and clean. The Metropolitan of Nijni Novgorod delivered a sermon against the outrage of the Christians. His sermon is printed and can be found in many synagogues of Russia...In 1885, I was employed as salesman in a dry goods store in the city of "Rostov on the Don." A few weeks before Easter Sunday and the Jewish Passover two women entered the store, a mother and daughter, leading a child about three years of age by the hand; they were Polish women; they spent considerable time selecting goods; there were a large number of Russian men and women in the store; the two Polish women missed the child and both of them became alarmed; all the clerks, a few Russians among them, and the customers, all Russians, made a thorough search in the store - but of no avail; the child could not be found. Naturally the mother was frantic, running back and forth, and wringing her hands in despair. A terrible suspicion entered her mind. "Oh, the Jews have stolen my child!" she screamed. Some of the Russian customers present became sullen; their jaws set; all the Jewish clerks, myself included, were more dead than alive from fright. The terrible blood accusations loomed up before me. I already imagined the Jewish population being massacred...The mother of the child ran outside into the street, screaming; a crowd gathered in front of the store. At the crucial moment a Russian appeared carrying the tot in his arms; he had picked her up a block away, where he had found her lying on the sidewalk crying and sobbing...

That Russian never realized what a calamity to the Jews of that city he had prevented. In the reign of Nicolas the first, in the city of Saratov, there was a small Jewish community. Before the Jewish Passover and the Christian Easter Sunday, a Jew was selling small pamphlets for the reading of the Jews during the holidays, in which was described the well known Biblical story of Pharaoh's order that all the new-born male Jewish babes be thrown into the Nile. On the cover of the pamphlet was a picture representing the Egyptians taking away a boy baby from his mother, and preparing to throw him into the Nile. Some of the ignorant Russians, seeing this picture, took it to be a representation of a Jew stealing a Christian child for ritual purposes. The Russians fell upon the Jews and began butchering them... The other class of Russians in Rostov-on-the-Don, - the "Katzap," ...was just as ignorant, superstitious and brutal as the Bosiak, but in justice to the Katzap...he generally worked at a trade...the Katzap...Coming from the Northern provinces where Jews are not allowed to live...had no idea what a Jew was until he arrived in Southern Russia, part of which is within the Pale. All he knew about the Jews was that they were Christ-killers, and at home in his village church, when he heard the priest mention the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob he thought that these three were Russians. He also thought that to abstain from meat for three successive Fridays would redeem him from the sin of Killing a Jew...

a Bosiak entered a saloon kept by a Jew and ordered a drink of vodka...he was served. He swallowed the contents, and ordered another drink. The saloonkeeper reminded him that he had not paid for the first; the Bosiak claimed that he had paid, and hit the Jew...the Jew resented it, and hit him; the Bosiak fell onto the floor and lay still, pretending that he was dead. A number of the Bosiaks and Katzaps were standing inside and outside of the saloon...they raised the cry that a Jew had killed a Christian...The Jews tried to defend themselves...but were overpowered and beaten by the mob...armed with clubs and some with iron bars...The Jews fled for their lives. The Russian women and children appeared as if by magic, with a supply of empty sacks, and a systematic looting began...That this looting was premeditated was proven by the fact that the women and children who gathered so quickly were the poorest class of Russians that lived on the far outskirts of the city, and it would ordinarily have taken them a long time to reach the New Market...The riot was at an end. The rioters were bound hand and foot with ropes...The riot was over, but the effects of it had just begun for the Jews. Many of them that were well-to-do less than eight hours before were reduced to beggary. Hundreds of families were left penniless, without a home, food or clothing. The word "Pogrom" means in Russian, an ordinary disorder. The name was substituted for that of "robbery," so as to make it easier for the rioters when arrested. Had the charge been robbery, if convicted, they would have been sent to Siberia, but, convicted of participating in a Pogrom, meant a few months of life in jail without having to work...

In the autumn of 1887, a Jewish merchant of Rostov-on-the-Don was convicted by a jury on a felony charge, and sentenced by the court to be exiled to Siberia; it meant instant imprisonment, and to be sent chained with other criminals to the city of Moscow, and in the Spring to be taken by train to Nijni Novgorod, placed in a steamer on the River Volga, packed with other convicts in the hold, and shipped to Irkutsk and turned loose. But it also meant more: the business, a dry goods store owned by the merchant had to be closed, and the merchandise sold at a loss, and having a wife and eight children to have them brought at the expense of the Government to Siberia as prisoners, or their passage to be paid by the merchant himself...It meant ruin...The room to which the jurymen retired to deliberate adjoined a hall where many people passed by; some of them...stood and listened at the door...The foreman, a well-known lumber-dealer, also a well-known Jew-hater, in casting his deciding vote in the jury-room, remarked that it gave him much pleasure to get rid of one Jew by sending him to Siberia. As stated before, the listeners had heard this remark which was reported to the attorneys for this merchant, who appealed to St. Petersburg, asking for a new trial on the ground of prejudice on the part of the foreman. It was very necessary that the decision for the granting of a new trial should come from St. Petersburg before the month of May, because convicts are sent to Siberia that month from Moscow; otherwise, if the decision for a new trial should come after the month of May, the merchant would have to stay, in case of another conviction, another year in the prison, and wait for another party of convicts to be sent with them to Siberia.

In order to hasten the decision of the higher authorities at St. Petersburg it was decided to send the merchant's eldest daughter to the capital with a supply of money for presents to some high officials to push the case in the senate so that it should be taken up without delay. This eighteen-year-old girl, daughter of the convicted man, arrived at St. Petersburg, - that is, two stations beyond St. Petersburg, where she alighted from the train and took the next train back to St. Petersburg. The reason for this action is here explained: Whenever the police at the railroad station notice any Jew or Jewess arriving from the south by train, they immediately ask them for passports. If they are not mechanics, merchants of the first gild, physicians or lawyers, they immediately deport them from the city, but the police are not watching those coming from the north, where Jews are not allowed to reside, so it is very easy to enter the city from the other side. Arriving at the station she hired an Izvoschik (a one-horse sleigh), and in the bitter cold of a December night was driven to a hotel. Arriving at the place, her valises were taken inside and she was shown to a room. She made herself comfortable at the fireplace before unpacking her things. Someone knocked at the door..."Your passport, Mademoiselle, please." "Certainly," answered the girl..."Excuse me, you will have to go to some other place. We cannot keep you here." "Why not?" inquired the girl. "You are a Jewess; you have no right to live in St. Petersburg; you will be given notice by the police to leave the city tomorrow; we do not care to let our rooms for one night's lodging." The manager turned on his heel, and in another moment her grips were being carried out by two boys and left on the sidewalk, the girl following them with tears in her eyes...She engaged another Izvoschik and visited about a half dozen other hotels. She received the same treatment...at about 11:30 p.m. she was standing on the sidewalk, half frozen, with her belongings and not knowing what to do next...A man approached her from behind..."What is the matter with this hotel?" inquired the man, pointing at the entrance. "I am a Jewess, and they will not let me it in," answered the girl, sobbing..."Just jump into my sleigh. I will take you to one of my country women. She keeps a lodging house...'...The Pole spoke with such earnestness that she could not distrust him any more...in about a half hour she was sitting at the fireplace where a kind-hearted Polish woman was busying herself to make the poor half-frozen girl comfortable...The girl lived in St. Petersburg for several weeks unmolested; her passport was never presented to the police. The convicted man and all his children are at present loyal and patriotic citizens of the United States of America...

The reader has now listened to many facts concerning the persecution of the Jews in Russia, all horrifying in nature, - and it is true that as many more heinous crimes have not been recorded here at all...but it must be known and realized as God's truth that the evils committed in Russia at the present day loom hideously against the background of yesterday's monstrous crimes...Twenty years ago there were what the Russian Government calls: "Pogroms," which are now replaced by massacres. Twenty years ago the name Hooligan, or Black Hundred, was unknown; today these organized bands of murderers and robbers swoop down at certain periods on inoffensive Jews, rob and butcher them and subject the Jewish women to unspeakable and indescribable indignities...Twenty years ago, as described above, a Jew could not name his child with a Russian name, because the authorities would not register the name in the book of births. Today, any Jew or Jewess, whose name is recorded as Abraham or Sarah, if they would dare to call themselves Ivan or Mary, would be imprisoned, or a heavy fine imposed upon them...During the Russo-Japanese War, wives and children of Physicians, who answered their country's call, and were performing their duty on the battlefields in Manchuria, were expelled from the Holy City of Kieff. The police interpreted the law, that wives and children of physicians have a right of residence in Kieff, only when their husbands or fathers are present, but as the physicians were away from Kieff, their families were subjected to deportation. The fact that the physicians were endangering their lives for Russia had no weight...

The great power that the Christian clergy, Catholic and Protestant alike, possess, is of far greater force and magnitude than the combined forces of all Nations as represented in their armies and navies. A bloodless battle can be fought, no armies or navies, cannons or bayonets are needed, and it requires very little money as compared with the cost of sending an expedition...Let the pulpit of the Christian churches be the battlefield; the Word of God, of Truth, of Mercy and Righteousness be the ammunition...let the voice of Christendom thunder forth the condemnation of the Russian Government until it rings at the palace on the Neva; let the Russian Government be given to understand by all Christian Nations, that Russia must mend its evil ways if she wishes to be recognized as Christian and civilized. No doubt, if such a crusade should be set afoot against the Russian Government, there would be no more Pogroms and massacres, where men who call themselves Christians drive nails into the skulls of Jewish men, and dishonor daughters in the presence of their mothers before murdering them. Then the Christian people of all nations could point out with pride to their accomplishment and bring about the deliverance and salvation of the Russian Jew.'

Apropos of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, William H. Prescott writes in `The History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic,'

`Old traditions, as old indeed as the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, were revived, and charged on the present generation...Christian children were said to be kidnapped in order to be crucified in derision of the Saviour; the host, it was rumored, was exposed to the grossest indignities; and physicians and apothecaries, whose science was particularly cultivated by the Jews in the Middle Ages, were accused of poisoning their Christian patients. No rumor was too absurd for the easy credulity of the people...These various offenses were urged against the Jews with great pertinacity by their enemies...The inquisitors...asserted that the only mode left for the extirpation of the Jewish heresy was to eradicate the seed; and they boldly demanded the immediate and total banishment of every unbaptized Israelite from the land...The edict for the expulsion of the Jews was signed by the Spanish sovereigns at Grenada, March 30th, 1492...It finally decrees that all unbaptized Jews, of whatever age, sex, or condition, should depart from the realm by the end of July next ensuing; prohibiting them from revisiting it, on any pretext whatever, under penalty of death and confiscation of property. It was, moreover, interdicted to every subject to harbour, succor, or minister to the necessities of any Jew, after the expiration of the term limited for his departure...The doom of exile fell like a thunderbolt on the heads of the Israelites...

Many had risen to a degree of opulence...Their families were reared in all the elegant refinements of life...They were to go forth as exiles from the land of their birth; the land where all whom they ever loved had lived or died; the land not so much of their adoption as of their inheritance; which had been the home of their ancestors for centuries...They were to be cast out helpless and defenseless, with a brand of infamy set on them, among nations who had always held them in derision and hatred...As they were excluded from the use of gold and silver, the only medium for representing their property was bills of exchange...It was impossible, moreover, to negotiate a sale of their effects under the existing circumstances, since the market was soon glutted with commodities...a chronicler of the day mentions that he had seen a house exchanged for an ass, and a vineyard for a suit of clothes!...They (the Jewish Rabbins) encouraged them to persevere, representing that the present afflictions were intended as a trial of their faith by the Almighty, who designed in this way to guide them to the promised land, by opening a path through the waters, as he had done to their fathers of old...When the period of departure arrived, all the principal routes through the country might be seen swarming with emigrants, old and young, the sick and the helpless, men, women, and children, mingled promiscuously together...

The fugitives were distributed along various routes...Much the largest division, amounting according to some estimates to eighty thousand souls, passed into Portugal; whose monarch, John the Second, dispensed with his scruples of conscience so far as to give them free passage through his dominions on their way to Africa, in consideration of a tax of a cruzado a head...A considerable number found their way to the ports of Santa Maria and Cadiz, where, after lingering some time in the vain hope of seeing the waters open for the egress, according to the promise of the Rabbins, they embarked on board a Spanish fleet for the Barbary coast. Having crossed over to Ercilla, a Christian settlement in Africa, whence they proceeded by land toward Fez, where a considerable body of their countrymen resided, they were assaulted on their route by the roving tribes of the desert, in quest of plunder. Notwithstanding the interdict, the Jews had contrived to secrete small sums of money, sewed up in their garments or the linings of their saddles. These did not escape the eyes of their spoilers, who are even said to have ripped open the bodies of their victims in search of gold which they were supposed to have swallowed. The lawless barbarians, mingling lust with avarice, abandoned themselves to still more frightful excesses, violating the wives and daughters of the unresisting Jews, or massacring in cold blood such as offered resistance. But, without pursuing these loathsome details further, it need only be added that the miserable exiles endured such extremity of famine that they were glad to force a nourishment from the grass which grew scantily among the sands of the desert; until at length great numbers of them, wasted by disease and broken in spirit, retraced their steps to Ercilla, and consented to be baptized, in the hope of being permitted to revisit their native land...

Many of the emigrants took the direction of Italy. Those who landed at Naples brought with them an infectious disorder, contracted by long confinement in small, crowed, and ill-provided vessels. The disorder was so malignant...as to sweep off more than twenty thousand inhabitants of the city in the course of the year, whence it extended its devastation over the whole Italian peninsula. A graphic picture of these horrors is given by a Genoese historian..."No one," he says, "could behold the sufferings of the Jewish exiles unmoved". A great many perished of hunger, especially those of tender years...Some were murdered...others forced to sell their children for the expenses of the passage...We need look no further for the principle of action, in this case, than the spirit of religious bigotry which led to similar expulsion of the Jews from England, France, and other parts of Europe, as well as from Portugal, under circumstances of peculiar atrocity, a few years later...The Portuguese government caused all children of fourteen years of age, or under, to be taken from their parents and retained in the country...How far the banishment of the Jews was conformable to the opinions of the most enlightened contemporaries, may be gathered from the encomiums lavished on its authors from more than one quarter. Spanish writers, without exception, celebrate it as a sublime sacrifice of all temporal interests to religious principle. The best instructed foreigners, in like manner, however they may condemn the details of its execution or commiserate the sufferings of the Jews, commend the act, as evincing the most laudable zeal for the true faith.'

If the `Jewish myth' was never invented, if millions of Jews had never embraced the `delusion of Judaism,' or if they had renounced their `superstition' and assimilated with the masses, then millions of Jews would never have suffered cruelty and terror and mass murder over the centuries at the hands of the Babylonians and the Romans and all of the medieval and modern barbarians brandishing crosses, crescents and swastikas.

We have two scenarios to consider: either, A) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exists, or, B) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob doesn't exist. In scenario A, it was God who invented the Jews. It was not the Jews who invented God. And in scenario B, some ancient Hebrews dreamed up a delusion, a superstition, one which led to inconceivable amounts of human suffering.

In both scenarios it is insane to speak of the Jewish invention of God as something which is praiseworthy. Why does the editor descend into insanity? Because 1) He doesn't want to say that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob exists and must be worshipped, loved, feared and obeyed, and 2) He doesn't want to say that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is as mythological as Apollo and Aphrodite - he doesn't care to announce that the Jews have been deluded for thousands of years in regards to their non-existent Deity. Therefore, not wishing to offend anyone, striving to be a congenial fellow who doesn't hold any controversial doctrines in his head, the editor scribbles his nonsense that the Jewish invention of ethical monotheism is something which we should consider praiseworthy.

We're still on this theme which says that if a person actually had the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on his heart, then he would not preach insane ideas.

For another example of madness consider Rev. Reinhold Niebuhr. Wikipedia has an excellent article on him. One has to be careful with Wikipedia but it has some very accurate and well-written articles, and it's probably unfair to say Wikipedia is always untrustworthy! After Yale Divinity School, Niebuhr became a pastor at a Protestant church in Detroit. He fought to give factory workers better working conditions. He reproached Protestants for creating and supporting the Ku Klux Klan, and he helped a Catholic defeat a Protestant in a Detroit mayoral race. He angered the pacifists by supporting America in World War II and by supporting the development of nuclear weapons, though he opposed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Early in his career he reproached Christians for not attempting to convert the Jews, but, later, he said it was wrong for Christians to try to convert the Jews to Christianity. He was an ardent Zionist but he did not use theological arguments to support Zionism. As early as 1942 he called for the removal of all Arabs from the Holy Land. He was angry with Joe McCarthy, not because of any trespassing on civil liberties - but because he thought McCarthy was ineffective in rooting out Communists and their sympathizers. He was one of the founders of the ADA - Americans for Democratic Action - which is to Liberals what Christianity is to Christians. It was founded by Liberal anti-Communists at the height of the Cold War who wanted to distinguish themselves from those who leaned far towards Communism, and were known by the term: Fellow Travelers. Barak Obama has said Reinhold Niebuhr is his favorite philosopher and his favorite theologian. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. quoted Rev. Niebuhr in his Letters from Birmingham Jail, but Niebuhr distanced himself from the Civil Rights Movement, insisting that segregation must be ended by social change rather than by the imposition of laws.

Again the logic we are pursuing runs as follows: if one preaches insane ideas, then, one can not have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on ones heart. And if one does not have the Divine Law written on ones heart, then one is not a True Christian, and one is divorced from the True Church.

In Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein's `What You Should Know About Jews and Judaism' (Word Books 1994) we're informed that the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr endorsed something called the double covenant theory, which holds that Jesus is a way for the Gentiles to come to God, but the Jews are already with the Father, and don't require Jesus. To take this position Niebuhr must have concluded that the New Testament was untrustworthy, because these scriptures clearly teach the doctrine that one must believe in Jesus in order to be redeemed. The New Testament is quite unambiguous: one must believe in Jesus in order to be saved. There's John 1ii. 16. There's 2 Thess 1. 8 - fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1. 12 tells us St. Paul learned his gospel via a revelation from Christ. In Galatians 1. 8, St. Paul tells us that even an angel from heaven is accursed if he alters St. Paul's gospel. Therefore, devout Christians do not contradict St. Paul, and St. Paul did not teach the `double covenant theory.' He wrote in Ephesians 4. 4,

`There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

John 14: 23-26,

`Jesus answered him and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings...But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.'

Again Jesus said in John 15. 6,

`If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.'

I John 2. 22-23 is very blunt and clear - `he is antichrist who denies the Father and the son. Whoever denies the son does not have the Father...'

Luke 10. 16,

`he who rejects Me [Jesus, God the Son] rejects Him [God the Father] who sent Me.'

Acts 3. 23-25 is also perfectly clear,

`Every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed'

Rev. Niebuhr was confronted with two clear-cut choices: either, 1) God, that is God the Son - John 1. 1-14, Col 2. 8-10, 1 Tim 3. 16, Psalm 2, Isaiah 9. 6 etc. - actually suffered and died on a cross, or, 2) God never suffered and died on a cross. If God did indeed suffer and die on a cross as the New Testament asserts, then, a) it is logical to assume that those who say or imply that Jesus is a fraud - he is no God! - will be damned, and b) the same scriptures which gave us the extraordinary truth that God suffered and died on a cross, also, assert, over and over, that one must believe in this crucified God in order to attain salvation.

If God never suffered and died on a cross, if Jesus is a bogus deity, then it is folly to be any sort of Christian. If Jesus is a bogus deity, then, the True God would consider it blasphemy to say that Jesus is God.

In all cases - in the case where Jesus is God \- and in the case where Jesus is a bogus deity - the Double Covenant theory is madness. Rev. Niebuhr was not the only clergyman in the history of the world to be led by Political Correctness to embrace madness.

By casting doubt on the authority of the New Testament, Niebuhr cast doubt on heaven and hell. He helped to give naïve people the impression that the Christian scriptures are untrustworthy, which is like shoving naïve people in the direction of hell. To cast doubt on the authority of the New Testament is to cast doubt on Matthew 24. 27. Anyone who respects Matthew 24. 27 can understand the delusion of those who worship a `Christ' who did not return to earth as the lightning which flashes from east to west. If people don't believe Matthew 24. 27 is trustworthy, they will be more susceptible to charlatans, to false messiahs who did not arrive on earth as the lightning which flashes from east to west.

The End
