 
Protestantism

Published by Bill Etem at Smashwords

Copyright 2014 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 Katrina Joyner

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Beastly gods and Beastly Images

Chapter 2. Issues with the Protestants

Chapter 3. Divine Law

Chapter 4. Abortion, Scriptures on Hell and Rich People

Chapter 5. The Sign of the Cross

Chapter 6. More Info on the Sign of the Cross

Chapter 7. Info on the Rich and Gay Marriage, on Israel and Zionism.

Protestantism

Chapter 1. Beastly gods and Beastly Images

Malachi 4. 1 is perhaps the clearest scripture from the Old Testament telling us that the wicked people will be set on fire. For example, you don't want to be a blasphemer. Those of us who are Christians say Jesus is God, see John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16, Psalm 2, Isaiah 9. 6 etc. So, if Jesus is not God, then we Christians commit blasphemy when we worship Jesus as God.

But if Jesus is God, then those people who refuse to worship Jesus as God commit blasphemy. I mean, if you say Jesus is a false god, a bogus sort of deity etc., etc., when in fact Jesus created the universe...

If John 1. 1-14 is all wrong, if Jesus is not God, then there is no reason to trust hellfire scriptures like John 15. 6. John 15. 6 is a lot like Malachi 4. 1, which, again, mentions hellfire for the wicked. If John 1. 1-14 and John 15. 6 are both falsehoods, then, more or less, all of Christianity is invalidated.

But if you can trust John 1. 1-14 and John 15. 6, then this is bad news for those who refuse to convert to Christianity, because those scriptures mean eternal perdition for those who refuse to worship Jesus as God. If those 2 scriptures are true, then so are Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 13. 3, Luke 16. 19-31 etc., which are other scriptures which pertain to hell and eternal perdition.

So, the above is simple and yet also sort of complex, all at the same time. I mean John 1. 1-14 is either true or else it is not true. If Jesus is God, why are the non-Christians lost and deluded? Buddhist traditions, Islamic traditions, Jewish traditions etc., etc., are so powerful, so enslaving. It's as if the lost are trapped in a dark labyrinth from which they can never escape. Of course the non-Christians insist that Christian tradition enslaves those of us who are Christians, traps us in darkness and worthless delusions, traps us in a big blasphemous delusion. They insist it is crazy to think Jesus created the universe.

So, moving along, notice that Matthew 16. 24 tells us that to attain heaven we need to take up our cross and follow Jesus, and notice that Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 tell us, in so many words, that the cross of Christ is sacred.

What I do is I make a distinction between the sacred and spiritual cross of Christ and material crosses. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but, I say, material crosses are not sacred. It's like if a kid draws a picture of God. Are you an evil blasphemer if you refuse to bow down to the kid's drawing? God is sacred but the image of God is, at least according to some of us, a violation of the 2nd Commandment. God is sacred but images of God are sacrilegious. The spiritual cross of Christ is sacred, but material crosses are not sacred.

So, on the one hand I might be right in saying the cross is evil. But I might not be able to prove it with 100% certainty.

But then, on the other hand, if I am wrong about the cross, if I'm lost in darkness and delusion, if God says the cross is sacred, then it is a sacrilege to say the cross is evil, and of course sacrilege is a deadly sin leading to eternal perdition.

My books present lots of extracts from famous historians showing people under the sign of the cross, over the centuries, perpetrating evil, thereby likening the cross to the evil Nazi swastika.

I think the strongest argument against the cross runs as follows: Revelation 14. 11 mentions people who have an evil mark on their foreheads or right hands burning in hell forever and ever. So, if you have no mark whatsoever on your forehead or right hand then you will never be sent to burn in hell forever and ever for the sin of having an evil mark on your forehead or right hand. So, this gives one a reason to never put any sort of mark on your forehead or right hand, not a cross or any other mark. Once you determine that you will never put the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand you're well on your way to the conclusion that the cross is evil.

If God says the cross is sacred, then the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9 comes to mind, and if God says the cross is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, then this gives one a reason to put the mark of a cross on his forehead.

But if God says the cross is evil, then Revelation 14. 11 comes to mind. If in fact the cross is the mark of the beast, then every church under the cross leads people to eternal perdition. If a church tells you that you have nothing to fear if put the mark of a cross on your forehead, tells you the cross is sacred in the eyes of God, but if you end up burning in hell forever and ever because of that cross on your forehead, then the church which gave you the hellish advice is obviously a false church. It is certainly not the True Church, not the Bride of Christ, not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, to recall Matthew 16. 13-19.

The only reason that I can see for one to put any sort of mark on his forehead during the great tribulation - note Revelation 18 - is because one is convinced that that mark is the seal of God which saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9.

After the issue of whether or not Jesus is the Creator of the Universe, and after the issue with the cross - where one gets to decide if the cross symbolizes no evil or if it symbolizes some evil - the next big issue pertains to celebrating communion in an unworthy manner, which is a terrible sin according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. 27. Things get complicated here. There are lots of ways to stray into serious error. Everyone is a sinner, but, nevertheless, Christians are supposed to watch over each other's morals, being gentle with the rebukes, but also excommunicating those who refuse to repent, who refuse to live the way good Christians are supposed to live.

At one time chapter 1 of 'Constitutional History of the Western World' was a concise chapter on Jesus and the cross. But it became voluminous when I started adding lots of info pertaining to how Christians celebrate communion in an unworthy manner.

In the first 3 centuries of Christianity Christians were persecuted by evil tyrants. Then in the 4th century the tyrants and their henchmen converted to Christianity, but they remained evil: they changed from being evil pagan tyrants and evil pagan henchmen to being evil Christian tyrants and evil Christian henchmen. And for century after century thereafter the good people under the cross celebrated communion with the evil people under the cross.

John 6. 53-55 says, in so many words, you must take communion to go to heaven. Again, 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says it's a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner.

Matthew 16. 13-19 has Jesus saying He founded the True Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Every church claims to lead people to heaven. No church claims to be a false church which drags souls down to eternal perdition. But what are the chances that every church is God's True Church?

So much depends on finding God's True Church, the Bride of Christ, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. This True Church is a group of people, of saints, who lead themselves and other people to heaven. Of course you like to think that God will make some exceptions to the general rule, the general rule saying that you must embrace the True Faith, in order to be in the True Church, in order to attain heaven and escape perdition. Say for instance some nice little kid dies before he has a chance to find the True Faith. You like to think God will have mercy and will not damn his soul to eternal perdition. I suppose there could be exceptions to the general rule so that various adults who never find the True Faith might also attain salvation. Perhaps there are exceptions to the general rule. Whether there are or not the scriptures are clear in stating the general rule: we need to profess and obey the True Faith, in order to be in the True Church, in order to attain heaven and escape perdition. Recall Matthew 26. 28, Jeremiah 31. 31-34, John 14. 23-26, John 15. 6, Matthew 25. 31-46, 2 Thess 1. 8, Luke 13. 3, Revelation 20. 12-15, 1 John 5. 3, Acts 26. 13-18, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, 1 Corinthians 11. 27 etc., etc.

In looking for the True Church, you might ask a few questions, such as: Is some church, or is some group of churches, under the cross, God's True Church? Do one or more churches under the cross lead people to heaven? Or is no church under the cross God's True Church? Is every church under the cross a false church which leads people to perdition?

Most of the info in the next few pages would be seen as worthless or irrelevant info in the eyes of the typical American. This is a little odd as the USA is usually seen as a predominately Protestant nation. But, for whatever reasons, the typical American sees the divisions between Catholics and Protestants as trivial, or stupid, or minor divisions rooted in dark age idiocy / bigotry. No doubt there is some co-operation among Catholics and Protestants who oppose abortion and gay marriage. These people have inducements to sugar-coat whatever differences we might have and work together to elect pro-life and anti-gay marriage politicians. A pro-life Protestant might feel a lot more affinity toward a pro-life Catholic than toward a pro-choice Protestant. A pro-Trump Catholic military vet will probably have far more positive feelings toward a pro-Trump Protestant than toward a pro Ilhan Omar Catholic. The big issues in the USA, aside from abortion, immigration and gay marriage, are the big racial issues, like: Where do you stand on George Zimmerman vs. Treyvon Martin? Where do you stand on the Central Park 5 vs. Linda Fairstein? Where do you stand on O. J. Simpson? Where do you stand on Black Lives Matter? What do you think of: Colin Kaepernick? Trump? Obama? Hillary? Biden? Bernie? If you give your sincerest opinions about these people to a crowd of people in the USA, then you will see lots of passion, lots of hate and lots of support. But if you start talking to a crowd of Americans about the divisions between Catholics and Protestants, you'll bore your audience to death. They don't want to hear any discourse that runs you through some logic like: Suppose the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, suppose Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, suppose you are 100% guaranteed to escape hell and 100% guaranteed to attain heaven if you always obey Rome, therefore it is 100% insane to be governed by these anti-Catholic Senates and anti-Catholic Judicial branches and these anti-Catholic Parliaments which govern us. You might as well be speaking in a foreign language that your American audience can't understand. The typical American will tune you out. You are just pushing out a lot of useless verbiage, in the eyes of your audience. If the typical American doesn't like your opinions on Obama, or Trump, or Trayvon, or O.J., or Ilhan Omar, or Joe Biden, or Bernie, or Hillary etc., then the typical American doesn't care 2 cents what you have to say about religion.

Let's proceed for a page or two or three with some info the typical American finds useless and boring. Let's review some of the main sources of confusion in Christianity. The largest source of confusion involves the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19. There is some confusion over what constitutes celebrating communion in an unworthy manner. Again John 6. 53-55 says you must take communion to go to heaven. And as we saw earlier 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says that it's a terrible sin to take communion in an unworthy manner. So there is some confusion over what exactly is an unworthy manner and what isn't. Suppose you catch your wife watching a TV show where the actors routinely take the LORD's name in vain, but she just keeps right on watching that TV show regardless. Then, if you celebrate communion with her, have you committed a terrible sin by celebrating communion in an unworthy manner? Or suppose she confesses to you that she once looked at a pornographic magazine back in 1967, when she spent the summer in San Francisco, in a hippie commune, and so you're left wondering if she needs to confess this sin from 1967 before the congregation, in 2019, or else she will be celebrating communion in an unworthy manner. Or perhaps she still has some unpaid parking tickets from 52 years ago on her rap sheet. Is it be a big sin for her to celebrate communion while these parking tickets go unpaid? You might say that all these sorts of questions are questions best left to the True Church to answer. Now you merely have to locate God's True Church. All of the confusion in Christianity could be swept easily away if we could only locate the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But this is a confusing task. And so Christianity is confusing. Various groups of Christians come along and they say things like: "Our church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, Matthew 16. 13-19, and you are a slave of the Devil, and you will go to hell, if you persist in rebelling against our church, because our church is God's True Church, the Bride of Christ, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the True Church which leads people to heaven.

Take for instance the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. That Dogma specifically says that those who reject that Dogma are accursed, are anathema. So, you accept that Dogma if Rome is God's True Church, but if Rome is a false church then you reject that Dogma. Yes, but how do you determine if Rome is God's True Church or not? I devote a great deal of attention to Rome in my books. I really don't devote much attention to the Mormons, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. My criticism of the Mormons is pretty much just the following: in Galatians 1. 8-12 St. Paul tells us that he learned his doctrine directly from Christ, and even an angel from heaven is accursed if he alters this doctrine. In 1 Timothy 3. 2 St. Paul tells us a bishop must be a man of one wife. The founders of Mormonism taught the doctrine that a bishop may have multiple wives. So, the founders of Mormonism were altering the doctrine which St. Paul learned directly from Christ, and if an angel from heaven is damned if he alters this doctrine, then so will human beings. I've read the Book of Mormon. It tells of a fairly advanced Civilization in the New World prior to Columbus, and while it might not be blatantly obvious that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, well, even if there was archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, though there isn't, we still have some very simple logic: If you can trust what is written in Acts 26. 13-18, and if you can trust what is written in Galatians 1. 8-12 and 1 Timothy 3. 2, then it is crazy to believe some sect born in the 19th century, a sect which tramples on Galatians 1. 8-12 and 1 Timothy 3. 2, as the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Of course the Mormon Church no longer accepts polygamy. But since the 19th century founding fathers of Mormonism were heretics therefore Mormonism is invalidated, even the monogamous version of Mormonism. And of course you can use Galatians 1. 8-12 and 1 Timothy 3. 2 against the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church says a bishop must be a man with no wife. I drop a lot of hints in Constitutional History of the Western World saying that priests with wives and children are more stable, on average, than are priests forced to live without wives and children. The Inquisition would probably never have been born if priests had wives to tell them the Inquisition was an evil idea.

So, on the one hand, if we have people who are insisting that their church is God's True Church, and if they are telling you that you must accept their church as the Bride of Christ, as God's True Church, or else you will go to eternal perdition, then you're thinking that these people who say you will go to eternal perdition unless you accept their church might be mistaken. But, on the other hand, you're also wondering if they are not mistaken. Perhaps their church really is God's True Church. Perhaps you are on the road to perdition.

Or perhaps the people who say you are damned if you persist in rejecting their church will themselves be damned. Ever think of that possibility? Maybe their church is not God's True Church. Perhaps their church is just a worthless corrupt false church which leads people away from heaven and drags them down to perdition.

But then, on the other hand, if you are making a mistake, well, everyone knows: to err is human, overconfidence kills, pride goes before a fall etc., etc.

Anyway, my nonfiction focuses on Matthew 16. 13-19, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Bride of Christ, God's True Church which leads people to heaven.

I know, I know. Lots of people insist Matthew 16. 13-19 is a falsehood, a superstition. But if Matthew 16. 13-19 is true, as we Christians say it is true, then where is this True Church?

Of course the Bride of Christ, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, God's True Church, is not a building. It is a group of people, a collection of saints, who lead people to heaven and they don't lead anyone to perdition. The True Church can make errors. But the True Church always leads people to heaven and never leads anyone to perdition. That is the key attribute of God's True Church.

So much depends on first making accurate judgments of the big churches, like the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, the Church of England and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints. Take the Roman Catholic Church, for an example. If the Mormons are indeed God's True Church, how do you recover from the mistake of insisting to the day you die that the Mormons are a false church? Or if you make a big mistake with Rome, how do you recover from that big mistake? I mean, Rome is either God's True Church or else Rome isn't God True Church. The gates of hell have either not prevailed against Rome, or else the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome. Rome is either the Bride of Christ or else Rome is not the Bride of Christ. So, if the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome provides you with the means to escape eternal perdition, then it is brainless idiocy for us to be ruled by these anti-Catholic Senates and anti-Catholic Judicial branches and anti-Catholic Parliaments. Rome is the only government we need provided Rome is God's True Church. You can't lose. You are guaranteed of going to heaven if you obey God's True Church. You will most likely or most assuredly go to hell if you persist in rebelling against God and God's True Church. So it is all very easy and simple to understand! Just obey Rome if Rome is God's True Church. You certainly don't attain heaven and escape perdition by rebelling against God's True Church. Of course, of course, if the Roman Catholic Church is not the Bride of Christ, if Rome is not God's True Church, then this changes things. If Rome is not the Bride of Christ, if Rome is not the True Church, if Rome is a false church which leads people away from heaven and to perdition, then it would be terribly brainless and even super mega moronic to say we should always obey the Roman Catholic Church!

I'm not saying God will never have mercy on some who are divorced from the True Church. It's easy to imagine God having mercy on some kid who dies young before he has had a chance to find the True Church. There are always exceptions to rules. But I think the general rule is: to attain heaven and escape perdition you must find the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

So, if Rome leads people to heaven, if the Roman Catholic Church is indeed God's True Church, then it is so terribly stupid, so blatantly insane, for a person to want to be governed by these anti-Catholic Senates and anti-Catholic courts and anti-Catholic Parliaments that govern us. If Rome is God's True Church, if Rome provides you the means to attain heaven and to escape hell, then you must stop rebelling against God's True Church \- the Roman Catholic Church. There is no good reason to ever rebel against the Holy Father, the Pope, if the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church.

But then, on the other hand, if the Roman Catholic Church is not the Bride of Christ, if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is just some worthless false church which drags people down to perdition, then the 'Holy Father' isn't holy whatsoever. He's just a deluded heretic who leads other deluded heretics to hell. And of course it is sacrilege to say unholy things are holy, and it's sacrilege to say holy things are unholy.

2 Thess 2 tells us the man of sin / son of perdition - aka the Antichrist - is revealed prior to the Second Coming of Christ. And Revelation 14. 6-11 mentions 3 angels from heaven showing up. There's really no way for one to be sure that one can tell the difference between angels from heaven and angels from hell if one can not tell the difference between heresy and the True Faith. We Christians are supposed to have the Divine Law / the new covenant written on our hearts, recall Matthew 26. 28 and Jeremiah 31. 31-34. So, if one actually had this Divine Law / new covenant written on his heart then he would know if the Roman Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ or not, and he would know if the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is a heresy or not, and he would not commit sacrilege, with, for instance, the Roman Catholic crucifix. If God says the Roman Catholic crucifix is evil then it's a sacrilege to say it is sacred. On the other hand, if God says the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred then it's a sacrilege to say it is evil. If you commit sacrilege then you obviously don't have the Divine Law written on your heart. If you don't have the Divine Law written on your heart, if you don't embrace the True Faith, then Christianity says you are on a road leading you to eternal perdition - John 15. 6, Matthew 25. 31-46, 2 Thess 1. 8, Revelation 20. 12 -15, Luke 13. 3 etc.

2 Thess 2 deals with the Antichrist and strong delusion. You don't want to be delusional in thinking your church leads people to heaven, if in fact it is not God's True Church, if in fact your church is just some worthless false church which leads people to eternal perdition. Or, on the other hand, suppose your Church does lead people to heaven, suppose your Church is God's True Church. If so then you don't want to get delusional and start seeing your church, God's True Church, as just some worthless false church which drags people down to eternal perdition.

Suppose you tried to explain Protestantism and Christianity to non-Christians in Japan, or China, or India, or Singapore, or Vietnam, or Cambodia, or Thailand etc., etc. You might begin by saying anyone who eats dog-meat, or anyone who eats dolphin meat, or anyone who wants wives burned alive or buried alive at their husbands funerals, will go to eternal perdition not to heaven, because such people will never be good Christians. The Asians might ask you why it is OK for Christians to eat cows but not dogs or dolphins. Well, now you got some explaining to do. Suppose the Asians are getting impatient with your answers, and suppose they are becoming impassioned and angry with your Christian missionary endeavors, saying to you: `Tell us why we pagans, we heathens, as you call us, tell us why we should renounce the religion of honorable ancestors and follow your Jesus? Why? Talk! Speak! Explain yourself!'

You might start off with 2 Thess 1. 8, and you might say: `Look here, honorable Asian peoples, it says right here in the Christian Bible, right here in 2 Thess 1. 8: "Fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Fire! You know! Fire is hot. Fire hurts. So you better convert to Christianity or else you will burn in fire! Plus John 1. 1-14 says Jesus created the universe, and so you can certainly trust what the Creator of the Universe is saying in John 15. 6 – Those who do not abide in Christ are like sticks given to the flames. And then there's Matthew 5, which gives the beatitudes as well as a sermon on hell. Repent or Perish – that's the theme of Luke 13. 3. And of course Matthew 25. 31-46 is a very famous sermon on hell. Less famous but perhaps more devastating is Luke 16. 19-31. And who can forget Acts 26. 13-18, where St. Paul received his mission from Christ to turn the people from the power of Satan to the power of God? Revelation 20. 12-15 says you either go to heaven or you get tossed into a lake of fire. 2 and only 2 options. And then moving on to 1 Corinthians 13, and 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10...

Well of course the potential Asian converts to Christianity will then make other demands on your patience, demanding: `Give evidence that Jesus is God! Give evidence that Jesus created the universe!'

And of course lots of Christians will complain that by focusing on the hellfire scriptures you repel more potential converts than you attract. I don't know about that. 1) You have to get to the hellfire scriptures sooner or later in order to explain Christianity, and 2) The hellfire scriptures are rather dramatic. I know they turn off lots of people, but at least they are somewhat dramatic. Of course Atheists, and really all non-Christians, and even lots of Christians, insist the Christian hellfire scriptures are myths, superstitions. But what we want to do is deal in facts not in opinions. And to do this we need to deal with things called PREMISES and CONCLUSIONS. For example, if an Atheist insists that Christians are delusional for believing in God then this is merely his opinion. It is an assertion which might be true or it might not be true. All of my religious books try to deal in facts. For instance, if we accept the premise that Malachi 4. 1 is true, then it is a fact that you don't want to be wicked. Malachi 4. 1 has the LORD saying the day is coming burning like an oven when all the proud and wicked people will be set on fire. I realize that I haven't proven anything about Malachi 4. 1. I'm just saying that if we accept the premise that Malachi 4. 1 is true, then, a factual conclusion to be drawn from that premise is one that says you don't want to be proud and wicked.

So, of course, by now, many or most Christians would say I'm doing a wretchedly horrendous job in explaining Protestantism. 1st, I start out with hellfire scriptures, and then 2nd I get into Premises and Conclusions. Perhaps a better example to use than Malachi 4. 1 is Matthew 16. 13-19, which says Christ founded His Church on a rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church. This is the Church which we Christians call God's True Church. Now you might not accept the premise that there is a True Church, but, if you were to accept the premise that God's True Church exists, at least for a few moments, for the sake of argument, then what factual conclusions could we draw from that premise? You know, I'm saying Matthew 16. 13-19 is either true or else it is false. If it is false, if you can't trust what is being said in Matthew 16. 13-19, then why should we trust John 14. 23-26 – which says that those who love Christ keep His words, and those who don't love Christ don't keep His words. If we can't true John 14. 23-26 and Matthew 16. 13-19, then why would we trust John 1. 1-14, which says, in some many words, that Jesus created the universe. So, if Jesus is a false god not the True God, and if Malachi 4. 1 is true....Now of course we Christians insist Jesus is God, the Divine Son mentioned in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6. We Christians say you can trust John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16. But Jesus is either God or else Jesus isn't God. If Jesus isn't God then Christianity is invalidated. If Jesus is God then you can trust what God is saying in Matthew 16. 13-19. So let us proceed on the premise that Jesus is God, and you can trust what God is saying in Matthew 16. 13-19, so, God's True Church exists. Take the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian Church in the world. It is either God's True Church or else it is not God's True Church. Case 1 says Rome is God's True Church. Case 2 says Rome is not God's True Church. We have people called Cafeteria Catholics. These are people who insist Rome is God's True Church but then they go on to rebel against the Church which they say is God's True Church, and I'm saying you can prove for a fact that Cafeteria Catholics are delusional. The Atheist will simply shout his opinions that all Christians are delusional, but he is merely offering an opinion. You want to try to deal in facts if at all possible. Suppose we have a Protestant, and suppose he insists that he obeys the New Testament, then, if it is easily shown that he doesn't obey the New Testament, then you can prove for a fact that that Protestant is irrational. You're not merely offering an opinion, which might be right or wrong, but you are actually stating a fact.

Chapter 3 of my Constitutional History of the Western World is devoted to the evidence which says Christianity is true. The big problem with that book is that it runs over half a million words. A sharp lawyer or an astute scholar could read it all in two or three days but the average person would need a couple months, or perhaps a couple of years, to read all of it. So in this book, Protestantism, I want to review the main points of Constitutional History of the Western World, and I want to do so in a book that most college graduates can read in a few hours. Now at the heart of Christianity are a few key concepts, and we already saw a few of these key concept above: Non-Christians go to perdition, Jesus is God, the Divine Son in a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, recall Psalm 2, Isaiah 9. 6, Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc.

Matthew 26. 28 gives us Christ's words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the New Covenant...' So, you see, Christianity claims to be the New Covenant, the New Law to amend the Old Mosaic Law, the Old Law which Moses carried down from atop Sinai. It's true that the Old Testament says the Mosaic Law is an eternal law. Christians say this means all of it will be remembered for eternity but not all of it will be enforced for eternity. Ezekiel 20. 25 even says God gave the children of Israel bad laws because He was angry with their rebelliousness. If all of the Mosaic Law was to be enforced for eternity then the people of God would still to this day have to execute violators of the Sabbath Day, execute blasphemers, execute homosexuals, execute enchantresses, execute kids who curse their parents, burn alive the harlot daughters of priests, sacrifice bulls and goats and lambs and birds for the atonement of sin, as all of these things are commanded by the Mosaic Law. The concept that God will amend the Old Law with a New Law does not originate with Gentiles, and it does not originate with the Jews who wrote the New Testament. It originates with God, with God speaking through an Old Testament prophet. Recall 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.'

The critics of Christianity will insist it is ludicrous to think the typical Christian has a Divine Law written on his heart. While this might be true, or it might be false, we are getting ahead of ourselves in looking at such a criticism. First, let's explain the basics of Christianity, then, second, we can look at evidence saying some or many Christians are deluding themselves if they think they have a Divine Law written on their hearts.

Christianity teaches that Christ will return in a Second Coming. The Book of Revelation certainly inclines one to believe the Second Coming will happen after the Antichrist shows up, and after the 3 angels from heaven described in Revelation 14. 6-11 show up. The Antichrist, mentioned in 1 John 2. 18, is presumably the beast of Revelation 19. 19, and is presumably the same as this man of sin / son of perdition of 2 Thess 2. And, incidentally, if 2 Thess 2 is trustworthy then 2 Thess 1. 8 would also be trustworthy. Again, 2 Thess 1. 8 mentions hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians insist that those with the Divine Law written on their hearts will know God and will obey the Gospel. St. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2 about the Antichrist and strong delusion,

`Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him...Let no one deceive you by any means: for that Day [the Second Coming of Christ] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God...and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.'

So, from the Christian point of view, the people suffering from strong delusion will be all Non-Christians, all who say Jesus is a bogus deity and a fraudulent god, plus the deluded will include those Christians lost in heresy who insist they have the Divine Law written on their hearts but are mistaken. The deluded will include those Christians who insist they are in God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, but they are deluded: they are not in fact saints in God's True Church. This info about the Antichrist showing up, and the 3 angels from heaven, Revelation 14. 6-11, showing up, can be a little confusing. The imagination can invent all sorts of confusing scenarios. Perhaps the Antichrist begins his endeavor to conquer the world by preaching the pure gospel truth. At some point he will have to change his tune and preach some sort of satanic heresy. If he always preaches the pure gospel truth which leads souls to heaven, then the Antichrist is not much of a satanic beast from the pit of hell. Or suppose 1 or more of these 3 angels from heaven, recall Revelation 14. 6-11, slips into heresy now and then, and suppose he is not super quick about amending his errors. If an angel from heaven slips into heresy then he will of course correct his error, eventually, otherwise he wouldn't be an angel from heaven, but while he is pushing a heresy that angel from heaven will be like an angel from hell. One might speculate that the 3 angels from heaven will never preach a single heresy. Probably so, but you want to be prepared for every contingency. Perhaps the Antichrist will always push satanic heresy, and will never, not even for a short time, teach the pure Gospel truth. Anyway, if a person has the Divine Law written on his heart then he will be able to immediately recognize satanic heresies, and though it might be difficult to immediately distinguish angels from hell from angels from heaven, I mean it doesn't seem terribly farfetched to think the Antichrist might teach the True Faith for a little while before slipping into satanic heresy, as long as a person has the Divine Law written on his heart then he will certainly attain heaven and will escape perdition. So 2 Thess 2 deals with the Antichrist and strong delusion. Those who insist they have the Divine Law written on their hearts but don't are certainly deluded. Those who insist they are members of God's True Church but are not are also terribly deluded. About this True Church we read in Matthew 16. 13-19,

`When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the son of Man, am? So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and earth, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

My books all push the idea that Christendom took a very bad turn in the 4th century. This is best explained by using extracts from famous historians. Everything went to hell, so to speak, beginning in the 4th century. Gibbon described the malevolence of the laws of the Roman Empire under the Catholic Emperors,

`They protected all persons of illustrious or honorable rank, bishops and their presbyters, professors of the liberal arts, soldiers and their families, municipal officers, and their posterity to the third generation, and all children under the age of puberty. But a fatal maxim was introduced into the new jurisprudence of the empire, that in the case of treason, which included every offence that the subtlety of lawyers could derive from a hostile intention towards the prince or republic, all privileges were suspended, and all conditions were reduced to the same ignominious level. As the safety of the emperor was avowedly preferred to every consideration of justice or humanity, the dignity of age and the tenderness of youth were alike exposed to the most cruel tortures; and the terrors of malicious information, which might select them as accomplices, or even as witnesses, perhaps, of an imaginary crime, perpetually hung over the heads of the principal citizens of the Roman world.'

Of course not every person under the sign of the cross was the cruel agent of a Christian tyrant, but in the 4th century the typical Christian began celebrating communion with the evil henchmen of evil nobles, and St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27 that it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. I'm pushing the idea that this falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2 happened a long time ago. The Christians of the first 3 centuries, generally speaking, didn't celebrate communion with evil people. But from the 4th century onwards all of that changed. Henry Charles Lea, the pre-eminent authority on the Inquisitions, wrote in his 'A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages' (Macmillan, 1922),

`We have only to look upon the atrocities of the criminal law of the Middle Ages to see how pitiless men were in dealing with each other. The wheel, the caldron of boiling oil, burning alive, burying alive, flaying alive, tearing apart with wild horses, were the ordinary expedients by which the criminal jurist sought to deter crime by frightful examples...An Anglo-Saxon law punishes a female slave convicted of theft by making eighty other female slaves each bring three pieces of wood and burn her to death....In the Customs of Arques, granted by the Abbey of St. Bertin in 1231, there is a provision that, if a thief have a concubine who is his accomplice, she is to be buried alive...In France women were customarily burned or buried alive for simple felonies, and Jews were hung by the feet between two savage dogs, while men were boiled to death for coining. In Milan Italian ingenuity exhausted itself in devising deaths of lingering torture for criminals of all descriptions. The Carolina, or criminal code of Charles V., issued in 1530, is a hideous catalogue of blinding, mutilation, tearing with hot pincers, burning alive, and breaking on the wheel...As recently as 1706, in Hanover, a pastor named Zacharie Georg Flagge was burned alive for coining...So careless were the legislators of human suffering in general that, in England, to cut out a man's tongue, or to pluck out his eyes with malice prepence, was not made a felony until the fifteenth century, in a criminal law so severe that, even in the reign of Elizabeth, the robbing of a hawk's nest was similarly a felony; and as recently as 1833 a child of nine was sentenced to be hanged for breaking a patched pane of glass and stealing twopence worth of paint [this sentence was commuted]...It has seemed to me however, that a sensible increase in the severity of punishment is traceable after the thirteenth century, and I am inclined to attribute this to the influence exercised by the Inquisition over the criminal jurisprudence.'

If you can prove the Roman Catholic Church fell away from the True Faith, fell into heresy, and led people to perdition in the 12th century, and in the 14th century, and in the 17th century, then that's all well and good, but we are primarily interested in whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into heresy in the 21st century. We have two options: 1) Rome in the 21st century is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Rome leads people to heaven in the 21st century because Rome has not fallen into heresy in the 21st century, or 2) Rome in the 21st century is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Rome leads people to perdition in the 21st century because Rome has fallen into heresy in the 21st century. Rome in the 21st century does not explicitly teach that it is right to worship Mary. But Rome says Mary was conceived free of original sin, and Rome says Mary never committed any sort of sin, so Rome teaches that Mary is sinless and perfect, and Rome says the Bible is trustworthy, and the Bible says only God is sinless and perfect, so Rome explicitly says Mary is not God, but Rome implicitly says that Mary is God. To this day Rome calls the Inquisition the `Holy Office.' If the Inquisition was evil in the eyes of God – hardly a farfetched idea! - then Rome commits blasphemy and sacrilege when she calls the Inquisition the `Holy Office.' The Book of Revelation says the dead, all of the dead save those who come out of the Great Tribulation, sleep until the Last Judgment, which is far in the future – after the Second Coming, after the Millennium. Rome contradicts the Book of Revelation by its doctrine that the saints who die go immediately into the presence of God, and do not sleep until the Last Judgment. Plus one is always hearing Protestants say that so-and-so has gone to heaven, often based on the evidence of a dream. You expect a New Ager who visits mediums to believe that some ancestor is in heaven, even though the Last Judgment is far in the future, but lots of Protestants who claim to obey the New Testament trample on Revelation 22. 17-19, which says,

`The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" Let the one who hears say, "Come!" And let the one who is thirsty come, and the one who desires the water of life drink freely. I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book....'

Anyway, we have a Case 1 and a Case 2 with Rome. Case 1 says Rome is God's True Church. Case 2 says Rome is not God's True Church. Case 1 says Rome leads people to heaven. Case 2 says Rome leads people to perdition. If Case 1 is true then everyone should obey Rome, God's True Church. But if Case 2 is true, if Rome leads people to perdition, then no one should be Roman Catholic. Will Durant wrote in `The Reformation' (p. 731):

"In 1451 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, one of the most enlightened men of the fifteenth century, enforced the wearing of badges by the Jews under his jurisdiction. Two years later John of Capistrano began his missions, as legate of Pope Nicholas V, in Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, and Poland. His powerful sermons accused the Jews of killing children and desecrating the Host -charges which popes had branded as murderous superstitions. Urged on by this "scourge of the Jews," the dukes of Bavaria drove all Hebrews from their duchy. Bishop Godfrey of Wurzburg, who had given them full privileges in Franconia, now banished them, and in town after town Jews were arrested, and debts due them were annulled. At Breslau several Jews were jailed on Capistrano's demand; he himself supervised the tortures that wrung from some of them whatever he bade them confess; on the basis of these confessions forty Jews were burned at the stake (June 2, 1453). The remaining Jews were banished, but their children were taken from them and baptized by force. Capistrano was canonized in 1690."

To this day, Rome insists that all True Christians must venerate John of Capistrano as a true saint. Paragraph 2148 of the Catechism informs us that one commits blasphemy if one directs abusive language towards Capistrano or any other canonized person. Paragraph 2148 also says it is a blasphemy of God to torture and execute people in the name of God. Not to imply that the Eastern Orthodox or the Protestants were never ferocious, but, nevertheless, the Church of Rome tortured and executed people in the name of God for over six centuries via the Inquisition.

So it's all very simple. If Rome is God's True Church, then obey Rome and venerate John of Capistrano. If Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church which leads souls to perdition, then no one should be a Roman Catholic.

I suppose the most controversial elements in all of my religious books are these speculations which I offer about the cross and the crucifix and how they might pertain to that amazing prophesy given in Revelation 14. 11 - `And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. Constitutional History of the Western World gives a pretty thorough analysis of the sign of the cross, though a short review given in this book might be helpful. I'm saying that every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition. Every one of them is lost in heresy. Not a single church under the cross is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. My position is that the cross of Christ mentioned in scripture is sacred, e. g, Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18. I'm saying that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but I also insist that the sign of the cross and material crosses are evil. Either the cross symbolizes no evil or else it symbolizes some evil. We have a Case 1 and a Case 2. Case 1 says the sign of the cross and material crosses are sacred to God and they reflect no evil. Case 2 says material crosses are not sacred to God and they reflect some evil. If Case 1 is true then it is a sacrilege to say the cross reflects some evil – if the cross is sacred in the eyes of God then it is a sacrilege to say the cross reflects evil, which is what I say. But if Case 2 is true, if God says the sign of the cross and material crosses symbolize evil, then it is a sacrilege to say the sign of the cross and material crosses are sacred to God.

If Case 1 is true, if the cross is sacred to God, if the cross symbolizes no evil, than you have to remember Revelation 9, which mentions a seal of God which saves one from torments when placed on your forehead.

But if Case 2 is true, if the cross reflects evil, then you have to recall Revelation 14. 11, which mentions people with an evil mark on their foreheads being tortured in hellfire forever and ever.

So, if the cross is the mark of the beast, then, when some church under the sign of the cross tells you the cross is sacred to God, that Church is telling you that you have nothing to fear if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead - thinking it is the seal of God from Revelation 9 which protects one from torments. But if you end up burning in hell forever because the cross is the mark of the beast, then the church which gave you the bad advice saying the cross is sacred to God, the worthless church which led you to burn in hell forever and ever, was obviously not God's True Church, was obviously not the Church which Christ founded on a rock; it was just a worthless false church which leads people to perdition.

Of course it is all very speculative to say the cross is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, or to say it is the mark of the beast. But it is not speculative to say the cross either symbolizes no evil or else the cross symbolizes some evil. If the cross symbolizes no evil then saying the cross is the seal of God of Revelation 9 certainly seems plausible. And if the cross symbolizes some evil then it certainly becomes a prime suspect as the mark of the beast.

Christ and the apostles never used the cross as their symbol. Just how trustworthy are these churches which say that God says the cross is sacred? Even if the cross is sacred to God, one can still make a very strong case saying every church under the cross is corrupt and therefore it leads people to perdition. The churches under the sign of the cross are really worthless when it comes to celebrating the Eucharist in a worthy manner. They give the bread and the wine to anyone: to pro-choicers, to pro-gay marriage people, to fornicators, to Sabbath violators, to adulterers etc.

Right now we want to focus on the Roman Catholic Church. We want to focus on the logic saying 1) Rome is either God's True Church, the Church which leads people to heaven, and so it is wise to obey Rome and foolish to rebel against Rome, God's True Church, or else 2) Rome is not God's True Church, Rome is not the Church Christ founded on a rock: the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome and so Rome leads people away from heaven and to perdition.

Let's analyze a passage from Lord Acton, the 19th century English Roman Catholic historian. He told us in his essay `Human Sacrifice':

`And yet, long after the last victim had fallen in honour of the sun-god of the Aztecs, the civilised nations of Christian Europe continued to wage wholesale destruction...Protestants and Catholics, clergy and laity, vied with each other for two hundred years to provide victims, and every refinement of legal ingenuity and torture was used in order to increase their number. In 1591, at Nördligen, a girl was tortured twenty-three times before she confessed...Three years later, in the same town, a woman suffered torture fifty-six times without confessing she was a witch...In the north of Italy, the great jurist Alciatus saw 100 witches burnt on one day...In England alone, under the Tudors and the Stuarts, the victims of this superstition amounted to 30,000. Yet, from the appearance of Spee's Cautio in 1631 to the burning of the last witch in 1783, all sensible men were persuaded that the victims were innocent of the crime for which they suffered intolerable torments and an agonizing death. But those who hunted them out with cunning perseverance, and the inflexible judges who never spared their lives, firmly believed that their execution was pleasing in the sight of God, and that their sin could not be forgiven by men.'

Most Christians say that God says that the cross is sacred and is divorced from the above sort of evil. I'm saying the above evil is reflected in the cross, I'm saying it is a sacrilege to say the cross is sacred. I'm saying that God says the cross reflects the evils perpetrated over the centuries by people carrying crosses, rather as the evils of the Nazis are reflected in the Nazi swastika.

Anyway, when Catholics and Protestants of the 16th century fell to their knees to worship God, they envisioned God to be the sort of God who wanted those women tortured, tortured perhaps even 56 times, during the witch trials. If, in fact the True God hates that sort of jurisprudence, then the Catholics and Protestants of the 16th century, though they claimed to know the True God, nevertheless, didn't know the True God, because they thought the True God liked the sort of evil jurisprudence that they liked, when in fact the True God doesn't like that sort of evil jurisprudence. If you worship a false god then you don't worship the True God - though you might be deluded enough to insist that you worship the True God! - and indeed if you worship a false god who leads souls to perdition – though you claim to worship the True God.

Revelation 13. 4-8 states,

`THEN I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns...Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion...And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshipped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war against him?...It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life...'

It's rather unlikely that people will literally worship a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, so we are looking for a figurative interpretation. When the Hindus fall to their knees to worship God, then, if they actually worship false gods who lead people to perdition, though they claim to worship the Creator of the Universe, they are deluded, because they actually worship false gods, and false gods are beastly because they lead people to perdition. And though the Muslims claim to worship the True God, the Creator of the Universe, but if Allah is a false god who leads people to perdition, then the Muslims can be said to worship a false god, and so it becomes plausible to say the Muslims are some of the people who, in a figurative if not a literal way, worship a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, as described in Revelation 13. 4-8. If the True God says the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which leads people to perdition, then, since the Roman Catholics worship a god who says Rome is the True Church which leads people to heaven, then the Roman Catholics worship a false god, and so the Roman Catholics worship this beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, assuming still the True God says the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which drags souls down to perdition. And if the True God says the spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in scripture is sacred – Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred – but if the True God says the sign of the cross and material crosses reflect evil, then, since the Protestants under the cross who worship a God who says the material cross is sacred, then the Protestants under the cross worship a false god, since they do not worship the True God, as the True God says the material cross reflects evil.

Protestants under the cross will say: `No, No, No! The True God says the material cross is sacred!' Well, do Protestants say that the True God says the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred? My reasoning runs as follows: the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a version of Jesus on the cross who says the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven. But if the True God / True Jesus says Rome is not God's True Church, if the True God / True Jesus says Rome is lost in heresy and leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a lie, it is the image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven when in fact the True God / True Jesus says Rome leads people to perdition. So the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a false god, the image of a beastly false god who leads people to perdition, if in fact the Roman Catholic Church leads people to perdition. Of course Roman Catholics insist that the True God says Rome is God's True Church. Roman Catholics insist that the True God says Rome leads people to heaven. If that is true then a Protestant should say that God says Rome is God's True Church. If Rome is God's True Church then the Protestants are delusional for being Protestants. They ought to be Roman Catholics. Indeed everyone on earth should be Roman Catholic and everyone on earth should obey Rome, obey even her most controversial doctrines, if Rome is God's True Church. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility anathematizes – damns – those who reject that Dogma. Suppose the True God says Rome is His True Church. Then it is stupid to rebel against Rome, against God's True Church. You can expect to go to hell if you rebel against God and God's True Church It would be stupid to rebel against Rome by rejecting the Dogma of Papal Infallibility if rome is god's True Church. If Rome is God's True Church it is evil to drop hints, as I do, hinting the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of the beast, recall Revelation 13 and 14.

On the other hand, if Rome is not God's True Church, if the True God / True Jesus say Rome is sunk in heresy and leads people to perdition, then an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven, when the True God / True Jesus says Rome leads people to perdition, is an evil false image....

We were concerned with Protestants who say that God says that the sign of the cross and material crosses are sacred. But if I can convince these Protestants that Rome is not God's True Church, if I can convince them there is a big problem with the Roman Catholic crucifix, perhaps I can also convince them that while the spiritual cross of Christ is sacred, while Christ's sacrifice on the cross is certainly sacred, perhaps I can also convince them there is a big problem with material crosses.

So, if True God says the cross reflects evil, then when you fall to your knees and worship a god who says the cross is sacred, you are worshipping a false god. And false gods are beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition. Whenever people worship false gods, whenever people claim to worship the Creator of the Universe, yet they ascribe false attributes to the Creator, then they worship a false god, and when you worship a false god you might be said to worship this multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 4-8, which again says,

`THEN I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns...Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion...And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshipped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war against him?...It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life...'

What do you think? Did the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2 happen a long time ago? Christians are supposed to have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on our hearts. Christians are supposed to be temples of God – 1 Corinthians 3. 16. What do you think? Is every person who claims to be a Christian a true temple of God? Can we find any evidence saying that lots of people who claim to be Christians are evil? Paul Johnson informed us in `A History of Christianity',

`Tertullian broke with the Church [Rome] when Calixtus of Rome determined that the church had the power to grant remission of sins after baptism, even serious sins like adultery or apostasy...Julian claims Catholics slaughtered "heretics" with state military support. Whole communities were butchered...in the 5th century there were over 100 statutes against heresy. The state now attacked heresy as it had once attacked Christianity...Jerome describes horrible tortures inflicted on a woman accused of adultery [inflicted by the Catholic-State]. In the late 4th century there was despotism in Christendom. The rack and red-hot plates were used. Ammianus gives many instances of torture...the Inquisition was born...Spain was staging pogroms of Jews by the time Augustine became a bishop...Inquisition: anonymous informers, accusations of personal enemies allowed, no right of defending council...Possession of scriptures in any language forbidden...from 1080 onward there were many instances of the Pope, councils and Bishops forbidding the Bible to laymen...people burned for reading the Bible...Erasmus saw 200 prisoners of war broken on the wheel at Utrech, on orders of the Bishop...Justinian Code: provided basis for persecution of dissenters...Protestants adopted the Justinian Code as well...Lutherans and Calvinists just as intolerant as Catholics...Counter-Reformation embodied no reform. It's sole effect was to stamp out Protestant "error"...It is a tragic but recurrent feature of Christianity that the eager pursuit of reform tends to produce a ruthlessness in dealing with obstacles to it which brings the whole moral superstructure crashing down in ruins...The Gregorian papacy, so zealous for virtue, fathered some of the worst crimes of the Middle Ages...mass burnings of Protestants in Spain 1559-1562...Spanish Inquisition was self-sustaining. It confiscated the property of the condemned...women 70-90 years old were tortured...young girls tortured...witch-hunting couldn't survive without torture...witch-hunting had papal sanction to use torture...Luther burned "witches"...Calvinists very fierce...Loyola popularized witch-hunting...Loyola not an anti-Semite...Vicious cycle: torture produced accusations - more torture, more accusations...'

Was there any sort of big huge change that took place in Christianity in the 4th century? Before the 4th century the Christians were persecuted. After the 4th century the people under the sign of the cross became the persecutors. Before the 4th century Christians didn't enforce evil laws with barbaric punishments. During and after the 4th century, the people under the sign of the cross enforced no end of evil laws with barbaric punishments. Apropos of this `falling away' mentioned in 2 Thess 2, Bury states in 'History of the Later Roman Empire' (vol. i. p. 12) that the Catholic emperors in Constantinople, following the example of the pagan Emperors, took the epithets `sacred' and `divine' and insisted that these be applied to themselves. Bury writes, p. 15:

`The oriental conception of divine royalty is now formally expressed in the diadem; and it affects all that pertains to the Emperor. His person is divine; all that belongs to him is "sacred." Those who come into his presence perform the act of adoration; they kneel down and kiss the purple.'

Bury states, p. 14, that the Patriarch refused to crown the Emperor Anastasius unless he signed a written oath that he would introduce no novelty into the Church.

Might there be an evil absurdity lurking somewhere in the spectacle of Christian Emperors claiming to be sacred and divine, and demanding that their subjects adore them, and demanding these subjects prostrate themselves before them, while also promising to bring no innovations into the Christian religion? The Catholic Church united itself with evil when it failed to excommunicate the evil Catholic emperors, when it told Catholics to go ahead and prostrate themselves before human beings. Satan took Jesus to the top of the Temple and was looking to make a deal - bow down before Satan and....

Christians are not to bow down before anyone but God. Recall Revelation 19. 10. The 1st commandment is very clear that one must worship only God. The Christian martyrs were martyred because they refused to worship the emperor - they refused to bow before images of the emperor - and because they refused to obey the magistrates when the magistrates ordered them to sacrifice to the pagan deities.

Still on this theme of this falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2, for centuries the civilization under the sign of the cross was divided into peasants and a privileged class of nobles who oppressed the peasants; this civilization subjected the accused to `the question,' that is to preliminary torture in criminal investigations; the civilization under the sign of the cross punished people by breaking them on the wheel - here an iron bar was used to break the bones of the felon - burying alive, burning alive, flaying alive - all of these punishments had the blessing of the church and state. Popes and Protestants blessed the African slave trade. Slave owners would separate children from their parents and of course they would whip the slaves to force them to work for no wages. In the Middle Ages peasants were tortured by the nobles to learn where the peasants had hidden their money. The peasants would starve during the lean years but the nobles knew how to hoard and steal enough food to survive. In the early Church, Christians didn't perpetrate these sorts of evils. There were always heretics and false brethren, but in the first, second and third centuries Christians didn't torture people on the rack or burn anyone at the stake.

So, the Roman Catholic Church is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. The Roman Catholic Church has either fallen away from the True Faith, and leads people to perdition, or else the Roman Catholic Church has not fallen away from the True Faith, and so it leads people to heaven. You can announce the same two options with any church. The Eastern Orthodox is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. The Eastern Orthodox Church either has fallen into heresy and leads people to perdition, or else it hasn't fallen into heresy, and it leads people to heaven.

Now when the Antichrist shows up, and when these three angels mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 show up, and if there is confusion about who is from hell and who is from heaven, then, it stands to reason there might be some panic. The Atheists will call you a moron if you believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, or if you believe a 600-year-old guy named Noah saved humanity with a huge boat / floating zoo. Atheists will say you are an idiot if you believe the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. I'm pushing 2 Timothy 3. 16, but also saying parables can exist in the Bible, and yet the Bible is still trustworthy. It would be idiotic to insist that Jesus needed to supply the names and addresses and dates of birth of the 10 foolish virgins and of the 10 wise virgins in order to be considered trustworthy. There's nothing idiotic about thinking the account or part of the account of the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and the account of Noah, might be parables - fictions which teach spiritual truths. The Atheists will call you a moron if you say the Christian Bible is a sure and trustworthy guide to delivering souls to heaven. But you can't always let yourself be manipulated by the Atheists! You have to learn to not let the Atheists take control of your brain. Don't let them commandeer your brain and use you like a robot! Be in charge of your own brain. Don't give the Atheists command of your brain!

We looked at the Roman Catholic crucifix earlier. A similar line of logic holds with the Eastern Orthodox crucifix and the Anglican crucifix. Two scenarios again with both of these churches. Scenario 1: the True God says the Eastern Orthodox Church has not fallen away from the True Faith and therefore it leads people to heaven. The Eastern Orthodox crucifix, an image of a version of Jesus who says the Eastern Orthodox Church leads souls to heaven, agrees in this scenario with the True God / True Jesus, who says the Eastern Orthodox Church leads souls to heaven. Since the True God / True Jesus say the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church, and say it has not fallen into heresy, and therefore it leads people to heaven, then you can trust the Eastern Orthodox Church when it insists the Eastern Orthodox crucifix is sacred to the True God. That's Scenario 1. Moving on to Scenario 2: the True God / True Jesus says the Eastern Orthodox Church has fallen away from the True Faith, fallen into heresy, and therefore it leads people to perdition, therefore the Eastern Orthodox crucifix, which is an image of a version of Jesus who says the Eastern Orthodox Church leads souls to heaven, when the True God / True Jesus says the Eastern Orthodox Church drags souls down to perdition – is an image of a false god, a false version of Jesus – because, again, in scenario 2, the True God says the Eastern Orthodox Church has fallen into heresy and leads souls to perdition. False gods are beastly because they lead people to perdition. Therefore images of false gods, such as the Eastern Orthodox crucifix, immediately become suspects for the image of the beast, see Revelation 14. 11.

To review, 2 Thess 2 mentions a man of sin – presumably this is the Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 4. 3, and presumably these two are both the same as this beast we read about in Revelation 19. 19: `And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against Him [Jesus] who sat on the horse and against His army.' If they are not all the same person they nevertheless all have the spirit of the Antichrist. If 2 Thess 2 is trustworthy then why wouldn't 2 Thess 1. 8 also be trustworthy? 2 Thess 1. 8 is more or less just a repeat of John 15. 6 and Luke 13. 3. 2 Thess 1. 8 tells of hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And what exactly is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? You get various answers from various people. Roman Catholics say the Gospel is explained by Rome's official doctrines. Other people have other opinions. Recall Christ's words at the Last Supper about a new covenant, and recall that these words tie in with Jeremiah 31. 31-34, words which say that God will write His new law on the hearts of His people, and then all of these people will know God. The Divine Law is the same as the True Faith, which is the same thing as the New Law, which is the same thing as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. John 15. 6 has Jesus saying: `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.' Revelation 20. 15: `And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.' Apropos of those with the mark of the beast on their foreheads or right hands, Revelation 14. 11 -`And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and who ever receives the mark of his name.'

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.'

To reject Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is to reject Christianity. I mean if one rejects Jeremiah 31. 31-34 then one rejects Christ's words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My bllod of the new covenant...' One certainly rejects Christianity if one rejects the following scriptures:

Matthew 26: 28,

`For this is My blood of the new covenant, shed for the remission of sins of many.'

Mark 14. 24,

`This is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many.'

Luke 22. 20:

`This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.'

So, it stands to reason, that a True Christian, as opposed to a Christian who has fallen away from the True Faith, has the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on his / her heart. There would be no reason for Protestantism to exist, and there would be no reason for the Eastern Orthodox Church to exist, and there would be no reason for the Church of England to exist - though the Church of England is often seen as a Protestant sect - indeed there would be no reason for any sect other than the Roman Catholic Church to exist if the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church - the Church which Christ founded on a rock - recall Matthew 16. 13-19. But if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads souls to perdition, if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads people to perdition...

The soul, any soul, either goes to Perdition or to Heaven, in the afterlife. The Old Testament does not concentrate very much on attain heaven and avoiding perdition, though this is not to say there is no mention of the afterlife. Malachi 4. 1 mentions hellfire. Daniel 12 is very clear about life after death, and Job at one point says: `I know that my Redeemer lives.' The Old Testament mostly concerns how the Children of Israel can reap benefits or curses in this life from their behavior in this life. But the New Testament is all about the afterlife; it is all about how your behavior in this life determines whether or not you will escape perdition and attain heaven.

So, still addressing, in at least a simulated way, Asian peoples, trying to explain Christianity to them, Christianity says the Antichrist is coming, Christianity says a very evil satanic person will arise, and, more or less, conquer if not the entire world, then all of it aside from some saints destined for heaven. Let's look at two theories concerning these words in 2 Thess 2 about the man of sin / son of perdition, concerning the beast / Antichrist sitting in the holy place. Some say the Temple in Jerusalem will have to be rebuilt in order for the prophecy of 2 Thess 2 to be fulfilled. This prophecy says the man of sin sits in the holy place. Others say that since Christianity teaches that the heart of a True Christian is the Temple of God, 1 Corinthians 16, and teaches that True Christians have God's New Law inscribed on their hearts – Matthew 26. 28 and Jeremiah 31. 31-34 - the Antichrist will attempt write the law of the Devil on Christian hearts, and in this way he will sit in the holy place.

Christianity says 2,000 years ago God was crucified by man. It's a mind-boggling concept. To explain Christianity you have to explain Judaism, and you might also have to explain Islam. All three of these religions sprang from Abraham of the Chaldeans. The Christians say Jesus is God, the Divine Son – Psalm 2, Isaiah 9. 6, Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16. Both the Jews and the Muslims say it is blasphemy to say Jesus is God, the Creator of the Universe. Christians say the Jews and the Muslims have fallen into heresy, a heresy is an error which is so serious it leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition. 2,000 years ago the Jews were confronted with two options: they could either recognize Jesus as the Messiah, a True Prophet, or they could recognize Him as a false messiah, a false prophet. The Mosaic Law demanded death for false prophets, so, once the Jews determined Jesus was a false messiah and a false prophet they collaborated with the Romans to crucify Jesus. The defense of Christianity might begin with Ezekiel 20. 25, which says God gave the children of Israel bad laws because He was angry with their rebelliousness. That form of Judaism which pushes the Mosaic Law can never succeed on a global scale, because it has laws which demands the sacrifice of animals for the atonement of sin, and demands the execution of Sabbath violators, the execution of blasphemers, of false prophets, of enchantresses, of homosexuals, of children who curse their parents. If the daughter of a Levirate priest became a harlot she was to be burned alive under the Mosaic Law. But not all of the laws in the Mosaic law are bad laws: the commandments to love God and love your neighbor are excellent, as are the Ten Commandments, as are the laws commanding the use of just weights and measures etc. The good laws in the Mosaic Law are retained in Christianity, in the New Law. Millions of Christians trample on the commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy, but it would be stupid to say that the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy is not enforced under the new covenant. Just as it would be stupid to say that under the New Law Christians are permitted to have other gods above the LORD, and are permitted to steal and commit adultery, it is stupid to say Christian no longer need to keep the Sabbath day holy. Even if the cross was sacred to God, churches under the sign of the cross give the bread and the wine to Sabbath violators. You are not to labor or buy or sell on the Sabbath. But millions of Christians have grown accustomed to laboring and buying and selling on the Sabbath. The typical Evangelical reasons as follows: `I know how to read and profess John 3. 16. Therefore I am automatically saved because I profess John 3. 16. John 3. 16 is all you need to know about Christianity. Therefore I can trample on the Sabbath day, and I can trample on 1 Corinthians 11. 27, and trample on 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10 all I want.' That's how the typical Evangelical Christian thinks! Poor deluded people!

In Revelation 2. 9 Jesus says He `knows the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews but who are a synagogue of Satan.' The reason for this harsh language in not because the Jews crucified Jesus – Jesus forgave the Jews for that - but, rather, because the Jews continued to reject Jesus, continued to insist He was a false prophet. Jesus didn't mean the Jews prayed to Satan; He didn't mean they literally worshipped the devil, but, you see, once you accept the premise that Jesus is God, the Creator of the Universe, then anyone who says Jesus is not God, anyone who says or implies that Jesus is a bogus deity, a fraudulent god, is under the power of satan. This logic applies not only to Jews but to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists etc. Obviously, everything depends on making the right choice when one has to choose between two choices: Jesus is either the Creator of the Universe or else Jesus is not the Creator of the Universe. St. Paul, who at first was a persecutor of Christians, describes how he was converted to becoming an apostle of Christianity in Acts 26. 13-18. Jesus tells St. Paul that he is being given a mission to free those who are under the power of satan. If Acts 26. 13-18 is trustworthy then so is 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10,

`Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit the kingdom of God.'

To review the scriptures telling us there is a True Church one might start with Matthew 16. 13-19. The True Church is not a building. It is a group of people who lead other people to heaven. The True Church is a group of saints. The saints are not perfect. No one is perfect except God. Nevertheless the saints, though they make mistakes, always lead others to heaven and they lead no one to perdition: they can make mistakes but they never teach heresy: they never lead anyone to perdition. So there is some ambiguity here. One has to know the difference between a mistake which doesn't lead to perdition and a mistake which does lead to perdition. Anyway, Matthew 16. 13-19,

`When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the son of Man, am? So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and earth, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

Matthew 16. 13-19 tells us that Jesus founded one Church - not two or three or four Churches - but, one Church, the True Church.

Jesus says 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.'

If one abides in Christ then one is in the True Church.

St. Paul writes in Ephesians 4. 4-6

`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.'

In St. Paul's terminology this phrase - `there is one body' - means there is one True Church. Note Ephesians 5. 30, where St. Paul says of the Church and Christ,

`For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.'

Matthew 7. 13-16 indicates the True Church is rather exclusive,

`Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...'

To explain Christianity to people, such as to Christians, you eventually have to get round to 1 Cor 11. 27, which says it is a terrible sin to celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. And then you have to get round to 1 Cor 5. 11-13 which tells Christians they are not to keep company with Christians who refuse to repent - `put away the evil one.' This implies you are committing a terrible sin in celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner if you celebrate the Eucharist with evil Christians, with Christians who make no secret that they refuse to repent. Christians have made a huge farce out of Christianity. They have! The Christian churches don't excommunicate fornicators, don't excommunicate revilers, don't excommunicate adulterers, don't excommunicate pro-choicers, don't excommunicate Sabbath violators, don't excommunicate sodomites, don't excommunicate anyone! Huge Farce. Plain as day. Plain as the nose on your face. The way things are supposed to work is that Christians, any Christian, will struggle with sin in private, but he is not a hypocrite, though he struggles with sin in private, if he insists on celebrating the Eucharist in a worthy manner, if he insists on not celebrating the Eucharist with Christians who refuse to repent, who insist on sinning and doing so right out in public. I know. It seems like hypocrisy to have Christians who struggle with sin in private refuse to keep company with Christians who do their sinning in public, who refuse to repent. But what can you do? Well, you want to put yourself on the road to heaven and you want to get off the road leading to perdition. You want to read and understand the Bible. For instance, try reading 1 Cor 5. 11-13 and 1 Cor 6. 9-10 and 1 Cor 11. 27....

Why is it that Christians don't excommunicate anyone? Is there some sort of money issue here? Church politics are not difficult to understand. A church makes money when it seeks to please its biggest donors, such as by never excommunicating them or their friends or their family members. The aim of course is to deliver souls to heaven by upholding the True Faith and by not falling away from the True Faith. A church wants to do that, plus not go bankrupt. So, Church politics are easy to understand: don't drag souls down to perdition by falling into heresy, and don't go bankrupt by displeasing your biggest donors. American politics are also pretty easy to understand: everything revolves round getting votes. When Democrats push for places on college campuses where those privileged white people are forbidden to show their pasty white privileged faces, when Liberals try to throw Laura Ingalls Wilder's books out of libraries because they are 'racist' books, when Black Lives Matter protesters take to the freeways and surround working moms in minivans trying to get home after a hard day at work, then Republicans win. But when Republicans are removing little kids from their parents at the border, and the little children are weeping and wailing for mama and papa, and when Republicans are giving marijuana smokers 20 year prison sentences, then it's Christmastime for Democrats, because they know they will soon be getting lots and lots of gifts in the form of lots and lots of votes at the next election. In the True Church people watch over each other's morals, and if a Christian is not repenting, if he persists in sinning, and makes no secret that he refuses to repent, then he must be excommunicated. We haven't even gotten to scriptures like Luke 16. 19-31, scriptures which are super tough on the rich, and Revelation 18. 23, which likens merchants to sorcerers. Malachi 3. 5 is tough on those who are tough on immigrants. Malachi 4. 1 is really tough on proud people. What can a minister do? If he doesn't excommunicate anyone from his church, if he just sits back and rakes in the cash, then he tramples on the scriptures and puts himself on the road to perdition. But if he scrupulously enforces the scriptures, if he refuses to celebrate the Eucharist with sinners who refuse to repent, as it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner - 1 Cor 11. 27, 1 Cor 5. 11-13 - then he puts himself on the road to heaven but there might not be anyone left in his church aside from himself.

I'm arguing with Christians who say: `Lots of Christians from lots of different churches go to heaven.' I'm trying to get these people to think more clearly, more rationally. I'm asking these Christians who reside perhaps in Europe or Canada or the USA or Africa or Latin America, I'm asking them to explain Christianity to non-Christians in China and India and Japan and Vietnam and Thailand etc. Now if the Western Christians start off by saying to Asians: `Lots of different Christians from lots of different Christian churches will go to heaven' – well, then, I find this a little frustrating, I mean do we have to go over Jeremiah 31. 31-34 again? Do we have to go over Matthew 16. 13-19 again? We are trying to explain Christianity to billions of people in Asia. These people are not morons! They are not idiots! They are people who have a good deal of ability to think clearly and logically. It is not as if we are trying to convert ignorant savages sunk in primitive barbarism! We're trying to persuade Asians, highly intelligent people, to convert to Christianity. We've trying to persuade them to consider Jeremiah 31. 31-34, and Matthew 16. 13-19, as well as of course Isaiah 9. 6, John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 2 Thess 1. 8, 2 Thess 2 etc. We're trying to get them to consider the True Faith and the True Church. Now if some Christian in the USA or Canada or Sweden or some such Politically Correct place is saying to Asians: `Lots of different churches, though they preach conflicting creeds, can all be lumped together and seen as the Church which Christ founded on a rock: and they can all teach the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 correctly, even though they teach conflicting creeds.' We have to anticipate the probable reaction people in Asia will have to this theology. People in Asia, people with a good deal of ability to think logically, might be saying that that theology is idiocy! They might say it is insanity, they might say it is delusion which reminds them of the strong delusion mentioned in 2 Thess 2.

People who have ability to think clearly will reason as follows: If the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church in the 21st century, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads people to heaven in the 21st century, then it is smart to obey Rome, and it is stupid to risk hell by rebelling against God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, so it would be stupid to reject the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. This Dogma specifically says that all those who reject this Dogma are anathema – they are damned – therefore it would be stupid, it would be moronic, it would be idiotic, to say that Christians who reject the Dogma of Papal Infallibility go to heaven. And obviously, any idiot can see that if Rome in the 21st century is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has fallen into heresy in the 21st century, if Rome leads people to perdition in the 21st century, then let's not be either Politically Correct idiots or heretics and say that Roman Catholics go to heaven when they go to perdition. Let's just move on to the 2nd biggest church in Christendom, the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church in the 21st century is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and it has not fallen into heresy, and it leads souls to heaven, and therefore we should all obey the Eastern Orthodox Church, because it would be brainless idiocy to risk hell by rebelling against God's True Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church. And yes, on the other hand, if the Eastern Orthodox Church leads people to perdition in the 21st century, if the Eastern Orthodox Church has fallen into heresy in the 21st century, if it just not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then it would be idiocy to say it leads people to heaven in the 21st century when it leads people to perdition. So, moving on to the 3rd largest Church in Christendom, the Church of England...

Basically, if you insist something is sacred, like the Roman Catholic crucifix, when in fact it is evil, you know, when in fact God says it is evil, or if you insist something is evil, like the Roman Catholic crucifix, when in fact it is sacred to God, then you are terribly lost: you are very delusional: recall that 2 Thess 2 deals with deluded people, and with a falling away, and with the Antichrist.

Pro-choice Christians must argue that the pro-choice philosophy is perfectly consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Pro-Lifers don't want to inflict penalties upon women who get abortions though we want the law to step in and save the lives of babies, and this requires penalties on doctors who perform abortions. The pro-choicers say: if you don't like abortion then don't have one, but don't tell women they can't have an abortion if that is their choice. Pro-lifers say the unborn have a right to life, just as African slaves had a right to live free. Pro-slavery people said: If you don't like slavery then don't own slaves, but don't tell us that we can't own slaves if that is our choice. Anyway, judge for yourself. Is the pro-choice philosophy pro-Christian or anti-Christian? A partial birth abortion is actually a lot more humane than other types of abortion, as death comes swiftly. Other sorts of abortions involve prolonged torture. George Will, in a column he wrote in 1995, gave us the following account of a partial-birth abortion as witnessed by a Dayton Ohio nurse.

`The mother was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out.'

Let's compare and contrast the thinking of Protestant pro-choicers of the 20th and 21st century with Protestants of former centuries who supported slavery. Both have stumbled into patently evil and anti-Christian positions. A Protestant proclaims himself a madman - a patient ready for the insane asylum! – if he can not see the evil of either abortion or slavery. Charles Austin Beard in The Rise of the American Civilization,

`Under skillful management the cultivation of rice and indigo was soon introduced, and the basis of economic prosperity quickly laid, with the aid of a labor supply drawn from Africa. To protect masters against violence, a drastic code was adopted prescribing whipping, branding, ear clipping, castration, and death for various offenses; but the consolations of the Christian faith were not withheld, for the law, while denying the right of manumission, expressly authorized baptism.'

Crevecoeur, our Thoreau of the 18th century, writes in Letters from an American Farmer of these frightful punishments used to maintain order and discipline in a civilization founded upon slave labor.

`The following scene will I hope account for these melancholy reflections, and apologise for the gloomy thoughts with which I have filled this letter: my mind is, and always has been, oppressed since I became a witness to it. I was not long since invited to dine with a planter who lived three miles from where he then resided. In order to avoid the heat of the sun, I resolved to go on foot, sheltered in a small path, leading through a pleasant wood. I was leisurely travelling along...when all at once I felt the air strongly agitated, though the day was perfectly calm and sultry. I immediately cast my eyes toward the cleared ground, from which I was but a small distance, in order to see whether it was not occasioned by a shower; when at that instant a sound resembling a deep rough voice, uttered, as I thought, a few inarticulate monosyllables. Alarmed and surprised, I precipitately looked all round, when I perceived at about six rods distance something resembling a cage, suspended to the limbs of a tree; all the branches of which appeared covered with large birds of prey, fluttering about, and anxiously endeavoring to perch on the cage. Actuated by an involuntary motion of my hands, more than by any design of my mind, I fired at them; they all flew to a short distance, with a most hideous noise: when, horrid to think and painful to repeat, I perceived a negro, suspended in the cage, and left there to expire! I shudder when I recollect that the birds had already picked out his eyes, his cheek bones were bare; his arms had been attacked in several places, and his body seemed covered with a multitude of wounds. From the edges of the hollow sockets and from the lacerations with which he was disfigured, the blood slowly dropped, and tinged the ground beneath. No sooner were the birds flown, than swarms of insects covered the whole body of this unfortunate wretch, eager to feed on his mangled flesh and to drink his blood. I found myself suddenly arrested by the power of affright and terror; my nerves were convulsed; I trembled, I stood motionless, involuntarily contemplating the fate of this negro, in all its dismal latitude. The living spectre, though deprived of his eyes, could still distinctly hear, and in his uncouth dialect begged me to give him some water to allay his thirst. Humanity herself would have recoiled back with horror; she would have balanced whether to lessen such reliefless distress, or mercifully with one blow to end this dreadful scene of agonising torture! Had I had a ball in my gun, I certainly should have despatched him; but finding myself unable to perform so kind an office, I sought, though trembling, to relieve him as well as I could. A shell ready fixed to a pole, which had been used by some negroes, presented itself to me; I filled it with water, and with trembling hands I guided it to the quivering lips of the wretched sufferer. Urged by the irresistible power of thirst, he endeavored to meet it, as he instinctively guessed its approach by the noise it made in passing through the bars of the cage. "Tanká, you white man, tanká you, put a some poison and give me."

"How long have you been hanging there?" I asked him.

"Two days, and me no die; the birds, the birds; aaah me!"

Oppressed with the reflections which this shocking spectacle afforded me, I mustered strength enough to walk away, and soon reached the house at which I intended to dine. There I heard that the reason for this slave being thus punished, was on account of his having killed the overseer of the plantation. They told me that the laws of self-preservation rendered such executions necessary; and supported the doctrine of slavery with arguments generally made use of to justify the practice; with the repetition of which I shall not trouble you at present. Adieu.'

I'm pushing the doctrine that the Christian Bible is our best checklist / highest religious authority / surest guide to eternal salvation. Let's assume this is a sound premise. I mean if it was an unsound premise, if, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, if Rome has not fallen into heresy, if Rome leads souls to heaven, then the Roman Catholic Church would be the highest religious authority / checklist. But let's assume the Christian Bible is our best and highest religious guide / checklist. But, watch-out, Christians who accept this premise can still make a huge botch of things, as we saw with Protestant pro-slavery people and with Protestant pro-choicers.

The Born Again Christians profess the contents of John 3. 16 and then they declare themselves to be saved: they declare themselves to be assured of attaining heaven. But when we look at scriptures such as Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 16. 19-31, Malachi 3. 5, Malachi 4. 1, 1 Cor 6. 9-10, 1 Cor 5. 11-13, 1 Cor. 11. 27, Revelation 20. 12-15 and 2 Thess 1. 8 we see that Christianity teaches that faith without works is dead. John 3. 16 is not wrong; it's just that the sort of belief mentioned in John 3. 16 is true belief, not superficial belief, and true belief is backed up with good works. Declaring yourself saved merely because you profess John 3. 16, and then ignoring all the other scriptures which tell us faith without works is dead, is, don't you think, heresy? Well, either it is or else it isn't. A heresy is not merely a false doctrine, it is a false doctrine which is so seriously false that it the leads the people who subscribe to that false doctrine straight to perdition. So what do you think? If a person professes the truth of John 3. 16, but let's say he doesn't look so good in relation to what is written in 1 Cor 6. 9-10, is he still assured of salvation? Or let's suppose a person professes John 3. 16, but if doesn't look so good in terms of what is written in Matthew 25. 31-46, then is he delusional when he insists he is saved? So there's lots of confusion in Christianity. Suppose all you need to do in order to be saved is to profess John 3. 16, then what's the point of having 1 Cor 6. 9-10, or Matthew 25. 31-45, or 2 Thess 1. 8 which says one must know God and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ to escape hellfire. Yes, but if you don't have to do any good works, if you only need to profess John 3. 16, then you can just go ahead and pay no heed to 2 Thess 1. 8. A big problem with saying that 2 Thess 1. 8 is something you can just go ahead and ignore is that you would be leading people to hellfire if you are mistaken about 2 Thess 1. 8. Well, 2 Thess 1. 8 is either trustworthy or else it is untrustworthy. If you are going to say 2 Thess 1. 8 is untrustworthy then why would you say 2 Thess 2 is trustworthy? 2 Thess 1. 8 – fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you say 2 Thess 1. 8 is untrustworthy, then why would you say John 15. 6 is trustworthy? John 15. 6 has Jesus saying that those who do not abide in Him are like sticks given to the flames. It just seems sort of crazy and confused to say 2 Thess 1. 8 is untrustworthy but John 15. 6 is trustworthy. And then if you say 2 Thess 1. 8 and John 15. 6 are both untrustworthy, then why would you say Matthew 25. 31-46 is trustworthy? I'll give you the abridged version, only Matthew 25. 41-46 which Jesus saying of Himself,

`Then He will also say to them on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; naked and you did not clothed Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me." Then they also will answer Him, saying "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?" Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me." And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.'

So, if a Christian says St. Paul is untrustworthy in 2 Thess 1. 8 – where he mentions hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then why would this Christian say Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is trustworthy? In Jeremiah 31. 31-34 God says that He will write his new covenant on the hearts of His people and then all of God's people will know God. So it just seems crazy and confused for a Christian to say 2 Thess 1. 8 is untrustworthy but Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is trustworthy. And if a Christian says Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is untrustworthy – if a Christian says you can't trust these words saying God will write His new covenant on the hearts of His people, then why would this Christian say Matthew 26. 28 is trustworthy? Matthew 26. 28 gives us Jesus' words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...'

So, you see, 2 Thess 1. 8 is either trustworthy or else it is untrustworthy. And if a Christian rejects 2 Thess 1. 8, if he says it is untrustworthy, then he is on the same road that Judas was on: he's on the road to rejecting Christ and Christianity.

So, it's settled then! 2 Thess 1. 8 is trustworthy. Hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ is sound and true. You see, 2 Thess 1. 8 fits right in with John 15. 6, Matthew 25. 31-46, Revelation 20. 12-15, Jeremiah 31. 31-34, Ezekiel 36. 24-28, Malachi 3. 5, Malachi 4. 1 etc. If you reject John 15. 6 and Matthew 25. 31-46, why would you accept John 14. 23-26? John 14. 23-26 has Jesus saying that those who love Him keep His words and those who don't love Him don't keep His words. Don't you think that when a Christian rejects John 14. 23-26 that we have a Christian who likes the road that Judas took?

If a Christian says 2 Thess 1. 8 is untrustworthy, then why would he say 2 Thess 2 is trustworthy? 2 Thess 2 deals with a falling away prior to the Second Coming of Christ, and with the Antichrist, and with people suffering under strong delusion. So you don't want to be delusional in your religion. You don't want to be deluded about the Roman Catholic Church. You don't want to say Rome is sunk in heresy and say Rome drags people down to perdition if in fact Rome leads people to heaven and is God's True Church. But you don't want to be delusional in thinking Rome leads people to heaven if in fact Rome has fallen into heresy and drags souls down to perdition.

So, if a person declares himself to be saved, declares himself to be a Born Again Christian, because he professes what is written in John 3. 16, but if he doesn't look so good in regards to Matthew 25. 31-46, and doesn't look so good in regards to 1 Cor 5. 11-13, and 1 Cor 6. 9-10, and 1 Cor 11. 27, and Galatians 1. 8-12, and 2 Thess 1. 8, and doesn't look so good in regards to Revelation 20. 12-15, which specifically says people are judged according to their works, then he indeed doesn't look so good! If a person insists he is on the road to heaven when in fact he is on the road to perdition, then could it be he is delusional when he insists he is saved merely because he can repeat aloud John 3. 16? And we recall that 2 Thess 2 pertains to the Antichrist, a falling away, and delusional people.

The Atheists would get on my case because I push the doctrine that heaven and hell exist. And you really stir things up when you insist that heaven and hell exist. The Atheists look at the Roman Catholic Church and they see an organization which is lost and misguided, but since heaven and hell don't exist, according to the Atheists, then Rome's mistakes don't lead anyone to suffer hellish punishments in the afterlife. But, if heaven and hell do exist, then we have two extreme options with the Roman Catholic Church – and with every other church and sect on earth - and you're just lost in delusional thinking, assuming still that heaven and hell exist, if you can not understand that there are two extreme options with the Roman Catholic Church. Option 1) Rome is beautiful and wonderful, because, though Rome makes a few mistakes, nevertheless, Rome never leads anyone to perdition, but Rome always leads people to the beautiful and wonderful heaven, because Rome has not fallen into heresy, and therefore Rome is glorious, and beautiful and wonderful and sacred and holy etc., etc. And then we have option 2) Rome is vile and monstrous: Rome is foul and beastly and satanic, because Rome promises heaven to people but Rome drags souls straight down to perdition, because Rome has fallen into heresy.

Well, the Roman Catholic Church has either fallen into heresy or else the Roman Catholic Church has not fallen into heresy.

Once you accept the premise that heaven and hell exist, then you get to choose between two extreme options for any church, or any sect, e.g., Sunni Islam, or Shia Islam, for Hinduism, or the Anglicans, or the Baptists, or the Jehovah's Witnesses etc. Take the Mormon Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Option 1) It is beautiful and wonderful because it leads people to the beautiful wonderful heaven, because it has not fallen into heresy. Option 2) It is foul, monstrous, vile, hideous, beastly and satanic, because it promises heaven to people but it drags souls straight down to perdition, because it has fallen into heresy.

Well, the Mormons have either fallen into heresy or else the Mormons have not fallen into heresy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is either beautiful and holy and wonderful because it leads people to heaven, because it has not fallen into heresy, because it is the church which Christ founded on a rock, to recall Matthew 16. 13-19, or else it is foul and monstrous and satanic because it drags souls down to perdition because it has fallen into heresy, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, it is not God's True Church.

So, the Atheists would be angry with me for stirring things up, for frightening people, for droning on about heaven and hell. According to the Atheists I'm pushing myths, religious lies, superstitions. The Atheists would prefer that I and other Christians be like Judas. The Atheists want Christians to renounce Christ and Christianity and stop believing in heaven and hell. The Atheists are like: Be like Judas you damned Christians or else we will say nasty things about you!

Let's draw the connection between religion and a crime scene. Look at the Madeline McCann case, where a little girl went missing in Portugal in 2007. Well you first try to establish the facts of the case. Who turned their cell phones off and for how long? When you turn your cell phone off this doesn't prove you are moving a dead body and doesn't prove you want to hide your location from the authorities, but if there is something suspicious about the time and duration that your cell phone was turned off, then there's something suspicious about you. And just how trustworthy are these cadaver dogs? In religion we're also trying to establish some facts. How trustworthy is the Roman Catholic Church? Rome says the real Virgin Mary appeared in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917. And how trustworthy is 1 Timothy 4. 1-3? This scripture deals with heretics giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, among other things.

Christians just can't get anywhere - we can't even establish if we are on the road to heaven or on the road to perdition - if we can not even correctly determine if the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church or not. Suppose the people who say that Rome is not God's True Church are heretics. Suppose these people lead souls away from heaven and straight to perdition by pushing heresy. Heretics might or might not be as evil as pedophiles and murderers, but the actions of heretics lead to infinitely worse evils. When a heretic cheats people out of the beautiful eternal heaven and drags people down to the darkness and torment of eternal perdition with his heresy, then that is just incomprehensibly horrific. Heretics don't mean to cheat people out of heaven. Heretics are trying to explain the True Faith. But if the upshot of someone's wretched, vile, monstrous incompetency is something that is satanic and horrid and eternally horrific, then the end result of one's vile incompetency is indeed hideous and beastly and diabolical and eternally horrific.

Or, on the other hand, suppose the Roman Catholics are heretics, suppose they are the vile incompetents who destroy souls for all eternity, suppose they are the vicious, vile, monstrously incompetent heretics, who, despite their good intentions, despite all their pious pleadings, cheat people out of the beautiful eternal heaven and drag souls down to eternal perdition, all because of their wretched, satanic incompetency, all because of their foul, diabolical, vile, monstrous heresy.

Lots of Christians say that lots of Christians from lots of different Christian churches will go to heaven. Whether this is true or not might be difficult to prove or disprove with 100% certainty. But we can say with 100% certainty that if the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome is God's True Church, then Rome will lead you to heaven if you could just have enough sense to obey Rome. But if you rebel against God's True Church, if you rebel against Rome, then you are risking hellfire: so it is insane, crazy, delusional, idiotic, moronic to rebel against Rome if Rome is God's True Church.

Rome is either God's True Church or else Rome isn't God's True Church. The Popes either have the power to bind and loose, or else the Popes don't have the power to bind and loose. It might be a little difficult to prove with 100% certainty if Rome is God's True Church or if Rome is a foul heresy which drags souls to eternal perdition, but Christians who trust the scriptures ought to be able understand that Rome has either fallen away from the True Faith or else Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith.

The scriptures tell us there is a True Church and a True Faith. The True Church is a group of people who lead people to heaven. Recall Matthew 16. 13-19. Recall the phrase 'there is one body' in Ephesians 4. 4. This means there is one True Church. And what is the True Faith? Start with 2 Thess 1. 8 - hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There are 2 options with 2 Thess 1. 8: it's either trustworthy or else it is untrustworthy. If a Christian says it is untrustworthy, then why would this Christian say that any of the following scriptures are trustworthy: John 15. 6, 2 Thess 2, Matthew 25. 31-46, John 14. 23-26, Luke 13. 3, Revelation 20.12-15, Acts 26. 13-18, Galatians 1. 8-12, 1 Cor 6. 9-10, Revelation 22. 18-19, Matthew 26. 28, Jeremiah 31. 31-34, Ezekiel 36. 24-28, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16? If a Christian rejects these scriptures then he has become like Judas: he has renounced Christ and Christianity. The Atheists say it is wise to reject those scriptures. The Atheists say it is good for Christians to be like Judas and renounce Christ and Christianity. But if a Christian says it is wise to be like Judas, how insane is that Christian? Suppose such a Christian a heretic. What a stretch of the imagination! Suppose he cheats people out of the beautiful eternal heaven with his vile satanic incompetency and with his vile satanic heresy. A pedophile, and a murderer, perpetrate evil for a little while, but a vile satanic heretic with his vile satanic incompetency cheats people out of eternal heaven and leads them to eternal perdition.

The scriptures are fairly easy to summarize. Let's suppose we have a Christian who refuses to repent, he insists on doing and saying anti-Christian things. Then other Christians are supposed to gently admonish him, gently remind him that it is evil and anti-Christian to do the things he is doing, and then if he still refuses to repent after the gentle admonishment, Christians are to give him the silent treatment, and deny him the communion bread and wine. Christians are to excommunicate him until he repents. The excommunicated have good reason to repent. One must partake of the communion bread and wine in order to attain heaven and escape perdition, John 6. 53-56. The Born-Again Christians say this is all wrong. They say once you're saved then you're saved. The Born-Again Christians say, or at least some of them say, you don't have to abide by what is written in 1 Cor 5. 11-13, 1 Cor 11. 27, 1 Cor 6. 8-10 etc. Once you profess what is written in John 3. 16, then you're saved, according to some or many Born Again Christians. So that sort of theology is either beautiful and wonderful because it leads people to heaven and because it is sound theology not heresy, or else it is vile, monstrous, satanic evil, because it is foul heresy which drags souls down to perdition.

The scriptures are very harsh against sinners who refuse to repent. Look for instance at 1 Cor 6. 9-10, Luke 13. 3, Revelation 20. 12-15, Matthew 25. 31-46, Malachi 3. 5, Malachi 4.1 etc. The scriptures are quite Mild and Forgiving and Liberal and Progressive in the sense that it is no big deal if you are an ex-fornicator, an ex-reviler, an ex-adulterer, an ex-sodomite, an ex-blasphemer, an ex-Sabbath violator, an ex-covetous person, an ex-heretic, an ex-pro-choicer, an ex-porn star etc. But the scriptures are very tough on those who refuse to repent, putting these in a fast lane to perdition.

Should a minister announce that pro-choicers will be refused communion in his church, then he's right to refuse to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner by giving the bread and wine to Christians who support the evil pro-choice philosophy. But he will drive people from his church. And then if refuses to give to communion to Sabbath violators, then more people will be driven out of his church. And then if he refuses to give communion to people who married divorced people, because that's adultery, then he drives more people out of his church. And if he refuses to give communion to people who watch anti-Christian TV and who watch immoral movies, and who listen to anti-Christian music, then he drives more people from his church. Not only is it a sin to be a drunkard, a reviler, a fornicator, a covetous person, a Sabbath violator - no buying or selling or laboring on the Sabbath - but it is a sin to celebrate the Eucharist with people who make no secret that they commit these sorts of sins and who refuse to repent. So the same must be excommunicated - 1 Cor 5. 11-13, 1 Cor 11. 27 and 1 Cor 6. 9-10 say what they say. Excommunication which means being given the silent treatment by the members of the True Church, and being denied the Eucharistic bread and wine by the True Church, until the excommunicated person repents. And, again, John 6. 53-56 says one must partake of communion in order to escape perdition.

Christianity has been around for a very long time and yet millions of Christians struggle to understand what exactly Christianity is. If Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is God's True Church, if the Popes have received the power to bind and loose, then Christianity is whatever the Popes say it is. If you reject that definition of Christianity, if you insist the Eastern Orthodox Church is God's True Church, if you insist the Eastern Orthodox Church has not fallen into heresy, if you insist people will attain heaven and escape perdition if they could just have enough sense to never rebel against God's True Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church...

So, though Christianity has been around for a very long time, there is no end of disagreement among Christians over what exactly Christianity is. Take the cross and the crucifix. You don't want to be lost in sacrilege and heresy on the issues of the cross and the crucifix. Or take the Church of England. It either leads people to heaven because it is not lost in heresy, or else it leads people to perdition because it is lost in heresy. If you guess wrong, then, the botch would be like a chef who says that to make a truly great Shepherd's Pie you start with the mashed potatoes and your favorite beef in a large mixing bowl, add 3 cups of bleach, a liter of gasoline, a liter of motor oil, a big splash of battery acid...only it is infinitely worse to go to eternal perdition by following a church which is sunk in heresy than it is to make a truly nasty tasting Shepherd's Pie.

We have scriptures which say love covers a multitude of sins, so even if you determine that an ancestor of yours was in a church which had fallen into heresy, it's not as if that ancestor has no hope for salvation at the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is described in Revelation 20. 12-15. It's easy enough to imagine God will have mercy on some little kid should he or she die young and before he or she has a chance to find God's True Church and True Faith. But this is of course somewhat speculative! It's just best to avoid altogether joining any church which has fallen into heresy. Yes, the smart move is to just make sure you have not fallen into heresy. Recall Matthew 26. 28, where Christ says at the Last Supper: 'This cup is My blood of the new covenant....' And then we turn to Jeremiah 31. 31-34 and we learn that God will write His new covenant on the hearts of His people. You can't possibly fall into heresy if you have God's law written on your heart. So be sure to check and double-check to make sure that you have God's law inscribed on your heart.

My books push the doctrine that the falling away mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Thess 2 happened a long time ago. I don't say that kids or juveniles who die young before they have had a chance to renounce the heresies they were taught by their parents have no chance for receiving Divine mercy. Nevertheless, it is very important to renounce heresies and to embrace the True Faith as soon as possible. The early Christian church was benevolent.

It's very easy to assemble extracts such as the above. And then we have some simple logic: when the priests and ministers of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church etc., celebrated the Eucharist with evil kings and evil nobles, for century after century, they celebrated the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, for century after century, and of course St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27 that it is a terrible sin to celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner.

Let's look at the Roman Catholic Church. I know things get confusing when we have Traditionalist Catholics, Sedevacantists, SSPX Catholics etc. In any event the church which is led by Pope Francis I has either fallen away from the True Faith or else it has not fallen away from the True Faith. Rome is either 1) God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail against, the Church we read about in Matthew 16. 13-19, or else, 2) Rome is not God's True Church. Now if Rome is God's True Church, then the surest way for you to attain heaven and to escape perdition is to always obey Rome, always obey God's True Church. Rome says that True Christians must venerate everyone that Rome has canonized. I devote a lot of energy in my books to people like St. John of Capistrano – he tortured, murdered and spread evil lies about Jews, and St. Charles Borromeo – he tortured, murdered and slandered lots of women - accused them of witchcraft, and then we can't forget St. Pius V. - was an evil inquisitor who tortured and murdered lots of people because he didn't like their religious beliefs. Obviously religious dogmatism drives people of sound intelligence into an extreme position. If Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is God's True Church, then you can not lose: you will never be led to perdition if you always obey God's True Church, Rome. So, it would be stupid to refuse to venerate Capistrano, Borromeo and Pius V. provided Rome is God's True Church. Rebelling against God's True Church is a sure way to put yourself on the road to perdition. So you would think it would be easy to establish the irrationality of the Cafeteria Catholics. Rome is either God's True Church or else it isn't. Rome has either fallen into heresy and leads people to perdition, or else Rome hasn't fallen into heresy and Rome leads people to heaven. So obey Rome if Rome leads people to heaven: don't risk hell by rebelling against Rome if Rome is God's True Church. But renounce Rome if Rome leads people to perdition. Cafeteria Catholics rebel against one or more official Roman Catholic positions. The Cafeteria Catholics are not making any sense!

We might look at the Madeleine McCann case from 2007. A 3-year-old British girl went missing in Portugal. It has been huge news in the UK and Portugal for the last 11 years, and no doubt millions or billions of people around the world have some knowledge of the case. There are 3 basic possibilities, excluding farfetched theories like alien abduction: 1) it was an abduction by a stranger or strangers and the parents are not responsible, aside from negligence, for the abduction, 2) the little girl died by an accident, and her parents, both doctors, knowing they would face prison time and revocation of their medical licenses if they were convicted in court of criminal negligence in the death of their daughter, disposed of their daughter's body and fabricated a lie saying Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, 3) one or both of the parents are guilty of participating in the abduction of their daughter, possibly delivering her to a pedophile or to a ring of pedophiles.

I've only spent a few hours looking into the matter. Perhaps those who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours researching the case feel confident they know exactly what the facts are and know exactly what is the most logical conclusion based on the facts. It's impossible to know how to assess the guilt or innocence of both parents if one can not establish the key facts. Lots of people seem to agree that 2 dogs, one good at detecting the scent of a cadaver, and the other good at detecting the scent of human blood, indicated that a corpse and human blood was in the McCanns' rented holiday suite in Portugal, and in their rented car. This would incline one to think that Madeleine most likely died by accident, and her parents hid the body and invented a lie to conceal their criminal negligence. They were guilty of negligence by their own account, but a court would naturally have sympathy for grieving parents and would not prosecute them on a charge of negligence. So much depends on the reliability of the dogs? How often are they tested? What's their failure rate? Lots of people online seem to think the British police never seriously considered the McCanns might have sold their daughter to a ring of pedophiles. But who knows? Perhaps they were crafty in concealing their suspicions? Perhaps they were looking at all of the possibilities and were not bent solely on proving the innocence of the parents. The McCann dilemma is not completely unlike another famous dilemma: the appearance or alleged appearance of the Virgin Mary to three children in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917. As in the McCann case we have 3 possibilities, 1) Nothing supernatural occurred, 2) a benevolent supernatural event transpired, 3) a malevolent supernatural event transpired. Unless you know which of these 3 possibilities is true you can't know the truth about what actually transpired in Fatima Portugal in 1917. The apparition purporting to be Mary appeared to all three of the children – to Lucinda Santos and to her cousin Jacinto Marto, a girl, and to her young male cousin, Francisco Marto. So that sets up the situation where either all three have concocted a lie or else all three are telling the truth. Those who insist that nothing supernatural occurred will probably not be persuaded by those who insist that all 3 maintained the veracity of their accounts throughout their entire lives. And then there was the Miracle of the Sun attested by 70,000 people, so all of this seems very strong evidence to my mind of supernatural events in Portugal in 1917. Now the only question is the benevolence or malevolence of those events. St. Paul writes in Ephesians 6. 12:

`For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.'

Looking at scenario 3 - a malevolent supernatural event, an evil spirit masquerading as Mary, a spiritual host of wickedness from the heavenly places appeared to the three children in Fatima - the main problem Protestants would have with the Fatima case is that, at least in Protestant eyes, the whole Roman Catholic devotion to Mary is anti-scriptural and indeed anti-Christian. If a Conservative Protestant was to attempt to convert Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics and Jews etc. to True Christianity, he would not begin by saying they must consecrate themselves to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary. Conservative Protestants would focus on the Divinity of Jesus, and focus on worship of the Trinity, and of course Conservative though not Liberal Protestants would stress the trustworthiness of the scriptures. The scriptures tell us Jesus had brothers and sisters. Matthew 1. 25 plainly tells, more or less, that Mary was not ever-Virgin. It's a big heresy in Roman Catholicism to say Mary was not ever-Virgin. The scriptures teach that it is evil to worship anyone but God. You might argue that devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not the same thing as worshipping Mary. Rome explicitly says that Rome does not teach that Mary is God. But implicitly Rome teaches that May is God. I mean, Rome teaches the doctrine that the Bible is trustworthy, and the Bible says that only God is sinless and perfect. Rome teaches that Mary is sinless and perfect. Bible-based Christians insist all this Roman Catholic devotion to Mary is either idolatry or something which is just too close to idolatry to be part of the True Faith. At least in the eyes of Bible-based Christians, the whole concept of becoming devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary seems like Mariolatry – seems like idolatry – seems like heresy – seems like a sure road to perdition. When Bible-based Christians think of the Roman Catholic Church we tend to think of 1 Timothy 4. 1-3,

`Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.'

Yes, giving heed to deceiving spirits is something Catholics are wont to do, at least it is so in Protestants eyes. Now if Scenario 2 is the truth of the matter - if a benevolent supernatural event transpired in Fatima, in 1917 - then, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox and Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and Jews and Atheists etc., would be wise to convert to the Roman Catholic version of Christianity. Though of course there are still problems here because what version of Roman Catholicism was Mary referring to? Does she prefer the version of Roman Catholicism favored by the Sedevacantist Catholics? These people say that every pope from Pius VI onwards is a heretic and an antipope – a vicar of the devil not a vicar of Christ. Does Mary prefer that Catholics recognize but resist liberal popes such as Francis I? Does she want Catholics to both recognize and not resist Francis? What was mentioned in the Third Secret of Fatima? We're still in Scenario 2 now – the scenario which says the True Virgin Mary appeared to the three children in Fatima - if the True Virgin Mary prophesied that the Second Vatican Council would be an evil council, then doesn't this uphold the Sedevacantist Catholic position? If the Mother of Jesus actually appeared to the 3 children in Fatima, if there was no evil imposture by some malevolent spirit masquerading as Mary, then you would have to assume God wants everyone to convert to Roman Catholicism. But to which form of Roman Catholicism? If the post Vatican II popes are in a big conspiracy to hide what Mary actually told Lucinda Santos back in 1917....If the post Vatican II popes are concealing the fact from faithful Catholics that heaven considers them to be evil impostors, well, Hollywood can't invent better plot-twists than this sort of drama....In the Third Secret a person dressed all in white – presumably a pope – presumably a pope favored by Mary - is killed by bullets from evil men before a huge cross. People say this can not refer to John Paul II, but if it can be proven that the post Vatican 2 Pope John Paul 2 ultimately died from complications from the original bullet wound, a wound received albeit decades before he actually died, then he still died from that original wound. I deal with this issue in Chapter 5 of Constitutional History of the Western World.

All this info on Portugal and Rome ties in with another case involving the abduction of a child. Believing a Jewish infant was dying, a Catholic servant of the Jewish family baptized the infant into the Roman Catholic faith. The infant, Edgardo Mortara, survived his illness and lived with his family in Italy until he was 6 years old. Then, in 1858, the Roman Catholic Church removed Edgardo from the custody of his Jewish parents and never returned him. There are two key scenarios here, 1) The Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church; Roman Catholicism is the True Faith which leads people to heaven, so Rome did the will of God and also did Edgardo a big favor when Rome removed Edgardo from his family of Jewish heretics, 2) The Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church: Roman Catholicism is a heresy which drags souls down to perdition. The Roman Catholic Church didn't do Edgardo or his family any favors when Rome abducted Edgardo from his Jewish family.

If you can not establish the key fact pertaining to this case – whether the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church or not – then you can not correctly analyze this case.

It is relatively easy to establish the key facts surrounding the barbaric nature of the abortion procedure. What exactly is a pro-choice Christian's problem? Why can't he understand that the pro-choice philosophy is anti-Christian? Recall that 2 Thess 2 deals not only with a falling away, and with the Antichrist, but also with strong delusion. Do you think it is possible that the pro-choice Christians are suffering under a strong delusion? Could it be his political agenda is at war with his religious agenda, and in this war his sanity is one of the first casualties? Matthew 7. 13-16 has Jesus saying,

`Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...'

2 Thess 1. 8 mentions hellfire for those who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Don't you have to be brain dead to think you can obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ and also support the pro-choice philosophy? If you don't accept 2 Thess 1. 8 why would you accept John 15. 6? They say more or less the same thing. If you don't accept John 15. 6 why would you accept John 14. 23-26 or John 1. 1-14? Why would you be any sort of Christian?

There are a million ways to give a paraphrase of Christianity. There is nothing wrong with starting with the scriptures which tell us Jesus is God, note for instance, Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10 and 1 Timothy 3. 16. The Old Testament says the Son is God in Isaiah 9. 6. Psalm 2 doesn't specifically say the Son is God, but the word `begotten' in Psalm 2 has you thinking the Son is of the same essence as the Father, hence, since the Father is God so is the Son. If the scriptures which tell us Jesus is God are untrustworthy, what is left of Christianity? Why should we trust any scripture in the New Testament? But if Jesus is God, if the New Testament is trustworthy in the scriptures which tell us Jesus is God, why would we then conclude any scripture in the New Testament is untrustworthy? For instance, if Jesus is God, why would one reject as untrustworthy: Matthew 25. 41-46? Matthew 25. 41-46 has Jesus saying of Himself,

`Then He will also say to them on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; naked and you did not clothed Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me." Then they also will answer Him, saying "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?" Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me." And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.'

Matthew 25. 41-46 has many theologians thinking about faith and works. St. Paul insists we are saved by faith not by good words, and of course this has one thinking St. Paul means one is saved by true faith not by superficial faith, words with no action. One is saved by true faith and not by works, but true faith produces good works. It is somewhat odd that so many people seem to have difficulty with this. They immediately seem to think that a verbal profession of faith is somehow proof of legitimate faith. John 1. 1-14 tells us, in so many words, that Jesus created the universe. If this is true then there is no reason to reject John 14. 23-26. John 14. 23-26 says those who love Christ keep His words and those who don't love Christ don't keep His words. Matthew 7. 13-16 has Jesus saying,

`Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...'

You will know them by their fruits means: you will know them by their works. You will know if a person's profession of faith is legit or phony by his works.

The Muslims insist Jesus is the Messiah but they say it is blasphemy to say Jesus is God. The Muslims say it is blasphemy to say God has a son, or a Son. Therefore the Muslims reject the Old Testament scriptures of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6. Again, Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 are scriptures which tell us Jesus is God.

The Jews of course not only say Jesus is not the Messiah but they insist he is a false prophet, and is certainly not God. I've been over in other books of mine how the Mosaic Law can be an eternal law if parts of it are eternally enforced and the rest of it is put into eternal abeyance. Ezekiel 20. 25 tells us God gave the Jews bad law because He was angry with their rebelliousness. But if the Mosaic Law was still God's Law then the Jews would have to obey all of it, including the parts about executing Sabbath violators, executing homosexuals, executing children who curse their parents, executing enchantresses etc. The clearest Old Testament scripture telling us there will be a new covenant replacing the old covenant is found in Jeremiah 31. 31-34.

As I say there are a million ways to paraphrase Christianity. If John 1. 1-14 is trustworthy, again, this tells us Jesus created the universe, then you would have to assume John 14. 23-26 is trustworthy. John 14. 23-26 tells us those who love Christ keep His words, and those who don't love Christ don't keep His words. So, if Jesus is God, and, and if John 14. 23-26 is trustworthy, then recalling Matthew 25. 41-46 from above, you would have to conclude Matthew 25. 41-46 is trustworthy, and so are Jesus' words in John 15. 6, where Jesus tells us that those who don't abide in Him are like sticks given to the flames. Well, Jesus is God or else Jesus isn't God. John 1. 1-14 is either trustworthy or else it isn't. But once you determine Jesus is God, or, to put things another way, if Jesus truly is God then the more extreme or controversial statements in the New Testament become trustworthy. I mean if John 15. 6 is true, then why would 2 Thess 1. 8 be untrue? This scripture mentions fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Well, if John 1. 1-14 is true, and if John 14. 23-26 is true, and if Matthew 25. 41-46 is true, and if John 15. 6 is true, then it is rather insane to then conclude that 2 Thess 1. 8 must be untrue!

Christ told us in Revelation 2. 9 that He knows the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews but are a synagogue of Satan. Well, of course, Jesus forgave the Jews for the crucifixion, but we still have these options to consider, 1) Jesus is the True Messiah, the Divine begotten Son mentioned in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6, or 2) Jesus is a false Messiah. Now if Jesus is a false Messiah, non-Christians are right to reject Him. But if Jesus is the True Messiah, if Jesus is the Divine begotten Son mentioned in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6, if Jesus is God, if John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc., are trustworthy, then, while the Jews certainly don't worship an image of Satan, and they certainly don't pray to Satan, nevertheless, they have stumbled into heresy: they teach doctrines which lead people away from heaven and which instead drag people down perdition, and, while one might have pristine motives and the best of intentions, nevertheless, if you teach doctrines which lead people away from heaven and drag them down to perdition, then you are doing something satanic. And of course you can use the same reasoning against all non-Christian religions, not just the Jews. If Jesus is indeed God, if Jesus is indeed the Second Person in a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and if a person teaches the doctrine that Jesus is not God, if one says or implies that Jesus is a bogus deity, if one says or implies that Jesus is a fraudulent god, when, in fact Jesus is the True God, the Divine Son, then one is doing something which is satanic. Teaching a satanic heresy, teaching doctrines which lead people away from heaven and which lead people to perdition, is satanic. Furthermore - and we're still in the scenario where Christianity is true, where Jesus is God - when you fall to your knees to worship the Creator of the Universe, but if you worship any sort of god who is not the Christian Trinity, if you worship false gods such as Allah, or Buddha, if you worship any false god, then you worship a beastly god: false gods are beastly because false gods lead people away from heaven and straight to perdition. That's malevolent. That's beastly, you see. Recall the earlier discussion of Revelation 13. 4-8. In that scripture we have some exposition about people worshipping beasts with multiple heads. It's unlikely that people would literally worship some literal beast with multiple literal heads, so we're looking a figurative interpretation of these scriptures. If you worship a false god who drags people down to perdition, though you insist you worship the True Creator of the Universe, then it certainly would appear that you're worshipping some beast. Christians say Allah is a false god, so Allah leads people to perdition. Then when one falls to his knees to worship Allah one worships a false god not the True God, hence one, in figurative language worships this multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 4-8.

If John 1. 1-14 is trustworthy, if Jesus did in fact create the universe, then you would have to assume John 14. 23-26 is trustworthy, and hence you would have to assume Christ's words in Matthew 16. 13-19 are trustworthy. Matthew 16. 13-19,

`When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the son of Man, am? So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and earth, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

The Roman Catholic Church has for many centuries claimed to be this Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail. Rome is either trustworthy in this claim or else Rome is untrustworthy. If Rome is trustworthy, if Rome is God's True Church, then Rome never leads anyone to perdition, Rome always leads people to heaven. Rome can make mistakes but none of these mistakes lead people to perdition. Protestants often think that people from lots of different church go to heaven. This might be sound or unsound, but it is an opinion based on emotion not on logic. Logic says that if Rome is God's True Church then you should always obey Rome: you can't lose if you always obey Rome: you will never be led to hell if you always obey Rome, because Rome is God's True Church. But if you rebel against God's True Church you might go to hell. So one ought to venerate all of the controversial people Rome has canonized, if in fact Rome is God's True Church. It would be, quite simply, stupid, moronic, idiotic etc., to rebel against any of Rome's official teachings if you always go to heaven if you obey Rome and if you might go to hell if you rebel against Rome. Now if you are simply unable to obey one or more of Rome's official doctrines, then is this because you suspect that Rome is not God's True Church? Or is it because you are confident Rome is God's True Church but you think it is wise to rebel against God's True Church? The Jewish Encyclopedia,

`CAPISTRANO, JOHN OF: Franciscan monk; born at Capistrano, Italy, 1386; died 1456. Owing to his remarkable power as a popular preacher, he was sent by Pope Nicholas V. (1447-55) as legate to Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, with the special mission to preach against the Hussites...Knowing how easy it is to excite the masses by appealing to their prejudices, Capistrano, in his discourses, accused the Jews of killing Christian children and of desecrating the host...His admirers called him the "scourge of the Judeans"...In Silesia the Franciscan was most zealous in his work. When Capistrano arrived at Breslau, a report was circulated that one Meyer, a wealthy Jew, had bought a host from a peasant and desecrated it. Thereupon the local authorities arrested the representatives of the Breslau Jewish community and confiscated their houses and property for the benefit of the city. The investigation of the so-called blasphemy was conducted by Capistrano himself. By means of tortures he managed to wring from a few of the victims false confessions of the crimes ascribed to them. As a result, more than forty Jews were burned at the stake in Breslau June 2, 1453. Others, fearing torture, committed suicide, a rabbi, Pinheas, hanged himself. The remainder of the Jews were driven out of the city, while their children of tender age were taken from them and baptized by force. In Poland Capistrano found an ally in the archbishop Zbigniev Olesniczki, who urged Casimir IV. Jagellon to abolish the privileges which had been granted to the Jews in 1447...This led to persecutions of the Jews in many Polish towns. Capistrano was canonized in 1690.'

Jesus is quite clear in Matthew 7. 13-16,

`Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...'

Of course if Rome is God's True Church then it is foolish to rebel against God's True Church and refuse to venerate Capistrano.

But if Rome is a usurping church, claiming to be God's True Church, but is not God's True Church, being delusional on this matter, if Rome has fallen into heresy and leads people to perdition...

Protestantism was of course founded by people who insisted that Rome was not God's True Church, who insisted that Rome had fallen into heresy and led people to perdition. Capistrano is hardly the only controversial person Rome orders people to venerate as a saint. Consider St. Pius V. Christopher Hare (pseudonym of Mrs. Marian Andrews) wrote in her `Men and Women of the Italian Reformation' (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York):

"On January 7, 1566, Michele Ghislieri, the fanatical Inquisitor, was elected Pope, under the title of Pius V, and from that moment every distinguished Italian who held reformed views was in peril of his life...Carnesecchi was taken a captive to Rome and lodged in the prison of the Holy Office...the rack was freely employed...Through fifteen long months of imprisonment and frequent torture, these awful examinations continued, until at length, on August 16, 1567, sentence was delivered by the tribunal of the Inquisition...Carnesecchi was borne to the Ponte St. Angelo, amidst the execrations and curses of the fanatical rabble which crowded round him, but he continued his courage and composure to the last. They clothed him in a "sanbenito," the garment of heresy, painted over with flames and devils...He was first beheaded, then burnt in the flames of the Inquisition...by means of spies and the seizing of all private letters and papers, the Inquisition had already the most intimate knowledge of all that Carnesecchi and his friends had ever said or written...It is true that the case of Giulia Gonzaga was already pre-doomed, for on the accession of Pius V (Michele Ghislieri) in 1566 he had come into possession of a chest containing a great number of letters to Carnesecchi and others. On reading these papers, the Pope had declared that "if he had seen these before her death, he would have taken good care to burn her alive."'

The typical modern Protestant probably has Roman Catholic friends and it is always problematical to discuss religion with friends. Who wants to turn friends into enemies? But if St. Paul is trustworthy in Acts 26. 13-18, and trustworthy in Colossians 2. 8-10, and trustworthy in 1 Corinthians 6. 9, then you would have to assume he is trustworthy in Galatians 1. 8-12 – you're accursed if you alter St. Paul's doctrines. So, if Catholics alter St. Paul's doctrines, and if one is damned for altering those doctrines, then, you would think, a true friend would want to warn some friends. St. Paul says, 1 timothy 3. 2, that a bishop must be a man of one wife. Rome says a bishop must be a man with no wife. The founders of Mormonism said a bishop may be a man with more than one wife. For centuries Rome has called the Inquisition the Holy Office. In case you aren't aware, it is sacrilege and blasphemy to declare holy something which is evil. If you don't think the Inquisition was evil, I'll reprint some info to help you out of your delusion. Dr. Lea wrote in his 'A History of the Inquisition in Spain' (Macmillan, 1906):

`The Inquisition, however, regarded the conviction of a heretic as only the preliminary to forcing him to denounce his associates; the earliest papal utterance, in 1252, authorizing its use of torture, prescribed the employment of this means to discover accomplices and finally Paul IV and Pius V decreed that all who were convicted and confessed should, at the discretion of the inquisitors, be tortured for this purpose...It was, in reality, the torture of witnesses, for the criminal's fate had been decided, and he was thus used only to give testimony against others. The Spanish Inquisition was, therefore, only following a general practice when it tortured in capu alienum, those who had confessed their guilt. No confession was accepted as complete unless it revealed the names of those whom the penitent knew to be guilty of heretical acts, if there was reason to suspect that he was not fully discharging his conscience in this respect, torture was the natural resort. Even the impenitent or the relapsed, who was doomed to relaxation, was thus to be tortured and was to be given clearly to understand that it was as a witness and not as a party, and that his endurance of torture would not save him from the stake. The Instructions of 1561, however warn inquisitors that in these cases much consideration should be exercised and torture in caput alienum was rather the exception in Spain, than the rule as in Rome. In the case of the negativo, against whom conclusive evidence was had, and who thus was to be condemned without torture, the device of torturing him against his presumable accomplices afforded an opportunity of endeavoring to secure his own confession and conversion. We have seen this fail, in 1596, in the Mexican case of Manuel Diaz, nor was it more successful in Lima, in 1639, with Enrique de Paz y Mello, although the final outcome was different...He was sentenced to relaxation and torture in caput alienum; it was administered with great severity without overcoming his fortitude, and he persisted through five other publications as fresh evidence was gathered. Yet at midnight before the auto da fe, in which he was to be burnt, he weakened. He confessed as to himself and others and his sentence was modified to reconciliation and the galleys, while good use was made of his revelations against thirty of his accomplices...At a Toledo auto de fe we find Isabel Canese, aged seventy-eight, who promptly confessed before the torture had proceeded very far, and Isabel de Jaen, aged eighty who, at the fifth turn of the cords fainted and was revived with difficulty. In 1607 at Valencia, Jaime Chuleyla, aged seventy-six, after confessing certain matters, was accused by a new witness of being an alfaqui; this he denied and was duly tortured...Isabel Madalena, a girl of thirteen, who was vaguely accused of Moorish practices, was tortured, overcame the torture and was penanced with a hundred lashes.'

Dr. Lea,

"On secular jurisprudence the example of the Inquisition worked even more deplorably. It came at a time when the old order of things was giving way to the new - when the ancient customs of the barbarians, the ordeal, the wager of law, the wer-gild, were growing obsolete in the increasing intelligence of the age, when a new system was springing to life under the revived study of the Roman law, and when the administration of justice by the local feudal lord was becoming swallowed up in the widening jurisdiction of the crown. The whole judicial system of the European monarchies was undergoing reconstruction, and the happiness of future generations depended on the character of the new institutions. That in this reorganization the worst features of the imperial jurisprudence - the use of torture and the inquisitorial process - should be eagerly, nay, almost exclusively adopted, should be divested of the safeguards which in Rome restricted their abuse, should be exaggerated in all their evil tendencies, and should, for five centuries, become the prominent characteristic of the criminal jurisprudence of Europe, may safely be ascribed to the fact that they received the sanction of the Church. Thus recommended, they penetrated everywhere along the Inquisition; while most of the nations to whom the Holy Office was unknown maintained their ancestral customs, developing into various forms of criminal practice, harsh enough, indeed, to modern eyes, but wholly divested of the more hideous atrocities which characterized the habitual investigation into crime in other regions. Of all the curses which the Inquisition brought in its train this, perhaps, was the greatest - that, until the closing years of the eighteenth century, throughout the greater part of Europe, the inquisitorial process, as developed for the destruction of heresy, became the customary method of dealing with all who were under accusation; that the accused was treated as one having no rights, whose guilt was assumed in advance, and from whom confession was to be extorted by guile or force. Even witnesses were treated in the same fashion; and the prisoner who acknowledged guilt under torture was tortured again to obtain information about any other evil-doers of whom he perchance might have knowledge. So, also the crime of `suspicion' was imported from the Inquisition into ordinary practice, and the accused who could not be convicted of the crime laid to his door could be punished for being suspected of it, not with the penalty legally provided for the offence, but with some other, at the fancy and discretion of the judge. It would be impossible to compute the amount of misery and wrong, inflicted on the defenseless up to the present century, which may be directly traced to the arbitrary and unrestricted methods introduced by the Inquisition and adopted by the jurists who fashioned the criminal jurisprudence of the Continent. It was a system which might well seem the invention of demons, and was fitly characterized by Sir John Fortescue as the Road to Hell."

Dr. Lea wrote in 'History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages,'

Thus habituated to the harshest measures, the Church grew harder and crueller and more unchristian. The worst popes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries could scarce have dared to shock the world with such an exhibition as that with which John XXII. glutted his hatred of Hughes Gerold, Bishop of Cahors...he was partially flayed alive and then dragged to the stake and burned...When, in 1385, six cardinals were accused of conspiring against Urban VI. the angry pontiff had them seized...When it came to the turn of the Cardinal of Venice, Urban intrusted the work to an ancient pirate...with instructions to apply the torture till he could hear the victim howl; the infliction lasted from early morning till the dinner-hour, while the pope paced the garden under the window of the torture-chamber, reading his breviary aloud...The strappado and rack were applied by turns but though the victim was old and sickly, nothing could be wrenched from him save... "Christ suffered for us!'...Urban's competitor, known as Clement VII. [the anti-pope Clement VII. of the 14th century - not pope Clement VII. of the 16th century] was no less sanguinary. When, as Cardinal Robert of Geneva, he exercised legatine functions for Gregory XI., he led a band of Free Companions to vindicate the papal territorial claims. The terrible cold-blooded massacre of Cesena was his most conspicuous exploit, but equally characteristic of the man was his threat to the citizens of Bologna that he would wash his hands and feet in their blood.'

Don't you think Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 16. 19-31 and Revelation 18 are terribly important in explaining some very important doctrines of Christianity? Suppose we have a Protestant minister who owns lots of mansions and jet planes, and suppose he's all about telling people that if they send him money then God will bless these gullible or generous people and will make them rich. Don't you think this Protestant minister has contempt for what we read in Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 16. 19-31 and Revelation 18. John 14. 23-26 says those who love Christ keep His words. If you have contempt for what Christ said in Matthew 25. 31-46....Revelation 18 likens merchants to sorcerers – I suppose advertising stirs up covetousness, and covetousness leads to perditions. If Christianity is true, it makes no sense for you to violate the teachings of Christianity. That will not work to your advantage. Let's suppose you consult a medium and she puts you in touch with one of your departed ancestors, and suppose you learn from this ancestor that the afterlife is wonderful. If you don't know that the Last Judgment is far in the future - it comes after the Millennium, which comes after the Second Coming - and if you think your ancestor is already in heaven, and is competent to give religious advice, then you're not thinking too clearly. It has yet to be determined - as the Last Judgment is still far in the future \- if this ancestor will be damned or redeemed. The mere fact you are consulting a medium, and don't seem to know that this is a terrible sin...

The attributes of Allah are described in the Koran, whereas the attributes of the Christian God - a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - are described in the Old and New Testaments. To say that Allah and the Christian God are the same God is about as crazy as saying Aphrodite is the same god as Zeus; it's about as delusional as saying that Buddha and Jim Jones are the same deity.

Consider that St. Paul told men to pray with their heads uncovered and he told women to pray with their heads covered. Now if St. Paul's authority is from God, then one would be wise to obey his doctrines. And if his authority is not from God.... St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters. Chapter 1 of Constitutional History of the Western World reviews the logic saying this was sound advice. If he advised slaves to rebel against their masters they would have, most likely, been put to death by cruel means. The Romans crucified people who participated in slave rebellions. Even if a slave won his freedom via rebellion, how was he supposed to feed and clothe his family? Becoming a soldier in the Roman army was no occupation for a Christian, and remaining a slave is certainly a better option for a Christian woman in pagan Rome than becoming a prostitute. St. Paul also said he did not permit a woman to have authority over a man. Don't you think the most logical interpretation of this runs as follows: St. Paul knew the Christian churches would become corrupt; he knew they would fall away from the True Faith; he knew a time of terrible trial would hit the earth – the Great Tribulation – and since women are the main defenders of children – of people who can't think for themselves in spiritual warfare – he – I mean God is guiding St. Paul, and via this guidance God wanted women excluded from the clergies of churches, because these would become corrupt churches, God wanted women excluded from the clergy because it is easier to see the truth of a controversy if you are not beholden to a vested interest – it's easier to see that a church is corrupt if you are not a priestess in that corrupt church. On the one hand we have some very simple logic: if a Church which excludes women from the priesthood leads people to heaven, because that Church is God's True Church, because it upholds the True Faith, then it makes no sense for a woman to rebel against that Church by insisting that it include women in its clergy. It makes no sense to risk hellfire by rebelling against God's True Church. Now if a church which excludes women from its clergy is a church which has fallen away from the True Faith, and is simply not God's True Church, and therefore it is a church which leads people to perdition, then it makes no sense for a woman to want to be a priestess in this worthless church. Why would any sane woman want to be a priestess in an evil church which leads people away from heaven and drags them down to perdition?

Perhaps the most complicated part of Christianity deals with excommunicating people. John 6. 53-56 tells us communion is essential to attaining heaven and escaping perdition. And it seems reasonable to assume that if you celebrate communion with someone who either you know is unworthy, or someone you ought to know is unworthy to receive communion, then you celebrate communion in an unworthy manner, and 1 Corinthians 11. 27 tells us this is a terrible sin. So, there's pressure to never celebrate communion with anyone if you have some doubts about them. No one's perfect of course. Obviously you would never celebrate communion with someone you saw as a heretic, someone who you believe leads people to perdition. But what about people who have committed villainous crimes? If a church tells such a person he / she can never receive communion, because of their past villainy, then that church might be risking Divine anger for that position. Suppose a kid ate lots of lead paint during his childhood, or suppose a kid is beaten everyday by a drunken father during his childhood, or suppose a football player got his brains scrambled playing football, and suppose one of these people murders someone. Well you got to give them a chance to attain heaven: you can't deny then communion bread and wine forever. A Church has to do some investigating, and has to put someone with big villainous sins on their rap sheet on probation, where they don't receive communion until they get off probation. But how long do you keep someone with villainous crimes on their rap sheet on probation? Months? Years? Decades? It's a complicated issue.

The Atheist in particular and the non-Christian in general is convinced Christianity is a superstition, a myth. We might look at two historians, Gibbon and Josephus, who testify to the authority of the Old and New Testaments. The doctrine that the Son is God is founded on Old Testament scriptures such as Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6. It is also founded on New Testament Scriptures such as John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10 and 1 Timothy 3. 16. A powerful articulation of the doctrine that Jesus is God comes from the pen Edward Gibbon. The reader should understand that Athanasius was, many centuries ago, the supreme defender in Christendom of the doctrines which say that the Son is equal to the Father, that Jesus is God, that is, God the Son, and which say that John 1: 1-14, Col 2: 8-10, I Tim 3: 16, and Isaiah 9: 6 are all quite true and trustworthy. The following is found in the 37th chapter of Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

`The example of fraud must excite suspicion: and the specious miracles by which the African Catholics have defended the truth and justice of their cause, may be ascribed, with more reason, to their own industry, than to the visible protection of Heaven. Yet the historian, who views this religious conflict with an impartial eye, may condescend to mention one preternatural event, which will edify the devout, and surprise the incredulous. Tipasa, a maritime colony of Mauritania, sixteen miles to the east of Caesarea, had been distinguished, in every age, by the orthodox zeal of its inhabitants. They had braved the fury of the Donatists; they resisted or eluded the tyranny of the Arians. The town was deserted on the approach of an heretical bishop: most of the inhabitants who could procure ships passed over to the coast of Spain; and the unhappy remnant, refusing all communion with the usurper, still presumed to hold their pious, but illegal, assemblies. Their disobedience exasperated the cruelty of Hunneric. A military count was despatched from Carthage to Tipasa: he collected the Catholics in the Forum, and, in the presence of the whole province, deprived the guilty of their right hands and their tongues. But the holy confessors continued to speak without tongues; and this miracle is attested by Victor, an African bishop, who published a history of the persecution within two years after the event. "If anyone," says Victor, "should doubt of the truth, let him repair to Constantinople, and listen to the clear and perfect language of Restitutus, the sub-deacon, one of the glorious sufferers, who is now lodged in the palace of the emperor Zeno, and is respected by the devout empress." At Constantinople we are astonished to find a cool, a learned, and unexceptional witness, without interest, and without passion. Æneas of Gaza, a Platonic philosopher, has accurately described his own observations on these African sufferers. "I saw them myself: I heard them speak: I diligently inquired by what means such an articulate voice could be formed without any organ of speech: I used my eyes to examine the report of my ears: I opened their mouth, and saw that the whole tongue had been completely torn away by the roots; an operation which the physicians generally suppose to be mortal." The testimony of Æneas of Gaza might be confirmed by the superfluous evidence of the emperor Justinian, in a perpetual edict; of Count Marcellinus, in his Chronicle of the times; and of Pope Gregory the First, who had resided at Constantinople, as the minister of the Roman pontiff. They all lived within the compass of a century; and they all appeal to their personal knowledge, or of public notoriety, for the truth of the miracle, which was repeated in several instances, displayed on the greatest theatre of the world, and submitted, during a series of years, to the calm examination of the senses. This supernatural gift of the African confessors, who spoke without tongues, will command the assent of those, and of those only, who already believe, that their language was pure and orthodox. But the stubborn mind of an infidel is guarded by secret, incurable suspicion; and the Arian, or Socinian, who has seriously rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, will not be shaken by the most plausible evidence of an Athanasian miracle.'

In one of his footnotes Gibbon tells us the miracle was made more emphatic in the particulars surrounding a mute boy who had never spoken before his tongue was torn out, but who did speak after his tongue was removed.

Eusebius - The Father of Church History \- and Josephus - one of the great historians from antiquity, inform us of amazing prodigies just prior to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Eusebius wrote in The History of the Church, Penguin Classics, p. 65,

`After the Saviour's Passion, and the cries with which the Jewish mob clamoured for the reprieve of the bandit and murderer and begged that the Author of Life should be removed from them, disaster befell upon the entire nation...the overruling power of God was still patient, in the hope that at last they might repent of their misdeeds and obtain pardon and salvation; and besides this wonderful patience, it granted miraculous warnings from God of what would happen to them if they did not repent...Turn then to Book VI of Histories, and read what he [Josephus] says,

"First a star stood over the city, very like a broadsword...at three in the morning so bright a light shone round the Altar and the Sanctuary that it might have been midday...a cow brought by the high priest to be sacrificed gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Temple courts, while at midnight it was observed that the east gate of the inner Sanctuary had opened of its own accord - a gate made of bronze and so solid that every evening twenty strong men were required to shut it...a supernatural apparition was seen...what I have to relate would have been dismissed as an invention had it not been vouched for by eyewitnesses...Before sunset there was seen in the sky over the whole country chariots and regiments in arms speeding through the clouds and encircling the towns...One Jesus son of Ananias, a very ordinary yokel, came to the feast at which every Jew is expected to set up a tabernacle for God. As he stood in the Temple he suddenly began to shout: `A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Sanctuary, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against the whole people!' Day and night he uttered the cry as he went through the streets...though scourged till his flesh hung in ribbons, he neither begged mercy nor shed a tear, but lowering his voice to the most mournful tones answered every blow with: `Woe to Jerusalem!'"'

To offer an adequate paraphrase of Protestantism you might have to offer an adequate paraphrase of the New Testament, but it is tough to paraphrase the New Testament. For instance, St. Paul tells us in Romans 10. 9 that `If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.' This is simple enough to understand, but it is a huge mistake to conclude this is the only scripture in the New Testament which pertains to attaining heaven and escaping perdition. In Galatians 1. 8-12 St. Paul tells us that even an angel from heaven is damned if he corrupts the doctrines which St. Paul learned directly from Christ. In 2 Thess 1. 8 St. Paul mentions hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The words `obey the Gospel' imply one has to obey the commandments and teachings given by Christ and the apostles in order to be saved, or at least one must not teach heresies, and one must at least make an honest effort at obeying the Gospel. 2 Thess 1. 8 is very similar to John 15. 6 and Luke 13. 3. John 14. 23-26 tells us those who love Christ keep His words and those who do not love Christ do not keep His words. The words of Christ in Matthew 25. 31-46 are all about the need to do good works in order to attain heaven and escape perdition. The non-Christian might argue there is a blatant contradiction between what St. Paul says in Romans 10. 9 and with what is written in 2 thess 1. 8, Revelation 20. 12-15, Matthew 25. 31-46 etc. But the Christian who insists that there are no contradictions in the New Testament insists that if you take the right interpretation of St. Paul's words in Romans 10. 9, then there are no contradictions between Romans 10. 9 and any other scripture in the New Testament. You do this by insisting that mere lip service in saying one has faith is worthless. You have no faith if you are lacking in works. In the New Testament the terms `faith' and `works' are used as synonyms, not as words with different meanings.

We might look at some evidence which says many Protestants have fallen away from the True Faith. We might begin with some evidence which says that the Protestants got off on the wrong foot many centuries ago. The following two extracts from Buckle, one dealing with the fury of the English in imposing the Church of England on Scotland, and the other pertaining to the suffocating zeal of Scottish ministers imposing their version of Presbyterianism on Scotland, reveal to us how terribly far astray a church can wander when the lost sheep are led by lost pastors. Henry Thomas Buckle wrote in History of Civilization in England,

`For, the reigns of Charles II. and James II. were but repetitions of the reigns of James I. and Charles I. From 1660 to 1688, Scotland was again subjected to a tyranny, so cruel and so exhausting, that it would have broken the energy of almost any other nation...The people, deserted by every one except the clergy, were ruthlessly plundered, murdered, and hunted, like wild-beasts, from place to place. From the tyranny of the bishops...they abhorred episcopacy more than ever...Sharp, a cruel and rapacious man...was raised to the archbishopric of St. Andrews. He set up a court of ecclesiastical commission, which filled the prisons to overflowing...In 1670, an act of parliament was passed, declaring that whoever preached in the fields without permission should be put to death...In 1678, by the express command of government, the Highlanders were brought down from their mountains, and, during three months, were encouraged to slay, plunder, and burn at their pleasure, the inhabitants of the most populous parts of Scotland...They spared neither age nor sex...they even stripped them of their clothes and sent them naked to die in the fields. Upon many, they inflicted the most horrible tortures. Children, torn from their mothers, were foully abused; while both mothers and daughters were subjected to a fate, compared to which death would have been a joyful alternative. It was in this way, that the English government sought to break the spirit, and to change the opinions, of the Scotch people...The bishops...were known to have favoured, and often to have suggested, the atrocities which had been committed...in an address to James II., the most cruel of the Stuarts, declared that he was the darling of heaven, and hoped that God might give him the hearts of his subjects, and the necks of his enemies.'

The following from Buckle's History of Civilization in England inclines one to think that living under savage Highlanders and English bishops would be preferable to living under the Presbyterian divines of Scotland,

`According to the Presbyterian polity, which reached its height in the seventeenth century, the clergyman of the parish selected a certain number of laymen...They, when assembled together, formed what was called the Kirk-Session, and this little court, which enforced the decisions uttered in the pulpit...was more powerful than any civil tribunal. By its aid, the minister became supreme. For whoever presumed to disobey him was excommunicated, was deprived of his property, and was believed to have incurred the penalty of eternal perdition...The clergy interfered with every man's private concerns, ordered how he should govern his family...spies were appointed...Not only the streets, but even private houses, were searched, and ransacked, to see if any one was absent from church while the minister was preaching. To him, all must listen, and him all must obey. Without consent of his tribunal, no person might engage himself either as a domestic, or as a field labourer...To speak disrespectfully of a preacher was a grievous offense; to differ from him was heresy; even to pass him in the street without saluting him, was punished as a crime...All over Scotland, the sermons were, with hardly an exception, formed after the same plan, and directed to the same end. To excite fear, was the paramount object. The clergy boasted, that it was their special mission to thunder out the wrath and curses of the Lord...They delighted in telling their hearers, that they would be roasted in great fires, and hung up by their tongues. They were to be lashed with scorpions, and see their companions writhing and howling around them. They were to be thrown into boiling oil and scalding lead...surrounded by devils, mocking and making pastime of their pains...These visitations, eclipses, comets, earthquakes, thunder, famine, pestilence, war, disease, blights in the air, failures in the crops, cold winters, dry summers...were, in the opinion of the Scotch divines, outbreaks of the anger of the Almighty against the sins of men...According to this code, all the natural affections, all social pleasures, all amusements, and all the joyous instincts of the human heart were sinful, and were to be rooted out. It was sinful for a mother to wish to have sons...it was sinful to please yourself, or to please others...When mixing in society, we should edify the company, if the gift of edification had been bestowed upon us; but we should by no means attempt to amuse them. Cheerfulness, especially when it rose to laughter, was to be guarded against; and we should choose for our associates grave and sorrowful men...It was a sin for a Scotch woman to wait at a tavern; it was a sin for her to live alone; it was a sin for her to live with her unmarried sisters...It was a sin to visit your friend on Sunday; it was likewise sinful either to have your garden watered, or your beard shaved...To go to sleep on Sunday, before the duties of the day were over, was also sinful...Bathing...was a particularly grievous offense...Durham, in his long catalogue of sins, mentions as one "the preparing of meat studiously, that is, when it is too riotously dressed for pleasing men's carnal appetite..."...To be poor, dirty, and hungry, to pass through life in misery, and to leave it with fear, to be plagued with boils, and sores, and diseases of every kind, to be always sighing and groaning, to have the face streaming with tears and the chest heaving with sobs, in a word, to suffer constant afflictions...was deemed a proof of goodness...Thus it was, that the national character of the Scotch was, in the seventeenth century, dwarfed and mutilated.'

Jeremiah 31. 31-34 tells us that even the least of God's people can understand the Divine Law. So, the Divine Law can't be all that complicated! Throughout the Middle Ages Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers were supremely convinced they understood the New Law / True Faith, hence they looked with abhorrence upon those who disagreed with them. If you are convinced that you understand the True Faith, if you are convinced that you know how to attain heaven and how to escape perdition, then it would be natural to tend to see those people who disagree with you as devil-dogs, as agent of Satan, as heretics who lead the gullible away from heaven and straight to perdition, if he says you are mistaken and you do not understand the True Faith, and therefore you lead people to perdition, when you are firmly convinced that you do understand the True Faith. We're looking at Christians of former centuries and we're asking the question: did they understand and uphold the True Faith? Or had they fallen away from the True Faith? Henry Thomas Buckle wrote in History of Civilization in England,

`Now and then a great man arose [in the Middle Ages]...who thought that astrology might be a cheat, and necromancy a bubble; and who went so far as to raise a question respecting the propriety of drowning every witch and burning every heretic. A few such men there undoubtedly were; but they were despised as mere theorists, idle visionaries... until the latter part of the sixteenth century, there was no country in which a man was not in great personal peril if he expressed open doubts respecting the beliefs of his contemporaries...men who are perfectly satisfied with their own knowledge will never attempt to increase it. Men who are perfectly convinced of the accuracy of their opinions, will never take the pains of examining the basis on which they are built. They always look with wonder, and often with horror, on views contrary to those they have inherited from their fathers; and while they are in this state of mind, it is impossible that they should receive any new truth which interferes with their foregone conclusions.'

Millions of Protestants claim they uphold the True Faith, but you have to look at these things in an unbiased manner. Not every Protestant in the world violates the Sabbath Day, but is there a single Protestant denomination which excommunicates those of members who violate it? Working on the Sabbath day, or buying and selling on the Sabbath, are examples of violations of the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. There are many Protestant denominations which recognize the evil of abortion and the justice of the pro-life position, but are there any Protestant sects in the world which will excommunicate its pro-choice members? The New Testament scriptures are rather amazing in how ferociously they hammer the rich. Acts 2. 44 and Acts 4. 32 mention equal sharing of the wealth in the early Church. Luke 18. 24-27, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16. 19-31 and Matthew 25. 34-46 are relentless in damning the rich. Recall St. Paul's words in 2 Thess 2. 10, which basically say that the able-bodied who refuse to work should be left to starve rather than given alms. St. Paul took a similar sort of hard line in I Tim 5. 8, where he says those who refuse to work and provide for their families have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers. Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 25. 34-46,

`Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in...inasmuch as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to Me." Then He will also say to those on His left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in...inasmuch as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to Me. And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."'

Malachi 3. 5, an Old Testament scripture, is consistent with New Testament doctrines. It takes a hard line against those who oppress aliens. The concept of a Church which controls all the money of all the members in that Church, and which watches the morals of everyone in that Church, conjures up images of narrow-minded bigots perpetrating massive fraud in stealing the life savings of gullible rubes. Obviously, a church will tend to steal people's money - and it will certainly lead souls to perdition - if it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But what can you do? The scriptures are perfectly clear in damning the rich! It's not as if St. Paul is unclear in I Corinthians 6. 9-10. It's not as if Christ is unintelligible in Matthew 25. 31-46. It's not as if the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Luke 16. 19-31, is difficult to understand. Protestants ignore these scriptures because Protestant tradition tells them to ignore these scriptures, rather as Roman Catholic tradition says the Popes can never be heretics: they can never lead people to perdition but they always lead people to heaven; rather as Roman Catholic tradition says it is a mortal sin for priests to marry or for people to eat meat on Friday. So much of theology boils down to learning the difference between sound laws and doctrines which come from God and evil laws and worthless doctrines invented by human beings.

Apropos of the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2, we know that in the 4th century, there was a change, because in the first 3 centuries Christians didn't torture and burn their enemies, whereas in the succeeding centuries people under the sign of the cross used the rack and the stake to enforce the civil and the canon laws. In my other books we've been over the cruel methods used by people like Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian and their Catholic successors. We've been over the barbarous laws of the Lutherans and the Calvinists in the 16th century: these people were not like the kind and gentle Christians we read about in the New Testament. Therefore when we are looking for an interpretation of 2 Thess 2 it is natural to begin the search in the 4th century.

The aristocrats were the most licentious class of people in France before the Revolution, but Tocqueville said that after the Revolution, the aristocrats, at least those who hadn't lost their heads, transformed themselves into the most puritanical class in France. In one of Laura Ingalls Wilder's books we read that a man whipped his son because the lad had taken a sled and drove it down a snowy hill on the Sabbath Day. If Americans are flogged in the 19th century for having a little fun on the Sabbath, and if 19th century preachers of the gospel also preach slavery and segregation, then a reaction against religion might be expected to transpire, such that teachers will not be permitted to read the Bible in the public schools in the 20th and 21st centuries.

2 Thessalonians 2 deals with a man of sin / son of perdition – presumably this is the Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 2. 18, who is presumably this beast mentioned in Revelation 19. 19 – and 2 Thess 2 also deals with strong delusion and a falling away – presumably a falling away from the True Faith. As I wrote in Chapter 1 of Constitutional History of the Western World, many commentators insist that the Temple in Jerusalem will need to be rebuilt before the Antichrist can be revealed. 2 Thess 2 tells us the man of son / son of perdition will sit in the holy place showing himself to be God. But the holy place, the Temple, is found within human beings. As St. Paul tells us, in 1 Corinthians 3. 16-7, the temple of God resides within each Christian, or at least within each True Christian. True Christians – as opposed to Not-Quite-Legit-Christians have the Divine Law / New Covenant written on our hearts. Recall Christ's words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new Covenant...' Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is the first mention in the Bible of a New Covenant to amend the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Law. In this New Covenant God will write His Law on the hearts of His people. The suspicion is the Antichrist will `sit in the holy place' by usurping a place in people's hearts. One might imagine that the Antichrist will attempt to write the Law of the Devil in God's Temple – in people's hearts. But, True Christians, those who have God's new law written on their hearts, will of course not be led astray by some hellish impostor promoting himself as God.

Big problems began under the sign of the cross in the 4th century. The Roman Empire, now run by people untied under the sign of the cross inflicted laws having cruel and barbaric punishments on people. Prior to the 4th century the laws of the Roman Empire were often ferocious under the pagans, but from the 4th century onwards the laws were still ferocious, only now they originated not from pagans but from people under the sign of the cross. What needed to happen was for good Christian to excommunicate the evil Christians: the cruel soldiers, murderous monks, evil priests, bloodthirsty emperors, vicious nobles etc. The scriptures are quite clear. Christians are not to connive at evil. Good Christians are not to hold communion with Christians who perpetrate evil. But, for century after century, the best people under the sign of the cross held communion with evil kings, evil nobles, evil peasants, evil hangmen, evil inquisitors, evil slave owners etc. Will even the kindly and altruistic yet conniving people under the sign of the cross go to perdition? The scriptures are quite clear, see for instance 2 Thess 1. 8, John 15. 6, 2 Thess 2 and Luke 13. 3 – you don't want to fall away from the True Faith.

The Book of Revelation is very dramatic and not dull at all in regards to the mark of the beast and the seal of God. The cross either reflects no evil, because God says it is sacred, or else it reflects some evil, because God says it is not sacred, and because there was a lot of evil perpetrated over the centuries by people under the sign of the cross. If the cross is sacred, if it is holy and reflects no evil, then one should recall the seal of God in Revelation 9, which saves one from torments when it is on one's forehead. If the cross reflects evil then one should recall Revelation 14. 11 and the mark of the beast. If one puts the mark of the beast on one's forehead - one burns in hell forever! On the other hand, if one has the seal of God on one's forehead, one is saved from months of horrible torture – see Revelation 9. So, if one tries to build a case saying the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast, one mentions the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross over the centuries, arguing that the cross is like the Nazi swastika. The cross of Christ is mentioned in the New Testament as something which is sacred, but one can argue that this cross of Christ is something spiritual, not something material, like a material cross. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but this doesn't make the cross, a pagan instrument of torture, or a representation of the same, sacred in the eyes of God! Or does it? Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 certainly tell us that the cross of Christ is sacred. But does it make sense to then say that these scriptures must absolutely mean, with no possibility of error, that a material cross, and every image of a cross, every image of the pagan instrument of torture that we call a cross - is sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is sacred to the Creator of the Universe?

We have a Case 1 and a Case 2. And are both terribly interesting.

Case 1 says it is a sacrilege to call a material cross / the sign of the cross evil, because the sign of the cross and material crosses are sacred, and it is a sacrilege to call sacred things evil. And, furthermore, it is evil to drop hints saying the cross is the mark of the beast. Case 1 says it is evil to either suggest or proclaim that people will burn in hell for eternity should they put the mark of a cross on their foreheads or right hands. Case 1 says you have the seal of God – see Revelation 9 - which protects one from torment, if you have the mark of a cross on your forehead.

Case 2 says it is a sacrilege to say that the cross is the seal of God, or to call the sign of the cross sacred, because, in fact, the cross is evil, and it is a sacrilege to say that evil things are sacred. Case 2 says the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast. If indeed the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast, then every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition. Why so? To attain heaven and to escape perdition one must be in the True Church. The True Church is comprised of people who are saints, people who will escape perdition and attain heaven, you see. The True Church is not going to tell you that the evil mark of the beast, something which results in people burning in hell forever, is a sacred symbol! The True Church is just never going to do that! So, if you are in a church which says the cross is sacred – when in fact the cross is the evil mark of the beast! - then you are not in the True Church, you are not in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, see Matthew 16. 13-19, rather, you are in some false church, some false church which is not the True Church, therefore, you are in some worthless false church which leads people away from heaven and to perdition. Therefore you are in a satanic church, though you are probably deluded enough to insist it is neither worthless nor satanic!

And of course there are other options for the sign of the cross than the above two. But the above two are the most interesting scenarios, the most dramatic, and the most apocalyptic scenarios for the sign of the cross.

And of course there are many issues which pertain to salvation and damnation other than the issue surrounding sign of the cross. When you attempt to define the True Faith and the True Church, there are so many pitfalls you must avoid! Even if your positions are perfectly correct positions on the sign of the cross and a thousand other issues, if you stray into satanic heresy on one issue which impacts one's salvation / damnation, if you are guilty of corrupting the True Faith because of it, and if you are cast into hell for corrupting the True Faith, then it will be no great consolation to you that you were right about the cross and right on a thousand other issues!

There are lots and lots of issues pertaining to heresy and the True Faith which impact one's salvation or one's damnation, you see. Still, we have to determine if the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross over the centuries are reflected in the cross, rather as the Nazi evils are reflected in the Nazi swastika? Or is the cross, the material cross, and the sign of the cross, divorced from all evil and corruption, because they are sacred to the Creator of the universe?

If we knew for a fact that the Church of Rome, or the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Church of England, or at least one church under the sign of the cross leads people to heaven, then we could be quite confident in asserting that the cross is sacred. But if every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, if every church under the sign of the cross has been subverted by Satan and has fallen away from the True Faith, then our confidence in the sign of the cross wouldn't be so absolute. We'll look at the cross in more detail later. For now I just want to sketch the outline of the issues. We are very interested in the True Church and the True Faith. If you commit sacrilege you are not obeying the True Faith! What is sacrilege and what isn't? Is there any scriptural evidence which says material crosses are sacred? Rather like the crimes of the Nazis being reflected in the Nazi swastika, are the crimes perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross over the centuries reflected in the cross? Jules Michelet writes in his 'History of France,'

`Every one set the red cross upon his shoulder; every red garment, every piece of red cloth, was torn up for that purpose. Who could enumerate the children and the old women who prepared for war? Who could reckon up the virgins, and the old men trembling under the load of years? You would have laughed to see poor men shoeing their oxen like horses, and drawing their slender stock of provisions and their little children in cars, and these little ones, at every town or castle they perceived, asking in their simplicity, `Is not that Jerusalem?'...Amongst so many thousands of men, there were not eight horses...the whole combined body descended the valley of the Danube, Attila's route, the great thoroughfare of the human race. They lived by pillage upon the way, paying themselves beforehand for their holy war. All the Jews they could lay hold on they tortured to death, deeming it their duty to punish the murderers of Christ before they rescued his tomb. Thus, they arrived ferocious, drenched with gore, in Hungary and the Greek Empire...At last, after the crusaders had for eight days marched barefooted round the walls of Jerusalem [recall Jericho] the whole army began the assault...on Friday the 15th of July, 1099, at 3 o'clock on the day, and at the very hour of the Passion, Godefroy de Bouillon descended from his tower upon the walls of Jerusalem. The city being taken, the massacre was frightful...The native Christians had suffered the most cruel treatment at the hands of the infidels during the siege...The crusaders...in the blind fervor of their zeal, thought that in every infidel they met in Jerusalem, they smote one of the murderers of Jesus Christ...Six hundred thousand men had taken the cross; they were but 25,000 when they left Antioch; and when they had taken the holy city, Godefroy remained to defend it with 300 knights. There were a few more at Tripoli with Raymond, at Edessa with Beaudoin, and at Antioch with Bohemond. Ten thousand men beheld Europe again; what became of the rest? It was easy to find their traces; they were visible through Hungary, the Greek Empire, and Asia, along a road white with bones.'

Where does one begin a paraphrase of Protestantism? Take the contention that the New Testament is full of hate-speech, for example, it makes women subject to men. That's an absurd contention! Yes, Peter and Paul tell women to obey their husbands, but those same apostles also tell men to love their wives. And if a man loves his wife he will do what she asks, assuming she's making reasonable requests, and perhaps even if she makes somewhat unreasonable requests. Or take the contention that the New Testament supports slavery. Peter and Paul told slaves to obey their masters and look to the afterlife. What were they supposed to say? If they told Christian slaves to take up arms against their masters the result would have been a bloodbath. The Roman Empire was a huge slave empire. Whenever slaves in the Roman Empire tried to cast off their chains the Roman Empire was very adept at crushing the rebels with great cruelty. You could expect to be crucified if you were a slave and you failed in your rebellion against Rome. It's true that corrupt Christians in later centuries would twist the words of the New Testament and say that the New Testament supported the African slave trade. But this is merely an example of corrupt Christians corrupting the New Testament. Peter and Paul could have ordered the Christian masters to immediately liberate their slaves. But how was a freed slave supposed to support his family in those times? Women could become prostitutes and men could join the Roman army, but these are not fit occupations for Christians. Prior to the 11th century most Christians called themselves Catholics. In the 11th century the struggle for authority between the Emperor in Constantinople and the Pope in Rome led to the Civilization under the sign of the cross being divided into two main factions. Those who saw the Pope as supreme became Roman Catholics. Those who saw the Emperor as supreme because Greek Orthodox, aka Eastern Orthodox. The next major division of Christendom came in the 16th century with the advent of Protestantism. Rome was clear in stating the Popes inherited St. Peter's authority to bind and loose. For centuries prior to the 16th, Rome was clear in stating the Church of Rome and only the Church of Rome was the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, Matthew 16. 13-19. Rome is either right about this or else Rome is wrong. If Rome is right, then to attain heaven and escape perdition you only have to obey Rome's official doctrines. But if Rome is not the True Church, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, then Rome leads Catholics to perdition. So much in Christianity involves making a decision between two clear-cut choices. The New Testament tells us Jesus is God – John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc. And these New Testament get some support from the Old Testament in Psalm 2 - the Father begat the Son, thus the Son is of the same Species, so to speak, as the Father, hence, the Son is God since the Father is God - and then there's Isaiah 9. 6, Daniel 9. 24-27 etc. One has to determine if one ought to worship Jesus as God, or if one ought to refuse to worship Jesus as God. You have to choose between one of two choices. If one determines that Jesus is God – that is God the Son, the Second Person in a Divine Trinity – then you might move on to scriptures such as Matthew 16. 13-19, Luke 13. 3, John 15. 6 and 2 Thess 1. 8 etc., or one might move on to the question of the Church of Rome. Is Rome the Church which Christ founded on a rock? It's not at all clear how any king or any parliament or senate or president could ever rival the authority of the Pope if in fact the Church of Rome is God's True Church. If Rome is God's True Church, then the Pope has supreme authority on earth. People known as Cafeteria Catholics insist that the Church of Rome is God's True Church, but they also insist it is wise to sometimes rebel against the official doctrines of God's True Church, when their consciences dictate a rebellion is necessary. Cafeteria Catholics don't accept the following logic: if Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you cannot lose, you cannot be led to perdition, you will always go to heaven, if you always obey the True Church. If Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then, aren't you acting like an insane person if you think it is wise to sometimes rebel against God's True Church, Rome? I mean, you can't lose if you always obey God's True Church, Rome! But you can lose, you can go to hell, if you rebel against Rome. You might certainly go to hell if you rebel against God's True Church, therefore it makes no sense to ever rebel against the True Church. If Rome is God's True Church, then you simply can't lose if you always obey Rome. Now if Rome has fallen away and leads people to perdition, if the Church of Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then renounce Rome, don't remain in the Church of Rome as a Cafeteria Catholic, or an any sort of Roman Catholic. If you remain in a church which leads people to perdition then you will be led to perdition, obviously! There is just no logical basis for the Cafeteria Catholic position. At least I can't find one. You have pro-choice Catholics, pro-gay-marriage Catholics, pro-birth-control-Catholics etc., etc.

The Church of Rome says it is a sacrilege for a priest to ever disclose the details of the confession he hears. If a priest learns in the confessional that a man can't stop himself from abusing children, the canon law of the Church of Rome prevents him from telling anyone what he learned in the confessional, which means he can't take steps to prevent further harm to kids. This teaching has no basis in the New Testament. About this falling away from the True Faith, the apostle Paul writes in 2 Thess 2,

`Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him...Let no one deceive you by any means: for that Day [the Second Coming of Christ] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God...and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.'

If one accepts 2 Thess 2 as trustworthy why would one reject 2 Thess 1. 8? 2 Thess 1. 8 mentions hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's not clear how long God torments your more virtuous sorts of non-saints. Saints are those who escape perdition and attain heaven. The damned are those who do not attain heaven and who do not escape perdition.

The way in which the child abuse scandal which recently hit the Roman Catholic Church is evidence which says the Church of Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, and is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, is not perfectly obvious. Rome certainly does not teach the doctrine that child abuse is good thing. Various Bishops connived at evil. They didn't call the police on perpetrators because the publicity would be embarrassing to the Church of Rome, so they failed to protect children from perpetrators. But does this prove the entire Roman Catholic Church has fallen away from the True Faith? Even among the apostles there was a Judas. If one out of every 12 Roman Catholic bishops is a Judas, and if 11 out of every 12 is a True Christian who teaches the True Faith, then it would not be sane to renounce Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church asserts the confessions made in the confessional during the sacrament of penance must remain secret. The priest who hears the confession is said to commit sacrilege if he divulges these secrets to a third party, such as the police. A confessional system whereby the priest is allowed to notify certain people, but not the police, that a person who has made a confession is dangerous and needs to be watched might be a valuable system. I mean, under the current system, a priest might hear a man confess that he can't stop himself from raping little boys, or little girls, or women, or hear some sort of other confession to evil, and, under the current system, the priest is not allowed to tell anyone what he heard. If a violent criminal knows the priest will go straight to the police after he makes his confession, then the violent criminal won't make his confession. But if the violent criminal knows the priest will only tell a few people that the criminal needs to be watched, then, in moments of remorse, or in moments of fear of hellfire, the criminal will be motivated to make his confession. He won't make his confession if he knows the priest will go straight to the police, or if the people who are watching him go to the police. Most people quite naturally want vicious criminals captured and punished. But it's more important to first stop the criminal from hurting more people and creating more victims. There is some logic which says it would be a sacrilege to violate a new confessional system which did a great deal of good. If the new system helped to keep violent criminals in check, then one might say it would be a sacrilege to ruin this system. The system would be ruined if the people sworn to only observe the criminal became aggressive and reported the criminal to the police. The system relies on the logic that even the worst criminals might fear hell once in awhile, or they might suffer from a guilty conscience and moments of remorse, and therefore, in these moments, though the criminal won't be motivated enough to make a full confession to the police, he might be motivated enough to make a confession to a priest, and then his confession will result in his being put under surveillance. In fleeting moments of remorse or fear of hell, he will accept the surveillance as long as he knows he won't go to prison. The upshot is that the criminal won't make any more victims in the future, because people are now watching him, people who will not report him to the police. Since he's being watched closely he won't be hurting any more little boys or little girls by the evil urges which he can't control but which sometimes take control of him. If such a system was effective in protecting people from evil, then one might say it would be a sacrilege to do something which destroyed the system.

In any event, that's not the system Rome uses. Rome says it is a sacrilege for a priest to ever tell a third person what he heard a person confess in the confessional. This means that if a priest hears a man confess that he rapes little boys or little girls, then the priest must keep the man's confession absolutely secret. He can't tell anyone. Can't tell the parents, can't tell the police, can't tell anyone. Rome says he commits a sacrilege, a mortal sin which leads the offender to hell, if he tells anyone. Could it be that God has some hostility toward institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, which keep the secrets of men who rape children very very secret? Perhaps Christ and the apostles never taught the doctrine that the secrets of murders and rapists had to be kept secret? Perhaps the Roman Catholic Church has fallen away from the True Faith? The Bible is hostile toward Roman Catholic doctrine, and therefore Rome became hostile toward those who read the Bible. You would think that the idea that the Roman Catholic Church had fallen away from the True Faith taught by Christ and the apostles would enter the heads of most people when the Roman Catholic Church began to burn people at the stake for reading the Bible.
Paul Johnson writes in `A History of Christianity', p. 273,

`In the West, the clergy had begun to assert an exclusive interpretive, indeed custodial, right to the Bible as early as the ninth century; and from about 1080 there had been frequent instances of the Pope, councils and bishops forbidding not only vernacular translations but any reading at all, by laymen, of the Bible taken as a whole...attempts to scrutinize the Bible became proof presumptive of heresy - a man or woman might burn [at the stake] for it alone.'

I suppose there are still some Protestants in the world who would say that you are terribly confused, at best, and are rather satanic at worst, if you can not see that Rome fell away from the True Faith when Rome was threatening to burn people at the stake should they defy Rome's orders, such as her order prohibiting people from reading the Bible.

My books push the idea that one has fallen away from the True Faith if one perpetrates evil, or if one holds communion with people who support or perpetrate evil. Consider the pro-life position. It is really quite Liberal and Progressive! It doesn't ask that women who have had abortions be indicted on murder charges. It doesn't demand that abortionists be given the electric chair. The pro-life position merely asks the State to step in and prevent the killing of unborn human beings. The pro-choice position, however, is really quite savage and barbaric, the pro-choice position tells the State: KEEP AWAY FROM THAT ABORTIONIST WITH THE KNIFE WHEN HE IS PREPARING TO KILL! To my mind a church falls away from the True Faith when it gives the bread and the wine to pro-choice people, i.e., when it fails to excommunicate pro-choice people. And a church which has fallen away from the True Faith leads people to perdition. If there is a church under the sign of the cross which excommunicates pro-choice people I'm not aware of it. Every now and then a Roman Catholic bishop refuses to give communion to a pro-choice politician. It would really hurt many churches' cash flow if these churches adopted a strict policy of excommunicating all pro-choicers. The action of Judas in selling out Christ and the True Faith for 30 pieces of silver comes to mind whenever churches let money concerns influence their doctrines.

George Will, in a column he wrote in 1995, gave us the following account of a partial-birth abortion as witnessed by a Dayton Ohio nurse:

`The mother was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out.'

The Supreme Court, in April of 2007, outlawed partial-birth abortions. But a partial-birth abortion is actually an example of one of the more humane varieties of the various abortion procedures. A stab to the back of a baby's skull is indeed brutal but at least death arrives quite swiftly and there is less pain for the aborted child in a partial birth abortion than in some other types of abortion, types which the Supreme Court has not outlawed, abortions which the American medical profession performs every day with the blessing of the American government.

John Whitehead told us in `The Stealing of America', pp. 57-8, that there are four principal ways to abort a child. After giving the mother chemicals which impair heart function and circulation, the child will either be born dead or close to death. Sharp curettage involves mutilation with a knife. Suction curettage uses a pump which dismembers the child and sucks out his or her body parts in pieces. These latter two methods are generally used during the first trimester. During the second and third trimesters the child is often killed with a saline solution. Mr. Whitehead says the unborn child might feel all the pain that we feel as early as 77 days after conception. When killed via the saline method the child may suffer pain similar to being burned in acid, for the skin of the dead baby resembles skin burned in acid, and intense pain may linger for up to two hours before death arrives.

The Britannica (1963), in its article on human embryology states:

`The heart begins to beat at toward the end of the third week. The voluntary muscles are able to contract in response to external stimuli (touch or pin prick) after the eighth week and spontaneous movements may begin as early as 9 1/2 weeks.'

Approximately 50 million abortions have been performed in America since `Roe v. Wade' (1973). If the reader is interested in the New Law of Jeremiah 31. 31-34 he might also be interested in some other verses from the Book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 1: 5 has God saying,

`Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.'

Jeremiah 2. 33-34 has God saying,

``Why do you beautify your way to seek love? Therefore you have also taught the wicked women your ways. Also on your skirts is found the blood of the poor innocents. I have not found it by secret search, but plainly on all these things.'

Concerning wicked men, we read in the Book of Ecclesiastes some words which are relevant to the world's predicament,

`He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver...the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.'

We certainly know that a Christian judge or a Christian politician says to himself: `It is better that I should burn in hell rather than I do anything to anger Pro-Choice voters, and lose my next election', is not thinking with sharpness and clarity! You wouldn't be inclined to think such a person has a Divine Law written on his heart, recalling Jeremiah 31. 31-34.

The True Faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Divine Law, the new covenant mentioned by Christ at the Last Supper, the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34, are all different terms which describe the same thing – the True Faith. Recall 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.'

The True Church is made up of the people who have the Divine Law written on their hearts. To insist there is no True Faith and no True Church is to insist that Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is a falsehood, which is to insist that Christ's words at the Last Supper - `this cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many' – are falsehoods founded on a falsehood. And to insist that Christ's words at the Last Supper are falsehoods based on falsehoods is to reject Christianity.

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.'

Matthew 7. 13-16 has Jesus saying,

`Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...'

Revelation 20. 15,

`And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.'

Non-Christians will ask: why should they convert to Christianity when Christianity asserts their dearly depart ancestors will be cast into a lake of fire because they rejected Christianity. Taking a stab in the dark here, but it seems to me you would be wise to try to escape the fire even if your ancestors didn't! And of course, if you can't trust Revelation 20. 15, 2 Thess 1. 8 and John 15. 6 then logic would lead one to ask: why would any part of Christianity be trustworthy? Mild preachers insist this fire mentioned in John 15. 6 and 2 Thess 1.8 and Revelation 20. 15 lasts for only a split second. Mild preachers insist there is no reason a loving and benevolent Deity would subject misguided sinners who reject Christ to prolonged torments. And indeed, no doubt, one could argue it is a blasphemy of God to suggest He is cruel and that He subjects altruistic yet misguided people who reject Christ to prolonged torments. Your more ferocious preacher man or preacher lady would say even kindly non-Christians burn in agony for centuries upon countless centuries!

The Pharisees who helped to crucify Christ didn't mean to crucify the True Christ. They thought they were helping to crucify an evil false prophet who led souls to perdition. But, via their theological incompetency they helped to crucify the True Christ. And it's certainly satanic to crucify the True Christ. Christ forgave the Jews for that crime, but as long as one persists in seeing Jesus as some one unworthy to be worshipped as God, as long as one insists the scriptures which say Jesus is God are falsehoods – John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc. – then Christians will say that person is a heretic led astray by satan. And of course Christ stated in Revelation 2. 9,

`I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.'

Whenever we speak of heresy, or of a falling away, as in a falling away from the True Faith and the True Church, then the Antichrist and 2 Thess 2 come to mind. St. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2,

`Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him...Let no one deceive you by any means: for that Day [the Second Coming of Christ] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God...and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.'

Again, this son of perdition is generally seen as one and the same as the Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 4. 3, who is generally seen as none other than this beast mentioned in Revelation 19. 19 - `And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered to make war against Him [Christ]...'

What sort of delusions might ensnare the followers of the antichrist? To review the Christian scriptures we might start with 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.'

John 14. 23-26 is similar to Jerome's famous observation: `Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ'. If one accepts John 14. 23-26, then one will keep Christ's words in Matthew 16. 13-19,

`When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the son of Man, am? So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and earth, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

Matthew 16. 13-19 tells us that Jesus founded one Church - not two or three or four Churches - but, one Church, the True Church.

Jesus says 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.'

If one abides in Christ then one is in the True Church.

The True Church is not a cathedral or any sort of building. It is a collection of people, a collection of saints, who teach doctrines which lead souls to heaven, and who do not teach a single doctrine which leads souls to perdition.

The saints in the True Church are not perfect and sinless. Only God is perfect. And the True Church can teach errors. The key attribute of the True Church is that she leads souls to heaven and she does not lead anyone to perdition. Whatever mistakes the True Church makes are minor – or at least these mistakes don't lead anyone to perdition. If a church leads souls to perdition then it can not be the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

We also have the words of St. Paul in Ephesians 4. 4-6

`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.'

In St. Paul's terminology this phrase - `there is one body' - means there is only one True Church. Note Ephesians 5. 30, where St. Paul says of the Church and Christ,

`For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.'

Matthew 7. 13-16 indicates the True Church is rather exclusive,

`Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits...'

Consider Pope John XII of the 10th century. Gibbon writes,

`The most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman mitre, and their reign may have suggested to darker ages the fable of a female pope. The...son, the grandson, and the great-grandson of Marozia, a rare genealogy, were seated in the chair of St. Peter, and it was at the age of nineteen that the second of these became the head of the Latin Church. His youth and manhood were of a suitable complexion; and the nations of pilgrims could bear testimony to the charges that were urged against him in a Roman synod, and in the presence of Otto the Great. As John XII. had renounced the dress and decencies of his profession, the soldier may not perhaps be dishonored by the wine which he drank, the blood that he spilt, the flames that he kindled, or the licentious pursuits of gaming and hunting. His open simony might be the consequence of distress; and his blasphemous invocation of Jupiter and Venus, if it be true, could not possibly be serious. But we read, with some surprise, that the worthy grandson of Marozia lived in public adultery with the matrons of Rome; that the Lateran palace was turned into a school for prostitution, and that his rapes of virgins and widows had deterred the female pilgrims from visiting the tomb of St. Peter, lest in the devout act, they should be violated by his successor.'

It is only in the French language that Christ's pun on Peter's name is exact. In L'évangile selon Saint Matthieu xvi. 18 - Le Neuveau Testament (Montreal, 3rd edition, 1966) we're informed,

« Et moi, je te declare: Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre, je bâtirai mon Eglise, et les portes de l'enfer ne prévaudront pas contre elle. »

`And me, I declared to you: You are Rock, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.'

In his commentary on the text of Matthew 16: 18, S. E. Mgr Charles-Omer Garant, Auxiliary Bishop of Quebec, tells us that whenever one wishes to find the Church which Christ founded upon a rock, one need only look to the Bishop of Rome, to the Pope, for wherever the Pope is, there also is God's True Church. Bishop Garant writes that Satan and his evil angels can never overthrow the Church of Rome. These assertions might be considered the most fundamental teachings of the Church of Rome. It is official Roman Catholic doctrine that all the true Christians must venerate St. Pius V. Christopher Hare (pseudonym of Mrs. Marian Andrews) wrote in her `Men and Women of the Italian Reformation' (Charles Scribner's Sons, New York):

"On January 7, 1566, Michele Ghislieri, the fanatical Inquisitor, was elected Pope, under the title of Pius V, and from that moment every distinguished Italian who held reformed views was in peril of his life...Carnesecchi was taken a captive to Rome and lodged in the prison of the Holy Office...the rack was freely employed...Through fifteen long months of imprisonment and frequent torture, these awful examinations continued, until at length, on August 16, 1567, sentence was delivered by the tribunal of the Inquisition...Carnesecchi was borne to the Ponte St. Angelo, amidst the execrations and curses of the fanatical rabble which crowded round him, but he continued his courage and composure to the last. They clothed him in a "sanbenito," the garment of heresy, painted over with flames and devils...He was first beheaded, then burnt in the flames of the Inquisition...by means of spies and the seizing of all private letters and papers, the Inquisition had already the most intimate knowledge of all that Carnesecchi and his friends had ever said or written...It is true that the case of Giulia Gonzaga was already pre-doomed, for on the accession of Pius V (Michele Ghislieri) in 1566 he had come into possession of a chest containing a great number of letters to Carnesecchi and others. On reading these papers, the Pope had declared that "if he had seen these before her death, he would have taken good care to burn her alive."'

The Catholic Church is not interested in any debates pertaining to St. Pius V. As with all canonized persons, the Catholic Church considers these matters to be closed. The Catholic Church teaches, a) St. Pius V. practiced heroic virtue, b) the faithful are to venerate him and pray to him, c) it is blasphemy to speak against him or any other canonized person, n.b., Paragraph 2148, Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd edition, 2000, Imprimi Potest, Libreria Editrice Vaticana).

The Jewish Encyclopedia,

`CAPISTRANO, JOHN OF: Franciscan monk; born at Capistrano, Italy, 1386; died 1456. Owing to his remarkable power as a popular preacher, he was sent by Pope Nicholas V. (1447-55) as legate to Germany, Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, with the special mission to preach against the Hussites...Knowing how easy it is to excite the masses by appealing to their prejudices, Capistrano, in his discourses, accused the Jews of killing Christian children and of desecrating the host...His admirers called him the "scourge of the Judeans"...In Silesia the Franciscan was most zealous in his work. When Capistrano arrived at Breslau, a report was circulated that one Meyer, a wealthy Jew, had bought a host from a peasant and desecrated it. Thereupon the local authorities arrested the representatives of the Breslau Jewish community and confiscated their houses and property for the benefit of the city. The investigation of the so-called blasphemy was conducted by Capistrano himself. By means of tortures he managed to wring from a few of the victims false confessions of the crimes ascribed to them. As a result, more than forty Jews were burned at the stake in Breslau June 2, 1453. Others, fearing torture, committed suicide, a rabbi, Pinheas, hanged himself. The remainder of the Jews were driven out of the city, while their children of tender age were taken from them and baptized by force. In Poland Capistrano found an ally in the archbishop Zbigniev Olesniczki, who urged Casimir IV. Jagellon to abolish the privileges which had been granted to the Jews in 1447...This led to persecutions of the Jews in many Polish towns. Capistrano was canonized in 1690.'

If Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads souls to heaven and leads no one to hell - then one should not be a Cafeteria Catholic, one should not rebel against Rome, such as by refusing to venerate Capistrano. Rebelling against God's True Church can only lead you to perdition. And, obviously, if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then one should not remain in the Roman Catholic Church, as the Cafeteria Catholics do. The Cafeteria Catholics don't obey Rome and they don't renounce her. The Cafeteria Catholics have adopted a strategy which makes no sense!

H. R. Trevor-Roper writes in `The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries' (Harper & Row):

`In the eleventh century Roman law had been rediscovered in the west, and torture had soon followed it back into use. In 1252 Innocent IV, by the bull Ad Extirpanda, had authorized its use against the Albigensians. By the fourteenth century it was in general use in the tribunals of the Inquisition...In 1468 the Pope [Innocent VIII.] declared witchcraft to be a crimen exceptum and thereby removed, in effect, all legal limits on the application of torture in such cases...The evidence supplied by Lea clearly shows that the witch-craze grew by its own momentum...Accused witches often admitted to their confessors that they had wrongly accused both themselves and others, and these admissions are the more credible since they brought no advantage to the accused - unless they were willing, as they seldom were, to make a formal retraction, which meant submitting to torture again...When we consider the fully developed procedure at continental or Scottish witch-trials we can hardly be surprised that confessions were almost always secured. For such a crime, the ordinary rules of evidence, as the ordinary limits of torture, were suspended...As Jean Bodin would write, not one in a million would be punished if the procedure were governed by ordinary laws. So, in the absence of a `grave indicium', such as a pot full of human limbs, sacred objects, toads, etc. or a written pact with the Devil...circumstantial evidence was sufficient to mobilize the process. And the circumstantial evidence need not be very cogent: it was sufficient to discover a wart, by which the familiar spirit was suckled; an insensitive spot which did not bleed when pricked; a capacity to float when thrown into water; or an incapacity to shed tears. Recourse could even be had to `lighter indicia', such as a tendency to look down when accused, signs of fear...Any of these indicia might establish a prima facie case and justify the use of torture to produce the confession, which was proof, or the refusal to confess, which was even more cogent proof and justified even more ferocious tortures and a nastier death. Of the tortures used...Crushed the fingers and toes in a vice...the Spanish boot, much used in Germany and Scotland, which squeezed the calf and broke the shin-bone in pieces - `the most severe and cruel pain in the world', as a Scotsman called it...and there was the `ram' or `witch-chair' a seat of spikes, heated from below. There was also the `Bed of Nails'...In Scotland one might also be grilled on the caschielawis, and have ones finger-nails pulled off...Once a witch had confessed, the next stage was to secure from her, again under torture, a list of all those of her neighbours whom she had recognized at the witches' sabbat. Thus a new set of indicia was supplied, clerical science was confirmed, and a fresh set of trials and tortures would begin. It is easy to see that torture lay, directly or indirectly, behind most of the witch-trials of Europe, creating witches where none were and multiplying both victims and evidence. Without torture, the great witch-panics of the 1590s and the late 1620s are inconceivable...'

So you can see why a person might hesitate to insist the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church.

Chapter 2. Issues with the Protestants

Nowadays, at least in the USA, you get the impression that some people choose their churches on the basis of: 1) Will they be permitted to sing in that church's choir? 2) Does the church in question hold lots of potluck dinners, 3) Are the ministers personable but also not too nosy, reasoning who needs a minister who sticks his nose into other people's business? Also modern people don't want to hear many sermons that dwell on hell or sin. A minister can lecture on politics but if he doesn't want to see people run for the exits he must make sure his political views do not conflict with his congregation's political views. A minister might adopt the strategy of giving only sermons that Frank Capra might give - a boy might lose his dog, then pray to God, and then get his dog back. Or a little girl might tell her mom she doesn't want to help her make cookies, but then she thinks twice, and she recalls everything her dear old mother has done for here, and then she agrees to help ma make cookies. The scriptures indicate you ought to choose a church by considering Matthew 16. 13-19 (Christ founded His Church on a rock) and by considering Ephesians 4. 4 (there is one body = there is one True Church) - so, if Church X is God's True Church, if Church X leads souls to heaven, then you will want to join Church X: and if church Y has fallen from grace and is not God's True Church and therefore church Y leads souls to perdition, then you will want to get away from church Y, even if it holds frequent potlucks, even if it lets you sing in the choir. And how does one determine if a church leads souls to heaven or if it leads souls to perdition? In order to make an educated guess it helps to first be educated!

The rationality of Protestantism is easily questioned because of the multitude of sects within Protestant. What are the odds that one particular sect within this galaxy of sects is the Church which Christ founded on a rock? Consider someone like Bishop Richard Allen. We are given a quick recap of his bio on pp. 6-7 of Lavinia Cohn Sherbok's Who's Who in Christianity (Routledge, 1998): Born a slave in Delaware in 1760, largely self-educated, he converted to Methodism and won his freedom after he converted his master to Methodism. He founded the African Methodist Episcopal Church in 1794. He became it's first bishop in 1816.

It's all very impressive that a slave from 18th century Delaware could rise to the office of Bishop, but, nevertheless, you're still left wondering: what are the odds that the African Methodist Episcopal Church, founded in 1794, is none other than the Church which Christ founded on a rock in the first century? Don't you evaluate a sect rather like you evaluate a person? You look at the dirt on the guy / girl / sect, but you also look for positive evidence as well. You look for both incriminating evidence as well as exonerating evidence. If you have a Bishop who transfers a sex fiend priest from one parish to another parish, perhaps the Bishop gave strict orders to his subordinates to watch the sex fiend priest to make sure he didn't hurt any more children, or perhaps he didn't give any such orders. When you evaluate someone you conduct an investigation. When is it OK for a woman to squeal on her friends to save herself when she's hauled before a Grand Jury? When is it OK for a man to rat on his friends to save himself? You have to sing to the cops if you find out your friend is a rapist or a sex fiend who preys on kids, obviously. Or suppose you are pals with the BTK serial killer - BTK stands for bind, torture, kill. He was, if memory serves, a guy named Rader, a deacon or usher perhaps in some Lutheran church. If you discover you're pals with someone who binds, tortures and murders folks then you obviously have to tell the cops right away what you have discovered about your pal. What about in a swindle case? If you find out a friend of yours swindled an insurance company, don't you think there is something wrong with you if you pick up the phone and rat on your friend to the police? Sure he's a swindler but you just can't rat on him, because that would make you a rat, at least in this particular case. If they put you on the witness stand and remind you of the penalties for committing perjury, nevertheless, you just can't rat on a friend in an insurance swindle case. I seem to recall Susan McDougal went to jail on a contempt of court charge \- she refused to testify against someone in the Whitewater Affair. Whether it was her husband or Bill Clinton or someone else escapes me. You shouldn't perjure yourself, but don't you think it is much nobler to go to jail on a contempt of court charge rather than to rat on a friend in cases such as the Whitewater Affair? The Friends of Eddie Coyle is a film which examines these sorts of topics in Moral Philosophy. Recall some famous cause celebres. When we judge people we often look to see if they are Dreyfussards or Anti-Dreyfussards. Are they pro-Sacho and pro-Vanzetti people or are they anti-Sacho and anti-Vanzetti people? Are you are pro-Juanita Brodderick person or an anti-Juanita Broaddrick person? Where do you stand - inquiring minds want to know - on Tawana Brawley, Bill Cosby, O. J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, Treyvan Martin, George Zimmerman, Dominique Straus Kahn, Martha Stewart etc., etc. Are you the sort of person who insists George W. Bush knew what was going to happen on 9.11.2001 before 9.11.2001, or are you the sort of person who says George W. Bush didn't know what was going to happen on 9.11.2001 before 9.11.2001? Are you one of those people who hates Joe McCarthy? Are you one those people who says Hitler never committed genocide against the Jews? Are you the sort of person who says the Democrats stole the 1960 US presidential race between Richard Nixon and JFK? Did JFK order a hit, a murder, against the leader of South Vietnam, Diem? Where do you stand on the Roman Catholic Church? If Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome has not fallen into heresy, if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then aren't Protestants morons for rebelling against God's True Church? Don't you risk hellfire by rebelling against God's True Church? Now if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome has fallen into heresy, if Rome leads people away from heaven and drags them down to perdition, then the Roman Catholic Church must be rather satanic, right? What do you think about the sign of the cross? Is it a symbol which is sacred to the Creator of the Universe?

The most damning evidence I've seen against Methodism and its founder John Wesley is from the pen of one of our contemporaries, the Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson, who tells us in his `History of Christianity', pp. 366-7, that John Wesley deplored the decline in witch-hunting. Every intelligent person in the 21st century knows that 16th and 17th century witch-hunting was all about a lot of evil men hunting down lots of innocent women who they then tortured and forced to give false testimony against other innocent women, who were tortured to give false testimony against other innocent women, who were tortured to... Perhaps it's not fair to damn Wesley on the basis of a few lines in a modern historian's book - though he is a distinguished historian \- but I still tend to consign Wesley to hell.

Enlightened people today know that witch-hunting was an evil, because, for one reason, it involved the torture and burning of innocent women who were falsely accused of witchcraft. If one is trying to sell Methodism today, one might, in the beginning, win more converts if one perpetrates a cover up of Wesley's support for witch-hunting - assuming he did support witch-hunting - but, eventually, as the truth has a way of getting out, one will eventually be found guilty of perpetrating a cover-up, and then one might lose converts to Methodism if one is convicted of trying to conceal John Wesley's advocacy of burning ladies, assuming he truly was a fan of burning them. Of course the Methodist Church no longer tortures or burns women accused of witchcraft: but if its founding father was a fan of witch-hunting, what are the chances that a 21 century Protestant sect which has a founding father who was a fan of a system of jurisprudence which tortured and burned innocent women, after slandering them as witches, is the Church which Christ founded on a rock? Well, who knows what the odds are! All we can do is examine the incriminating evidence as well as the exonerating evidence concerning the Methodist Church. What is some more dirt on Methodism? And what is some exonerating evidence concerning Methodism? What is the most incriminating evidence saying the African Methodist Episcopal Church is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock? What is the strongest exonerating evidence in favor of the African Methodist Episcopal Church? If you're looking for a homework assignment what's wrong with this homework assignment?

Recall Christ words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many'. What is this new covenant? We turn to Jeremiah 31. 31-34 and find the first mention in the Bible of a New Law to replace the Old Law, the Mosaic Law:

`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.'

The reasoning runs that if one has God's new law written on one's heart then one is a True Christian. If one had the Divine Law written on ones heart one would teach religion and moral philosophy with the authority of God - or close enough! One would certainly not teach any heresies. One would not lead people to perdition if one had the Divine Law inscribed on ones heart. Note Mark 7. 22 where Christ listed foolishness as a sin. The idea that the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants are all part of the Church which Christ founded on a rock is very problematical because the people in these sects promote conflicting \- they don't have the same law written on their hearts. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, recognized as authentic by both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, authorized people to bow down before images of saints. Protestants usually reject such practices, calling it the sin of idolatry. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility specifically damns those who reject that Dogma. If Rome is God's True Church, then you would have to assume that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is accurate, but the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants do not care to assume that they are damned for rejecting the Dogma of Papal Infallibility! So, Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox will tend to believe that the Church of Rome is not God's True Church. Matthew 1. 25 says, in so many words, that Mary was not ever-Virgin. Rome says you are a heretic if you say Jesus had brothers and sisters, if you say Mary was not ever-Virgin. It only makes senses to say that the True Church is comprised of people who have the same Divine Law written on there hearts, a law which is none other than the Divine Law prophesied in Jeremiah 31. 31-34.

Chapter 3. Divine Law

Isaiah 59. 20-21 is an 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 Pharoah'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 write like a crazy man? 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 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, hence one is damned unless one makes some positive changes.

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.

Chapter 4. Abortion, Scriptures on Hell and Rich People

We might look at a sect, any sect, and ask: Is this sect the Church which Christ founded on a rock? We're looking for both incriminating as well as exonerating evidence. The incriminating evidence might fall into a few broad categories. 1) Does the church in question support evil laws? And 2) Does the church support any laws or doctrines, which, while they might not be patently evil, are nevertheless imbecilic - and recall the logic which says if one has the Divine Law written on ones heart then one is a True Christian, and if one has the Divine Law written on one's heart then one can be neither evil nor idiotic, hence, if one supports evil or idiotic laws / ideas one can not be a True Christian, but one can be a Phony Christian.

In former centuries the most salient examples of churches supporting evil laws involved clergymen supporting the Inquisition, the laws by which kings and nobles subjugated the peasants, the African slave trade. In modern times the most conspicuous examples of evil laws deal with abortion. In the old days it was the Conservatives who supported evil laws, whereas today it is the Liberals. The modern Conservative does not insist that doctors who perform abortions be burned at the stake. He doesn't even demand and prison time for them. He merely wants their medical licenses pulled until they learn to obey the Hippocratic Oath, which has a pro-life article in it. The modern pro-lifer does not torment former pro-choicers by reminding them of their former mistakes. Many of the more eloquent and impassioned voices for the pro-life cause were once pro-choicers. Everyone knows no one is perfect and that mistakes happen. Pro-lifers make it easy for pro-choicers to convert as no guilt trips are laid on anyone in regards to former errors.

In any case, to be a pro-choice Christian one must argue that God is the sort of God who is hostile to laws which prevent mothers from aborting babies which they want aborted. Pro-choice Christians must ague that this Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is a pro-choice law. Well, what are the chances that this Divine Law is a pro-choice law? And what are the chances that it is imbecilic to think it is a pro-choice law? Do Christian pro-choicers teach religion and moral philosophy with the authority of God? Again, George Will, in a column he wrote in 1995, gave us the following account of a partial-birth abortion as witnessed by a Dayton Ohio nurse:

`The mother was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus. The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out.'And again, the Supreme Court, in April of 2007, outlawed partial-birth abortions. But a partial-birth abortion is actually an example of one of the more humane varieties of the various abortion procedures. A stab to the back of a baby's skull is indeed brutal but at least death arrives quite swiftly and there is less pain for the aborted child in a partial birth abortion than in some other types of abortion, types which the Supreme Court has not outlawed, abortions which the American medical profession performs every day with the blessing of the American government.

The pro-choice position, at least to pro-lifers, is similar to the pro-slavery position, because, 1) both deal with the question: who is a person? 2) both slavery and abortion pertain to the due process clauses of Amendments V. and XIV. which say the government can not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and 3) the pro-choice mantra sounds rather like the pro-slavery mantra: if you don't like slavery then don't own slaves, but don't tell slave-owners they can't own slaves, if that is their choice.

Pro-choice Christians must argue as follows: Pro-choice Christians can indeed be True Christians. Being pro-choice does not mean one has fallen away from the True Faith, recall the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2. Pro-choice Christians have the Divine Law written on their hearts because God is pro-choice. God is hostile to pro-life laws. God might not love abortion, but God is hostile to pro-life laws which attempt to save the lives of unborn babies.

If the pro-choice Christian denies Jeremiah 31. 31-34 he denies Christ's words at the Last Supper, and anyone who denies Christ's words at the Last Supper denies Christianity. Therefore the pro-choice Christian must insist he has a Divine Law written on his heart, and he must insist that God is pro-choice.

Conservatives, seeing that the Liberals are the creators of the Culture of Death, to use Pope John Paul II.'s succinct term for the West's infatuation with abortion, hold that there is nothing mysterious about modern American politics. William F. Buckley, Jr. knew long ago that the most dangerous enemy to Conservatism was not Liberalism, but, rather, a mutant version of Conservatism, such as the Know-Nothing, Anti-Semitic, Anti-Black, John Birch Society version of Conservatism. And what are the mutant versions of Modern Liberalism? JFK and RFK, unlike their little brother, were not fans of legal abortion. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was hostile to the pro-choice philosophy. James Watt informed us in his `The Courage of a Conservative', p. 93, of Dr. Virginia Abernathy, a psychiatrist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. In Dr. Virginia Abernathy's professional opinion, abortion is never wrong, furthermore, she concludes, a child only becomes a human being around the age of three or four. Now Dr. Abernathy, though she wouldn't appear to be a friend of Conservatism, is great a friend of Conservatism, because she makes Liberalism look insane in the eyes of sane people. A man might vote only for Republican candidates, but, if this man is a tobacco-spitting, black-hating, anti-Semitic Republican, then he is no friend of the Republican Party. Similarly, a professor at Vanderbilt University Medical School might vote only for Democrats, but, if she states in public that children under the age of three or four are not human beings, then she is no pal of the Democratic Party. One might suspect her of being a Republican spy. She's purposely trying to make all Democrats look like dingbats! Therefore she simply has to be a Republican spy! Mr. Watt writes, p. 81, that a man was convicted of sexually assaulting a child in 1974. He was convicted again of the same offense in 1980. After serving seven months he was convicted of molesting a seven-year-old, and while out on bail he molested yet another child. Now if he had molested children under the age of three or four, Dr. Abernathy could have been summoned as an expert witness for the defense, to testify that no crime against a human being had been committed, for, in her expert opinion, children under the age of three or four are not human beings.

Since everyone save for God is a sinner there is naturally some resistance to drawing the line between sinners who do their sinning in public and sinners who sin in private. It reeks of hypocrisy. I mean even after a person has repented: he no longer gets drunk, he no longer commits adultery, he no longer violates the Sabbath, he no longer fornicates, he no longer supports the pro-choice philosophy, he no longer supports Gay Marriage etc., etc., can he really liberate himself from ever last vestige of sin, every last inclination to covetousness, anger, lust etc., etc? It's pretty tough to be 100% perfect 100% of the time. Nevertheless the True Church must draw a line between members who sin openly, out in public, and sinners who do their sinning in private. The people who sin in public have to be warned, and then excommunicated if they fail to repent, and of course the excommunication needn't be permanent. The excommunicated person is given the silent treatment by the non-excommunicated members of the True Church for a few weeks or a few months, and of course it means the excommunicated person is forbidden the Eucharist while he is excommunicated. The aim is two-fold: 1) you want to bring discipline into the lives of the faithful, so that people will live the way good Christians are supposed to live, so that they will be saved, so that they will attain heaven and will escape perdition. The aim is not to shame anyone. The aim is not to shame a person so that others can take glee in his shame. The aim is to, 1) to help sinners to repent, so they will not be damned, and 2) the aim is also to obey the teachings of St. Paul, so that the True Church does not fall away from the True Faith, so that it will continue to lead souls to heaven, so that it does not fall away and therefore lead souls to perdition. Recall 1 Corinthians 11. 27. The True Church does not want to fall into heresy by celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. The True Church doesn't want to fall away, fall into heresy, recall Galatians 1. 8.

On the one hand, while it seems rather hypocritical to have sinners who do their sinning in private excommunicate sinners who do their sinning in public, but what can you do? It makes no sense for a Christian to reject Galatians 1. 8 and 1 Corinthians 11. 27 and 1 Corithinians 6. 9-10 etc. Therefore it makes no sense for a Christian to reject St. Paul's teaching that drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, extortionists, homosexuals, the covetous etc. - people who do their sinning openly \- must be excommunicated.

The New Testament does not specifically say that in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work and among those who are unable to work, but, what is the upshot of the New Testament's teaching on money matters?

We have John 14. 23-25: those who love Christ keep His words. Those who don't love Christ don't keep His words. What are some of the words of Christ on money matters?

Luke 16. 19-31,

`There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom...'

Luke 13. 5? It has Jesus saying,

`I tell you...unless you repent you will all likewise perish.'

Matthew 25. 41-46,

`Then He will also say to them on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; naked and you did not clothed Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me." Then they also will answer Him, saying "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?" Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me." And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.'

Luke 6. 24-5: `But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger...'

Acts 4. 32 states,

`Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.'

Acts 2. 44-7,

`Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And God added to the church daily those who were being saved.'

St. Paul teaches in 2 Thess 2. 10 that those who refuse to work shouldn't be given alms to allow him to eat. It's true that we don't read in the New Testament that equal sharing of the wealth is absolutely mandatory in the True Church. But scriptures such as Mark 12. 41-44 - the widow's two mites - James 1. 9 - the rich man passes away - I Timothy 6. 10 - the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil - Matthew 19. 23 - easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God - Luke 16. 19-31 - parable of Lazarus and the rich man - Luke 3. 11 - John the Baptists likens the rich to a brood of vipers - I Corinthians 13 - one has nothing if one lacks charity - all point to the conclusion that in the True Church, the church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which leads souls to heaven, there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work and among those unable to work. Your family will be led to destitution and hence destruction if your family is always giving its money away to the poor. The New Testament does not desire the destruction of your family. There is only one sensible conclusion - and anyone who is not deluded can see it! - in the True Church, in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work and among those who are unable to work. This Church which shares everything - recall Acts 2 and 4 - was no doubt charitable to non-Christians: it didn't tell naked and hungry non-Christians and their children to drop dead and go to hell! The True Church extends charity to pagans but I don't think the New Testament commands Christians to give an equal share of their wealth to both those who hate Christ and those who love Christ.

In the USA several trillion dollars has been spent to end poverty since the Johnson administration, and yet poverty is as prevalent as ever. The theory runs that if people were to obey the Christian scriptures there would be two main benefits: 1) people would not be damned in the afterlife for rebelling against the Christian scriptures in this life, and 2) the world would become a better place, because the money given out by the True Church to Christians comes with strings attached: a) one does not receive ones share if one is not living the way a good Christian is supposed to live, and b) conditions in the world would become more and more beautiful and less and less ugly if more and more people lived the way good Christians are supposed to live. You can throw trillions of dollars at problems but unless you get people to change their behavior, the trillions of dollars will not solve the fundamental problem - which is people's undisciplined, anti-Christian behavior.

Chapter 5. The Sign of the Cross

The Roman Catholic Church is the main sect within Christianity which really pushes Matthew 16. 13-19. It pushes the doctrine that Christ founded His Church on a rock, and this Church is the Roman Catholic Church. Whether this is true or not, the Cafeteria Catholics expose themselves to honest accusations that they are deluded - because anyone can hammer them over the head with the following logic: if Rome leads souls to heaven, if the Church of Rome is God's True Church, then have enough sense to understand that you can not lose, you can not be led to perdition, if you simply obey God's True Church, the Church of Rome. Even if God's True Church makes some errors now and then, just obey her! You will never go to perdition if you always obey God's True Church! But if you rebel against God's True Church, then you might very well go to perdition, or you might spend agonizing years burning in Purgatory. You know how it hurts like hell to burn your hand on a hot stove for one second. Imagine what it will be like burning in Purgatory for years! So don't be a crazy Cafeteria Catholic! Obey Rome if Rome is God's True Church.

But if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then get away from Rome - don't be any sort of Roman Catholic, neither a Practicing Catholic nor a Cafeteria Catholic. So in every scenario, in the scenario where Rome leads souls to heaven, and in the scenario where Rome leads souls to perdition, it makes no sense to be a Cafeteria Catholic.

The sin of sacrilege is a sin which leads offending souls straight to perdition. Declaring something which is evil in the eyes of God to be holy is an example of a sacrilege, and declaring that something which is sacred in the eyes of God's eyes is evil is another example of sacrilege.

Is there a distinction between the sacred and spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18-20, and material crosses - crosses made with human hands - and the sign of the cross? Is the sign of the cross sacred and holy? Or are the evils perpetrated over the centuries by the people under the sign of the cross reflected in the sign of the cross? Does the sign of the cross reflect evil rather as the Nazi swastika reflects evil?

If the cross is holy, then, one commits sacrilege if one says the cross is evil or unholy. But if the cross is evil in the eyes of God, then one commits sacrilege when one says it is holy.

If the material cross is evil: if the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross are reflected in material crosses and the sign of the cross, then one should recall the eternal hellfire mentioned in Revelation 14. 11 inflicted on to those who have the evil mark on their foreheads or right hands \--`and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever.'

If the sign of the cross and material crosses are sacred, then one should recall Revelation 9. 1-11,

`Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. And to him was given the key to the bottomless pit...They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. And they were not given authority to kill them, but to torment them for five months. And their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man...And they have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abbaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.'

If the material cross is sacred in the eyes of God, then you don't want half of your brain, or any part of your brain, telling you the cross is evil. But if the cross is evil in the sight of God, then you don't want half of your brain, or any part of your brain, telling you it is sacred! One is simply deluded if one thinks one has a Divine Law written on ones heart, or if one thinks one is in the True church, or if one thinks one has not fallen away from the True Faith, when one is guilty of sacrilege - guilty of saying that something which is evil in God's sight is holy, or guilty of saying that something which is sacred in God's eyes is evil.

Those of us who are Christians are driven by some very powerful logic, and it runs as follows: if you are a True Christian, if you really are a person with the Divine Law written on your heart (Jeremiah 31. 31-34, Matthew 26. 28), if you really are in the True Church (John 14. 23-26, Matthew 16. 13-19, John 15. 6, Ephesians 4.4 etc.), then you will know how to teach the truth about the sign of the cross. You will know how to correct those who commit sacrilege. If you don't know how to correct people who are guilty of sacrilege, if you don't even know how to avoid the sin of sacrilege yourself, then you have certainly fallen away from the True Faith. If you never offer any opinion about the cross then you will never commit sacrilege on account of the cross. Reason and logic say that if one truly understood the gospel, if one truly had the Divine Law written on ones heart, then one would be able to do better than just keep silent: one would be able to see the truth about the cross. If you are in the True Church, if you have not fallen away from the True Faith, you would know, for instance, how to correctly instruct a little kid on how to avoid sacrilege, such as with the sign of the cross. If you can't even teach a little kid how to avoid the mortal sin of sacrilege with the sign of the cross \- then - be honest now! - don't you think you have most certainly fallen away from the True Faith?

I suppose the main arguments against material crosses run as follows: 1) the scriptures never say material crosses are sacred. Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 lead one to believe that Christ's sacrifice on a cross is sacred, but the cross itself - a pagan instrument or torture and execution is not sacred in the eyes of the Creator of the Universe, 2) an enormous amount of evil was perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries. The Nazis committed evil for a few years and the Nazi swastika reflects this evil; people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century and the sign of the cross reflects this evil, and 3) If you don't have any mark on your forehead, such as a cross, then you certainly won't have the evil mark of the beast on your forehead.

If there is one church under the sign of the cross, perhaps more than one church but at least one church among all of the thousands of churches under the cross which has not fallen away from the True Faith, which has not fallen into heresy, and therefore this Church leads people to heaven, then you can trust this Church when it tells you the cross is sacred to God. But if every church under the cross has fallen into heresy and drags people down to perdition – though this wouldn't actually prove that the cross is evil – still, it's quite newsworthy to learn that every church under the cross leads people to perdition.

Suppose a church tells you the cross is sacred and tells you the cross is the seal of God, and that it protects one from the torments described in Revelation 9 when the mark of a cross is placed on ones forehead. 3 Scenarios here. 1) Nothing terribly newsworthy will happen to you, nothing good and nothing bad, 2) The cross does indeed protect one from the torments described in Revelation 9, because it's the seal of God mentioned in revelation 9, 3) You burn in hell forever because the cross is the mark of the beast – Revelation 14. 11 – and you got the mark of the beast on your forehead, so, eternal fire. That church which told you the cross is sacred to God was mistaken, it had fallen into heresy – it was certainly not the Church which Christ founded on a rock: it was just another worthless church which had fallen into heresy.

Lecky told us that the first Christians, Jews abiding in the Holy Land, employed the outline of a fish as their symbol, certainly not the cross, not a representation of a pagan instrument of torture and execution.

Christ stated in Mark 8: 34-5,

`Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For who ever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it.'

This means one must never renounce the True Faith, and one must be prepared to suffer a cruel martyrdom, such as by crucifixion, if one wishes to attain eternal life. Does it also mean that material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to God?

In the Old Testament we are informed what is sacred and what isn't. Nadab and Abihu offered profane fire before the Lord, and, as a result, they were both devoured by fire from the Lord. There is no New Testament scripture which says that a material cross, or the sign of the cross, is sacred. We never read of Christ or the apostles making the sign of the cross, or using material crosses for symbols.

We read Jesus' words in the Matthew 24: 30,

`Therefore when you see the "abomination of desolation," spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place' (whoever reads, let him understand), `then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.'

The Catholic Church has for many centuries asserted that this sign of the Son of Man which will appear in heaven is none other than the sign of the cross. In George Brantl's `Catholicism' we read, p. 238, that St. Cyril of Jerusalem has declared, lest hostile powers dare counterfeit it, the sign of the cross is this very sign of the Son of Man. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church take very clear and strong stands in favor of the sign of the cross. Catechism of the Catholic Church, in Paragraph 2148, indicates that it is blasphemy to state that the cross is a symbol of corruption. Paragraph 1182 states that the Lord's Cross is the altar of the New Covenant. Paragraph 1235 tells of the sign of the cross marking the baptized Catholic as one belonging to Christ. Paragraph 2157 informs one that the Christian is to begin his day, prayers and activities with the Sign of the Cross. The sign of the cross is also said to strengthen one in his trials and temptations. Catholic tradition has the Bishop making the sign of the cross over the forehead of the one being confirmed in the Catholic Church. `The Catholic Encyclopedia' (edited by Robert Broderick, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1987, p. 553) states that as many times that the devout make the sign of the cross they are granted an indulgence of three years; making the sign of the cross with blessed water may secure oneself an indulgence of seven years.

Concerning the evils under the sign of the cross, Friedrich Heer, former professor of History at the University of Vienna, told us in `The Medieval World: Europe: 1100-1350' (Mentor, 1961, p. 312), that there is nothing in the history of the world which compares with the magnitude and the duration of the martyrdom of the Jews in medieval Europe. The Jews suffered terrible cruelties for century after century at the hands of people who brandished the sign of the cross.

Will Durant told us in `The Age of Louis XIV' of the suffering of the Jews in Poland, Lithuania and Russia from 1648-58: in Pereyaslav, Piryatin, Lubny, and other towns, thousands of Jews were massacred by people brandishing crosses. We read of the most barbaric tortures: Jews flayed alive, split asunder, clubbed to death, roasted over coals, scalded with boiling water, thousands of Jewish infants thrown into wells or buried alive.

Will Durant tell us in `The Age of Faith' that by 600 AD there were Jewish colonies in all the major cities of Europe. The Catholic Merovingian kings persecuted them with ferocity. Chilperic commanded them to accept Christianity or have their eyes torn out. The Council of Toledo of 633 decreed that those Jews who had submitted to baptism and then returned to Judaism should be separated from their children and sold into slavery.

Gibbon narrates,

`Ninety thousand Jews were compelled to receive the sacrament of baptism; the fortunes of the obstinate infidels were confiscated; their bodies were tortured...Their frequent relapses provoked one of the successors of Sisebut to banish the whole nation from his dominions...But the tyrants were unwilling to dismiss the victims, whom they delighted to torture...The Jews still continued in Spain, under the weight of the civil and ecclesiastical laws, which in the same country have been faithfully transcribed in the Code of the Inquisition.'

Bonnie Anderson and Judith Zinsser, in their 'A History of Their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present' (HarperCollins, I., p. 363) said that prostitutes in Renaissance Rome who were suspected of swindling their customers were to be gang-raped. The trentuno punishment meant being raped by 33 men. The trentuno reale meant being raped by 69.

Paul Johnson tells us in `A History of Christianity" that in the 4th century there was despotism in Catholicism. The once persecuted church was now a persecutor. Whole towns were butchered with the support of the Catholic Church-State. Jerome described the horrible tortures inflicted on a woman accused of adultery. Ammianus gives many instances of torture being used - the rack and hot plates. Catholic Spain was slaughtering Jews when Augustine was a bishop - early 4th century. From 1080 AD onwards there were many instances of Popes, Councils and bishops forbidding the laity to read the Bible, both in Latin and the vernacular. The Inquisition was born. Johnson says the Protestants became as fanatical as the Catholics, and says that Luther burned `witches' - who were generally not witches but innocent women tortured and forced to confess they were witches. Popes and Protestants tortured young girls and old women - witch-hunting couldn't survive without torture.

Buckle writes about Protestants under the sign of the cross in his 'History of Civilization in England,'

`All over Scotland, the sermons were, with hardly an exception, formed after the same plan, and directed to the same end. To excite fear, was the paramount object. The clergy boasted, that it was their special mission to thunder out the wrath and curses of the Lord. In their eyes, the Deity was not a beneficent being, but a cruel and remorseless tyrant. They declared that all mankind, a very small portion only excepted, were doomed to eternal misery. And when they came to describe what that misery was, their dark imaginations reveled and gloated at the prospect. In the pictures which they drew, they reproduced and heightened the barbarous imagery of a barbarous age. They delighted in telling their hearers, that they would be roasted in great fires, and hung up by their tongues. They were to be lashed with scorpions, and see their companions writhing and howling around them. They were to be thrown into boiling oil and scalding lead. A river of fire and brimstone, broader than the earth, was prepared for them; in that, they were to be immersed; their bones, their lungs, and their liver, were to boil, but never be consumed...All this was the work of the God of the Scotch clergy...For, according to them, hell was created before man came into the world...in that vast expanse there was no void, for the whole of it reverberated with the shrieks and yells of undying agony...children reproaching their parents...the child cursed his father...both children and fathers made hell echo with their piercing screams...Not only the devil, as the author of all evil, but even He whom we recognize as the author of all good, was, in the eyes of the Scotch clergy, a cruel and vindictive being...They looked into their own hearts, and there they found the picture of their God. According to them, He was a God of terror, instead of a God of love...While they declared that nearly all mankind were sinners beyond the chance of redemption, and were, indeed, predestined to eternal ruin, they did not scruple to accuse the Deity of resorting to artifice against these unhappy victims; lying in wait for them, that He might catch them unawares.'

Savanarola, who was tortured and burned by Rome, saw in his visions a huge black cross rising from Rome and inscribed with the words `The Cross of God's Anger.' He saw also a mighty gold cross, bathed in sunlight, ascending into the sky over Jerusalem - see Christopher Hibbert's The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici, p. 165.

In `The Jews in the Medieval World: A Source Book: 315-1791' (Revised edition, 1999, pp. 10-12, Hebrew Union College Press), Jacob Rader Markus described for us the Ecclesiastical History by Salamanius Hermias Sozomenus (c. 443-450). This author was a native of Palestine who drew his account of the attempted rebuilding of the Jewish Temple from the testimony of eye-witnesses. An earthquake first hindered Julian the Apostate's laborers, and when fireballs arose from the earth and further prevented these laborers from rebuilding the Temple, the sign of the cross miraculously appeared on the clothing of these workmen.

The most famous of these sorts of supernatural incidents was Constantine's vision, when, before a great battle, a battle which he won and which gave him command of the Roman Empire, he saw a cross in the sky along with the words In hoc signo vincas (Conquer by this sign). Christ is also said to have appeared in a dream which Constantine later had, and confirmed that he would be victorious (`The Civilization of Rome', Donald R. Dudley, Mentor, 1962, p. 215).

We find in Dr. Littledale's `Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome',

`The following quotations are from the greatest of all Roman theological works, the "Summa" of St. Thomas Aquinas, to which the present Pope Leo XIII., in a recent encyclical, has ordered the teaching of the schools of religious philosophy to be strictly conformed: "The same reverence should be displayed towards an image of Christ and towards Christ Himself, and seeing that Christ is adored with the adoration of latria (i. e., supreme religious worship), it follows that His image is to be adored with the adoration of latria...The Cross is adored with the same adoration as Christ, that is, with the adoration of latria, and for that reason we address and supplicate the Cross just as we do the Crucified Himself."...And if we inquire into the "unanimous consent of the Fathers" as to images, we find them expressly condemned by the following, without mentioning those whose entire silence implies their ignorance of any such use. St. Irenaeus (A. D. 120-190) mentions the use of images of Christ, with religious honour done to them, as a peculiarity of the Carpocratian heretics, distinguishing them from Catholic Christians ("Adv. Haer." i. 25.) Minucius Felix (A. D. 220): "Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You (heathens), who consecrate wooden gods, do worship wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods; for your standards, as well as your banners and ensigns of your camp, what are they but crosses gilt and decked?" -("Octavius," xxix) Origen (A. D. 230): "We say that those are the most untaught who are not ashamed to address lifeless objects...and though some may say these objects are not their gods, but imitations and symbols of real ones, nevertheless they are untaught, and slavish, and ignorant..." Lactantius (A. D. 300) "It is indisputable that wherever there is an image there is no religion. For if religion consist of divine things, and there be nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are outside of religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in what is made from the earth...there is no religion in images, but a mimicry of religion." ("Div. Inst." ii. 19.) Fathers of the Council of Elvira (A. D. 306): "It has been decreed that there ought not to be pictures in churches, lest what is worshipped and adored be painted on the walls." (Canon XXXVI.)...St. Epiphanius (A. D. 370), in a letter preserved in St. Jerome's translation, tells how he found a painting of Christ on a curtain in a church at Anablatha, and tore it up, as "contrary to the authority of the Scriptures and contrary to our religion." (St. Hieron. Epist. 51.) St. Ambrose (A. D. 370), writing of the alleged finding of the true Cross by St. Helen, says: "She therefore found the title; she adored the King -truly not the wood, for this is a heathen error, and the vanity of the ungodly, but she adored Him who hung on the wood." ("De Obit. Theodos.") Compare this with the Good Friday Office for the adoration of the Cross in the Roman Missal, with its rubrics: "The priest, taking off his shoes, advances to adore the Cross, genuflecting thrice before he kisses it...Later on an antiphon is sung, beginning, `We adore Thy Cross, O Lord."...St. Augustine. "Confounded be all they that serve graven images"...it is plain that down to St. Augustine's death in A. D. 430 there was no devotional use of pictures and images lawful amongst Christians. He does say in one place: `I know of many who are worshippers of tombs and pictures;' but adds, that `the Catholic Church condemns them, and daily strives to correct them, as evil children.' -"De Mor. Eccl." I. xxxiv. 75, 76).'

One never reads of Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc., worshipping images of God. The New Testament certainly never depicts the apostles worshipping or venerating images of Christ. We never read in the New Testament of Christians venerating each other as saints! We never read of Christians making the sign of the cross, or directing any prayers to any saints or to any images of any saints.

1 John 3. 18-22,

`Little children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us...But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things...Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.'

Revelation 19.19,

`And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.

St. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2,

`Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him...Let no one deceive you by any means: for that Day [the Second Coming of Christ] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God...and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.'

It stands to reason that the Antichrist will attempt to drag souls down to hell by leading people away from the True Faith and the True Church. One would have to know what the True Faith and the True Church are in order to know if one was being led away from the True Faith and the True Church. Of course St. Paul tells us the heart of a True Christian is the Temple of God. So, if the Antichrist attempts to write the law of the devil on to people's hearts, then, in effect, he is sitting in the Temple of God. And what is the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34. One will always be more of less stuck in heresy if one can't give accurate answers to simple questions? Does the Church of Rome accurately explain the Divine Law? Or has Rome fallen into heresy? Does the New Testament accurately explain the Divine Law? If so, why would one reject the plain teachings of the New Testament. Matthew 1. 25 says Mary was not ever-Virgin. Rome says you are a heretic if you say Mary was not ever-Virgin. 1 Timothy 3. 2 says a bishop must be a man of one wife. Rome says a bishop in God's True church must have no wife.

I Timothy 4. 1-3,

`Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which god created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.'

Romans 8. 6-11,

`For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be...But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.'

1 Corinthians 3. 16-7,

`Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.'

Getting back to the evils under the sign of the cross, the following is from `Notices of Brazil in 1828 and 1829,' Pocket University - Doubleday, written by Robert Walsh, an Irish clergyman active in the English Society for the Abolition of Slavery:

"She was a very broad-decked ship, with a mainmast, schooner-rigged, and behind her foremast was that large formidable gun, which turned on a broad circle of iron, on deck, and which enabled her to act as a pirate, if her slaving speculation had failed. She had taken in, on the coast of Africa, 336 males, and 226 females, making in all 562, and had been out seventeen days, during which she had thrown overboard fifty-five. The slaves were all enclosed under grated hatchways, between decks. The space was so low, that they sat between each other's legs, and stowed so close together, that there was no possibility of lying down, or at all changing their position, by night or day. As they belonged to, and were shipped on account of different individuals, they were all branded, like sheep, with their owners' marks of different forms...These were impressed under their breasts, or on their arms, and, as the mate informed me, with perfect indifference...`burnt with the red-hot iron.' Over the hatchway stood a ferocious looking fellow, with a scourge of many twisted thongs in his hand, who was the slave- driver of the ship, and whenever he heard the slightest noise below, he shook it over them, and seemed eager to exercise it...But the circumstance which struck us most forcibly, was, how it was possible for such a number of human beings to exist, packed up and wedged together as tight as they could cram...The heat of these horrid places was so great, and the odour so offensive, that it was quite impossible to enter them. The officers insisted that the poor suffering creatures should be admitted on deck to get air and water...the poor beings were all turned up together...517 fellow-creatures of all ages and sexes, some children, some adults, some old men and women, all in a state of total nudity, scrambling out together to taste the luxury of a little fresh air and water. They came swarming up, like bees from the aperture of a hive, till the whole deck was crowded to suffocation, from stem to stern...On looking into the places where they had been crammed, there were found some children next the sides of the ship, in the places most remote from light and air; they were lying nearly in a torpid state, after the rest had turned out. The little creatures seemed indifferent as to life or death, and when they were carried on deck, many of them could not stand. After enjoying for a short time the unusual luxury of air, some water was brought; it was then that the extent of their sufferings was exposed in a fearful manner. They all rushed like maniacs toward it. No entreaties, or threats, or blows, could restrain them; they shrieked, and struggled, and fought with one another, for a drop of this precious liquid, as if they grew rabid at the sight of it...On one occasion, a ship from Bahia neglected to change the contents of the casks, and on the mid-passage found, to their horror, that they were filled with nothing but salt water. All the slaves on board perished!...When the poor creatures were ordered down again, several of them came, and pressed their heads against our knees, with looks of the greatest anguish, at the prospect of returning to the horrid place of suffering below. It was not surprising that they should have endured much sickness and loss of life, in their short passage. They had sailed from the coast of Africa on the 7th of May, and had been out but seventeen days, and they had thrown overboard no less than fifty-five, who had died of dysentery and other complaints, in that space of time, though they left the coast in good health...It was dark when we separated, and the last parting sounds we heard from the unhallowed ship, were the cries and the shrieks of the slaves."

Charles Mackay wrote in `Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' (London, 1841),

`John Baptist Cibo, elected to the papacy in 1485, under the designation Innocent VIII., was sincerely alarmed at the number of witches, and launched forth his terrible manifesto against them. In his celebrated bull of 1488, he called the nations of Europe to the rescue of the Church of Christ upon earth, imperilled by the arts of Satan, and set forth the horrors that had reached his ears; how that numbers of both sexes had intercourse with the infernal fiends; how by their sorceries they afflicted both man and beast; how they blighted the marriage-bed, destroyed the births of women and the increase of cattle: and how they blasted the corn on the ground, the grapes of the vineyard, the fruits of the trees, and the herbs of the field. In order that criminals so atrocious might no longer pollute the earth, he appointed inquisitors in every country, armed with apostolic power to convict and punish. It was now that the Witch Mania properly so called, may be said to have commenced. Immediately a class of men sprang up in Europe, who made it the sole business of their lives to discover and burn witches. Sprenger, in Germany, was the most celebrated of these national scourges. In his notorious work, the Malleus Maleficarum, he laid down a regular form of trial, and appointed a course of examination by which the inquisitors in other countries might best discover the guilty. The questions, which were always enforced by torture, were of the most absurd and disgusting nature...Cumanus, in Italy, burned forty-one poor women in one province alone; and Sprenger, in Germany, burned a number which can never be ascertained correctly, but which, it is agreed on all hands, amounted to more than five hundred in a year...For fear the zeal of the enemies of Satan should cool, successive popes appointed new commissions. One was appointed by Alexander VI. in 1494, another by Leo X. in 1521, and a third by Adrian VI. in 1522. They were all armed with the same powers to hunt out and destroy, and executed their fearful functions but too rigidly. In Geneva alone five hundred persons were burned in the years 1515 and 1516, under the title of Protestant witches...in the year 1524 no less than a thousand persons suffered death for witchcraft in the district of Como...Henri Boguet, a witch-finder, who styled himself "The Grand Judge of Witches for the Territory of St. Claude," drew up a code for the guidance of all persons engaged in the witch-trials, consisting of seventy articles, quite as cruel as the code of Bodinus. In this document he affirms, that a mere suspicion of witchcraft justifies the immediate arrest and torture of the suspected person...Who, when he hears that this diabolical doctrine was the universally received opinion of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities can wonder that thousands upon thousands of unhappy persons should be brought to the stake? that Cologne should for many years burn its three hundred witches annually? district of Bamberg its four hundred? Nuremberg, Geneva, Paris, Toulouse, Lyons, and other cities, their two hundred?...In 1595, an old woman residing in a village near Constance, angry at not being invited to share the sports of the country people on a day of public rejoicing, was heard to mutter something to herself, and was afterwards seen to proceed through the fields toward a hill, where she was lost sight of. A violent thunder-storm arose about two hours afterwards, which wet the dancers to the skin, and did considerable damage to the plantations. This woman, suspected before of witchcraft, was seized and imprisoned, and accused of having raised the storm, by filling a hole with wine, and stirring it about with a stick. She was tortured till she confessed, and was burned alive the next evening...They never burned anybody till he confessed; and if one course of torture would not suffice, their patience was not exhausted, and they tried him again and again, even to the twentieth time.'

On the first page of 'A Tale of Two Cities' Charles Dickens gives us an example of an abuse which led to the French Revolution,

`France, less favored on the whole as to matters spiritual than her sister of the shield and the trident, rolled with exceeding smoothness down hill, making paper money and spending it. Under the guidance of her Christian pastors, she entertained herself, besides, with such humane achievements as sentencing a youth to have his hands cut off, his tongue torn out with pincers, and his body burned alive, because he had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a dirty procession of monks which passed within his view, at a distance of some fifty or sixty yards.'

Dickens once tarried in Avignon and wrote of what he saw in his 'Sketches of Italy.' He described to us one of the torture chambers in the Palace of the Popes. There was a painting of the Good Samaritan on the wall hard by the iron spikes, once heated red-hot, and upon which the victims of the Inquisition were formerly impaled.

Tocqueville told us in 'The Ancien Regime and the Revolution:'

`Nothing is better for imbuing modesty in philosophers and statesman than the history of our Revolution. Never was an event so momentous and of such ancient causes, so inevitable, and yet so unforeseen.'

Apropos of Tocqueville's theme - the blindness of philosophers and statesmen - as well as our themes concerning the sign of the cross and the falling away from the True Faith mentioned in 2 Thess 2, Frederic Harrison informed us in 'The Meaning of History' (Macmillian, 1896):

`Take a rapid survey of France in the closing year of the Monarchy. She had not recovered from the desolation of the long wars of Louis XIV., the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the banishment of the Protestants, the monstrous extravagance of Versailles and the corrupt system which was there concentrated. The entire authority was practically absorbed by the Crown, whilst the most incredible confusion and disorganization reigned throughout the administration. A network of incoherent authorities crossed, recrossed, and embarrassed each other throughout the forty provinces. The law, the customs, the organization of the provinces, differed from each other. Throughout them existed thousands of hereditary offices without responsibility, and sinecures cynically created for the sole purpose of being sold. The administration of justice was as completely incoherent as the public service. Each province, and often each district, city, or town, had special tribunals with peculiar powers of its own and anomalous methods of jurisdiction. There were nearly four hundred different codes of customary law. There were civil tribunals, military tribunals, commercial tribunals, exchequer tribunals, ecclesiastical tribunals, and manorial tribunals. A vast number of special causes could only be heard in special courts: a vast body of privileged persons could only be sued before special judges. If civil justice was in a state of barbarous complication and confusion, criminal justice was even more barbarous. Preliminary torture before trial, mutilation, ferocious punishments, a lingering death by torment, a penal code which had death or bodily mutilation in every page, were dealt out freely to the accused without the protection of counsel, the right of appeal, or even a public statement of the sentence. For ecclesiastical offenses, and these were a wide and vague field, the punishment was burning alive. Loss of the tongue, of eyes, of limbs, and breaking on the wheel, were common punishments for very moderate crimes. Madame Roland tells us how the summer night was made hideous by the yells of wretches dying by inches after the torture of the wheel. With this state of justice there went systematic corruption in the judges, bribery of officials from the highest to the lowest, and an infinite series of exactions and delays in trial. To all but the rich and the privileged, a civil cause portended ruin, a criminal accusation was a risk of torture and death...Just before the Revolution the total taxation of all kinds amounted to some sixty millions sterling. Of this not more than half was spent in the public service. The rest was the plunder of the privileged, in various degrees, from king to the mistress's lackey. This enormous taxation was paid mainly by the non-privileged, who were less than twenty-six millions. The nobles, the clergy, were exempt from property-tax, though they held between them more than one half of the entire land of France...Twelve thousand prelates and dignified clergy had a revenue of more than two millions sterling. Four millions more was divided amongst some 60,000 minor priests. Altogether the privileged orders, having hereditary rank or ecclesiastical office, numbered more than 200,000 persons. Besides these, some 50,000 families were entitled to hereditary office of a judicial sort, who formed the `nobility of the robe.'...About a fifth of the soil of France was in mortmain, the inalienable property of the Church. Nearly half of the soil was held in big estates, and was tilled on the métayer system. About one-third of it was the property of the peasant. But though the property of the peasant, it was bound, as he was bound, by an endless list of restrictions. In the Middle Ages each fief had been a kingdom in itself; each lord a petty king; the government, the taxation, the regulation of each fief, was practically the national government, the public taxation, and the social institutions. But in France, whilst the national authority had passed from the lord of the fief to the national Crown, the legal privileges, the personal and local exemptions, were preserved intact. The peasant remained for many practical purposes a serf, even whilst he owned his own farm. A series of dues were payable to the lord; personal services were still exacted; special rights were in full vigour. The peasant, proprietor as he was, still delved the lord's land, carted his produce, paid his local dues, made his roads. All this had to be done without payment, as corvee or forced labour tax. The peasants were in the position of a people during a most oppressive state of siege, when a foreign army is in occupation of a country. The foreign army was the privileged order. Everything and everyone outside of this order was the subject of oppressive requisition. The lord paid no taxes on his lands, was not answerable to the ordinary tribunals, was practically exempt from the criminal law, had the sole right of sporting, could alone serve as an officer in the army, could alone aspire to any office under the Crown...There were tolls on bridges, on ferries, on paths, on fairs, on markets. There were rights of warren, rights of pigeon-houses, of chase, and fishing. There were dues payable on the birth of an heir, on marriage, on the acquisition of new property by the lord, dues payable for fire, for the passage of a flock, for pasture, for wood. The peasant was compelled to bring his corn to be ground in the lord's mill, to crush his grapes at the lord's wine-press, to suffer his crops to be devoured by the lord's game and pigeons. A heavy fine was payable on sale or transfer of the property; on every side were due quit-rents, rent-charges, fines, dues in money and in kind, which could not be commuted and could not be redeemed. After the lord's dues came those of the Church, the tithes payable in kind, and other dues and exactions of the spiritual army. And even this was but the domestic side of the picture. After the lord and the Church came the king's officers, the king's taxes, the king's requisitions, with all the multiform oppression, corruption, and peculation of the farmers of the revenue and the intendants of the province. Under this manifold congeries of more than Turkish misrule, it was not surprising that agriculture was ruined and the country became desolate. A fearful picture of that desolation has been drawn for us by our economist, Arthur Young, in 1787, 1788, 1789. Every one is familiar with the dreadful passages wherein he speaks of haggard men and women wearily tilling the soil, sustained on black bread, roots, and water, and living in smoky hovels without windows; of the wilderness presented by the estates of absentee grandees; of the infinite tolls, dues, taxes, and impositions, of the cruel punishments on smugglers, on the dealers in contraband salt, on poachers, and deserters. It was not surprising that famines were incessant, that the revenue decreased, and that France was sinking into the decrepitude of an Eastern absolutism. `For years,' said d'Argenson, `I have watched the ruin increasing. Men around me are now starving like flies, or eating grass'...This state of things was only peculiar to France by reason of the vast area over which it extended, of the systematic scale on which it was worked, and the intense concentration of the evil. In substance it was common to Europe. It was the universal legacy of the feudal system, and the general corruption of hereditary government. In England, four great crises, that of 1540, 1648, 1688, and 1714, had largely got rid of these evils. But they existed in even greater intensity in Ireland and partly in Scotland; they flourished in the East of Europe in full force; the corruption of government was as great in the South of Europe. The profligacy of Louis XV. was hardly worse in spirit, though it was more disgusting than that of Charles II. The feudalism of Germany and Austria was quite as barbarous as that of France. And in Italy and Spain the Church was more intolerant, more depraved, and more powerful...Schoolboys in France can repeat the historic passage about the woman near Mars-la-Tour, aged twenty-eight, but so bent and furrowed and hardened by labour that she looked sixty or seventy, as she groaned out: `Sir, the taxes and the dues are crushing us to death!'

Chapter 6. More Info on the Sign of the Cross

We have two very inflammatory scenarios with the sign of the cross. These would be worst case scenario and the best case scenario for the sign of the cross. One theory says the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation. If this is true then one will burn forever in hell if one puts the mark of a cross on one's forehead or right hand. The basic idea here draws an analogy with the Nazis. The Nazis committed evil for a few years, and therefore, the Nazi swastika is an evil symbol. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century. The sign of the cross and material crosses were never used by Christ and the apostles - they are evil in the sight of God - they represents centuries of evil perpetrated by phony Christians.

The other scenario in which the sign of the cross pertains to the Book of Revelation says the sign of the cross is sacred in the eyes of God - it is divorced from every sort of evil - and, furthermore, the mark of a cross is this seal of God which we read about in Revelation 9. This seal which protects one from torments, provided one has it on one's forehead.

As we know 2 Thess 2 mentions a falling away. If one commits sacrilege with the cross - calling evil things sacred is sacrilege - and calling sacred things evil is sacrilege – if one commits sacrilege then one has certainly fallen away from the True Faith. Recall that 2 Thess 1. 8 tells of hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One is not obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ if one commits sacrilege! If one says that something which is evil in the eyes of God is sacred, then one commits sacrilege. If one says that something which is sacred in the eyes of God is evil, one commits sacrilege.

The Roman Catholic is trapped in the logic which says that since Rome is God's True Church, and, since it is always stupid to rebel against God's True Church, it is always stupid to rebel against the Church of Rome. So, when Rome commits sacrilege by calling evil things holy - for instance Rome commits sacrilege whenever Rome says the Inquisition was holy, such as when Rome calls the Inquisition the `Holy Office', then the Roman Catholic must either renounce Rome or he must admit that the Inquisition was holy. He must either admit that Rome leads souls to perdition, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or he must admit that Rome is God's True Church, and, since it is idiotic to rebel against God's True Church, it is idiotic to contradict Rome by saying the Inquisition was an evil office not a holy office. With the sign of the cross, there is, on the one hand, the argument which says it is a satanic lie to say that God will torture in eternal hellfire anyone with the mark of a cross on his forehead, and then there is the argument which says that no end of evil was perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross, and it is just all wrong to think that a representation of a pagan instrument of torture and murder could ever be sacred in the eyes of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 mean that Christ's sacrifice on the pagan instrument of torture and execution is holy, but the material cross, the representation of the pagan instrument of torture and murder, is evil in the eyes of the Creator of the Universe, because of all of the evil perpetrated over the centuries by the barbarians under the sign of the cross.

If you can't see the truth about the sign of the cross and the material cross - if you can't see what is sacrilege and what isn't - how do you expect to escape perdition? The cross either reflects no evil or else the cross reflects some evil. So, there are strong reasons to be decisive with the sign of the cross. If you are not decisive, if you don't know what is a sacrilege, and what isn't, then you have fallen away from the True Faith. But then, on the other hand, you don't want to be decisive with the sign of the cross in a way which leads to your soul burning in eternal hellfire, where you are tortured for billions upon billions upon billions of endless billions of centuries of in hell - talk about stating the obvious!

On the one hand we have a theory which says it is a monstrous satanic lie to say that people will burn in hell forever and ever if they have the mark of a cross on their foreheads or right hands - it is a monstrous satanic lie to say the mark of a cross is the mark of the beast mentioned in Revelation 14. But then, on the other hand, if all of the evils perpetrated by people brandishing crosses over the centuries are reflected in the sign of the cross, rather as the evils of the Nazis are reflected in the Nazi swastika, and seeing that Christ and the apostles never used the sign of the cross and material crosses, and never said these things are sacred....

The Christian scriptures are quite clear: if you want to attain heaven and escape perdition then don't fall away from the True Faith. Recall 2 Thess 1. 8: fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. So check to make sure you know God and obey the Gospel. Check to make sure you have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on your heart.

Again, if there is one church under the sign of the cross, perhaps more than one but at least one church among all of the thousands of churches under the cross which has not fallen away from the True Faith, which has not fallen into heresy, and therefore this Church leads people to heaven, then you can trust that Church when it tells you the cross is sacred to God. But if every church under the cross has fallen into heresy and drags people down to perdition – though this wouldn't actually prove that the cross is evil – still, it's quite newsworthy to learn that every church under the cross leads people to perdition.

Suppose a church tells you the cross is sacred and tells you the cross is the seal of God, and that it protects one from the torments described in Revelation 9 when the mark of a cross is placed on ones forehead. 3 Scenarios here. 1) Nothing terribly newsworthy will happen to you, nothing good and nothing bad, 2) The cross does indeed protect one from the torments described in Revelation 9, because it's the seal of God mentioned in revelation 9, 3) You burn in hell forever because the cross is the mark of the beast – Revelation 14. 11 – and you got the mark of the beast on your forehead, so, eternal fire. That church which told you the cross is sacred to God was mistaken, it had fallen into heresy – it was certainly not the Church which Christ founded on a rock: it was just another worthless church which had fallen into heresy.

Chapter 7. Info on the Rich and Gay Marriage, on Israel and Zionism.

The New Testament really hammers the rich - `Woe to you who are rich!' - Luke 6. 24. Note also Matthew 19. 23-26, Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 16. 19-31.

1 John 3. 17,

`But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?'

James 1. 9,

Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away.'

The Sermon on the Mount contains curses as well as blessings: Luke 6. 24-5: `But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger...'

Again, the New Testament presents the True Church as one which has equal sharing of wealth between believers. Acts 4. 32 states,

`Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.'

Acts 2. 44-7,

`Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. So, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And God added to the church daily those who were being saved.'

St. Paul teaches in 2 Thess 2. 10 that those who refuse to work shouldn't be given alms to allow him to eat. It's true that we don't read in the New Testament that equal sharing of the wealth is absolutely mandatory in the True Church. But scriptures such as Mark 12. 41-44 - the widow's two mites - James 1. 9 - the rich man passes away - I Timothy 6. 10 - the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil - Matthew 19. 23 - easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God - Luke 16. 19-31 - parable of Lazarus and the rich man - Luke 3. 11 - John the Baptists likens the rich to a brood of vipers - I Corinthians 13 - one has nothing if one lacks charity.

St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10,

`Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit the kingdom of God.'

Do churches such as the ELCA - the Evangelican Lutheran Church in America - and the Episcopalian church - which both support Gay Marriage - lead souls to perdition?

To examine the question we should first observe that there is a distinction to be made between gay men who partake in the most uninhibited varieties of sodomy, and gay men whose most passionate embraces involve only some hugging and hand holding. And Christianity is of course hostile to bullies who persecute gays and lesbians. But the key question which Christians want answered is: is Gay Marriage anti-Christian? Does it lead people to perdition?

The marriage rite has some curious supernatural idiosyncrasies which have to be understood. For instance, though Protestants do not always call marriage a sacrament, as do Roman Catholics, still, marriage is a de facto sacrament in Protestantism, as well as in most other religions. It is the rite which transforms that which is sinful - fornication - into that which is undefiled in the eyes of God: lawful marital relations. Recall Hebrews 13. 4.

`Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.'

The Roman Catholic does not tell the Jewish person: `Because you were married in a false and heretical synagogue, your marriage vows are invalid, therefore, you and your wife are fornicators, and your little ones are illegitimate.'

The Protestant does not say to the Buddhist, the Muslim, or the Hindu: `Because you were married in a creed which rejects the True God - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and because your creed is simply a superstition which drags souls down to perdition, therefore, your marriage vows are worthless in the eyes of the True God.'

Roman Catholics and Protestants don't say those sorts of things because Roman Catholics and Protestants truly believe that God respects the marriage vows of people in all the major world religions: Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc., etc. The marriage rite transcends the Faiths.

The rite of baptism cuts no ice with the Muslims. The rite of Jihad is anathema in the eyes of the Hindus. The Marxist-Leninist does not care to see male children bleed in the Jewish rite of circumcision. But all of the world's major religions respect the marriage rite between one man and one woman.

Marriage is a rite which takes a sinful act - sex outside of marriage - and transforms it into an action which is not sinful, which does not lead souls to perdition. But Gay Marriage does not transform sinful sodomy between two unmarried guys into sinless sex between two married gentlemen. Again, St. Paul said in I Corinthians 6. 9-10,

`Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit the kingdom of God.'

Gay Marriage is Sham Marriage because Gay Marriage can not transform sinful sodomy into something sinless, whereas, True Marriage accomplishes an astonishing supernatural transformation, by turning sinful, unholy, unlawful, licentious, pre-marital sex-fornication into honorable, respectable, upstanding, clean and legal post-marital sex.

Gay Marriage leads souls to perdition, because, gay sex - sodomy - even under the cover of Gay Marriage - is just as sinful as gay sex outside of Gay Marriage. A sodomite with a marriage license from the State of New York is sunk in mortal sin. A sodomite who got his marriage license out of a cereal box is sunk in mortal sin. A sodomite with no marriage license is sunk in mortal sin. A sodomite with a marriage license from Church 666 is sunk in mortal sin. A sodomite with a marriage license from the Episcopalian Church or the ELCA is sunk in mortal sin. It is wrong for the State to persecute Gays and Lesbians, but, at the same time, if we assume that Christianity is true - and I make that assumption - then it is sinful for a church or a State to sanction or support anything which is anti-Christian. A church or a State is not anti-Christian if it tolerates various sins, but if a church or a State actively supports something which is sinful and anti-Christian, then that church or State is anti-Christian.

When Christians give their blessing to a rite, Gay Marriage, a rite which leads souls to perdition, then these Christians are giving their blessing to something which leads people to perdition. And - as you might imagine - this is not something Christians should be doing.

Marriage is a de jure sacrament in Roman Catholicism. It is stated in official Roman Catholic doctrine to be a rite which confers grace. It is a de facto sacrament in the Protestant sects. It is seen as a rite which confers grace, because, it takes the sinful act of sexual relations outside of marriage - fornication - an act which leads souls to perdition - I Cor 6. 9 - and it transforms it into something which does not lead souls to hell - therefore marriage confers grace. Therefore, as marriage confers grace, it is a de facto sacrament in Protestantism. When a sacrament is defiled - such as marriage is defiled when a church or the State or a person gives its / his blessing to sodomy and gay marriage - then a sacrilege is committed. It seems rather insane to think that a church which commits sacrilege is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. And it seems rather insane to think that a person who endorses sacrilege has the Divine Law written on his heart. And it seems rather insane to think that a Christian who supports something which leads souls to perdition - Gay Marriage - is a True Christian.

Consider how it is anti-Christian to reject Zionism. Zionism is the philosophy which says the Jews have a right to live in peace in the Holy Land. The argument runs as follows: If one rejects Christ's words at the Last Supper - `For this is My blood of the new covenant, shed for the remission of sins of many' \- 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, `For this is My blood of the new covenant, shed for the remission of sins of many' then one will accept Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Again, the new covenant is first mentioned in the Bible in Jeremiah 31. 31-34.

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 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 2013, 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, and then the Jews will never again rebel against God. 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.

So, if all of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 is fulfilled in the near future, then the 1st part of Ezekiel will be fulfilled in our time, and this 1st part shows that God supports Zionism in our time, so, if one is presently an enemy of Zionism, then one is acting in opposition to God, one is acting in a proud and wicked way, and Malachi 4. 1 says the proud and the wicked will be set on fire.

Another Christian argument which says one is damned if one rejects Zionism in our time runs as follows: 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 into 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.

Daniel 12. 1 says there will be a time of unprecedented trouble on earth when the archangel Michael shows up, and that the Jews will be delivered when Michael shows up. Christians have few ways to interpret Daniel 12. 1 aside from the interpretation which says Michael will convert the Jews to the True Faith and the True Church. How can the Jews be delivered if they are divorced from the Church which Christ founded on a rock? How can they be delivered if they are divorced from Christianity, from the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34? To say one can be delivered if one rejects Christianity is to reject Christianity. One might argue that the Antichrist will first convert the Jews to an evil version of Christianity, and then a few years might elapse before Michael shows up to convert the Jews to the True Version of Christianity. And the True Version of Christianity is the True Divine Law. To repeat yet again 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.'

The End
