 
The Archangel Michael vs. the Antichrist

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 rebecacovers at www. fiverr.com

The Archangel Michael vs. the Antichrist

As one might have guessed from the title, in this book we want to explore the concept of angels from hell and angels from heaven. To give a quick review of angelic activity, their general practices and methods of operation, you don't want to be led astray by some angel from hell, get conned into believing that he is an angel from heaven, and that he leads people to heaven, when in fact he leads people to hell. If you already know how to locate the True Faith and the True Church then the question naturally arises: how could you ever be led astray by some angel from hell? Evidently he will persuade you that you don't know how to locate the True Faith and the True Church, when in fact you understand all this. But if it's a situation where you think you know how to locate the True Church and the True Faith, but in fact you are deluded on this matter, then it's easy to see how an angel from hell could lead you deeper into hellish delusion. So, if one can't locate the True Faith and the True Church, then one is on the road to perdition, and one will have trouble recognizing the difference between angels from hell and angels from heaven. Everything more or less depends on being able to locate the True Faith and the True Church. I mean, suppose for example Islam is a big fraud, a hellish lie which leads naïve people to eternal perdition. Then if some angel shows up pushing Islam, proclaiming it to be God's True Religion, the True Faith which leads people to heaven, when in fact it is a hellish lie which drags souls down to perdition, then that angel is an angel from hell not an angel from heaven. Recall that Barak Obama said Islam is a noble religion. It's a noble religion if it leads people to heaven. And it's an evil religion if it leads people away from heaven and to eternal perdition. Or suppose some angel shows up and he is pushing the Roman Catholic Church, insisting Rome is God's True Church. But if the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church, if Rome leads people to perdition because Rome is a false church, if Rome is lost in heresy and is simply not the Bride of Christ, not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then that angel is an angel from hell, because he leads people to hell. Or perhaps an angel shows up and he is lost in heresy for a few years, and so he leads people to hell for a few years, but then, suppose, he changes and adopts the True Faith and starts leading people to heaven, and never reverts back to leading people to hell, then you would say he is an angel from heaven, even though he got off to a bad start in his angelic career.

Christianity promises a Second Coming of Christ. But before this Second Coming of Christ happens the Antichrist is scheduled to show up. 2 Thess 2 is clear the man of sin / son of perdition – commonly called the Antichrist – shows up prior to the Second Coming of Christ. And these 3 angels from heaven, Revelation 14. 6-11, are also on the schedule to show up.

The New Testament says that no one knows when Christ will return. OK, but nevertheless, 2 Thess 2 is very clear in saying the man of sin / son of perdition will be revealed before Christ's Second Coming. This man of sin / son of perdition is usually seen as the Antichrist of 1 John 2. 18, and seen as this beast mentioned in Revelation 19. 19.

Anyway, Christianity says there will be an apocalypse – a huge cataclysmic event which results in economic destruction and famine – see the 18th chapter of the Book of Revelation for more info on this. So, what Christianity says is: the Muslims, and the Hindus, and the Buddhists etc., etc., will see strong evidence saying Christianity is true, and they will see strong evidence saying their respective religions are falsehoods, superstitions, when the Antichrist and these 3 angels from heaven show up, and when the events of Revelation 18 come to pass. Of course they will also see strong evidence that Christianity is true when Christ returns. But Christ's return is described in scripture as an event where Christ's doesn't waste any time pleading with the enemies of Christianity to convert to Christianity. The Second Coming is just a huge slaughter where Christ slaughters all those opposed to Him.

The enemies of Christianity say Christianity is a big lie and superstition. They say this Antichrist is a delusion, a fiction, a superstition. The enemies of Christianity say it is far more likely that the 3 angels from _Charlie's Angels_ will show up than these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11. But if the Antichrist does arrive, and if these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 show up, then this would be clear proof that Christianity is true, and it would prove that Islam is a lie, and prove that Hinduism is a lie, and prove that Buddhism is a lie, and prove that...

Daniel 12. 1 tells us the archangel Michael will show up during a time of enormous and unprecedented time of trouble on earth, and then the Jews will be delivered. Perhaps the archangel Michael would be one of these 3 angels that we read about in Revelation 14. 6-11.

The key Christian argument favoring Zionism, and Zionism is the doctrine that the Jews have a Divine Right to live in peace, in their own nation in the Holy Land – the strongest argument for Zionism, to my mind, pertains to Ezekiel 36. 24-28. You might recall that Matthew 26. 28 has Jesus saying at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...' And then turning to Jeremiah 31. 31-34 we read that God will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. God will write His new law on the hearts of His people. 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.'

Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is very similar to Ezekiel 36. 24-28, which has the LORD saying,

"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from 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 be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.'

Some say Ezekiel 36. 24-28 refers to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity 25 centuries ago. But that interpretation makes no sense to Christians, because the context of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 refers to a time when the Spirit of God is put into the Jews, and after that time they will never again rebel against God. No more Jewish rebellions. All Jewish rebellion is over and ended. Even if the Spirit of God was put into the Jews for a little while after the Babylonian Captivity, Christians insist the Jews have been in rebellion against God ever since they first rejected Jesus all those many centuries ago. So, Bible-based Christians say that Ezekiel 36. 24-28 can not refer to the return of the Jews to the Holy Land following the Babylonian Captivity. So, perhaps, it refers to the Zionism of our time, again Zionism being the doctrine that the Jews have a Divine right to their own nation in the Holy Land. Of course we Christians are still waiting for God to put His Christian Spirit into the Jews, but if the 1st part of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 has been fulfilled, the part about God bringing the Jews back to the Holy Land, then you would have to expect the 2nd part to soon be fulfilled, the part about God putting His Spirit into the Jews. Bible Based Christians say you become filled with the Spirit of God when you read, believe and obey the New Testament. Suppose the first part of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 refers to Zionism in our time, the 20th and 21st century, then, Bible-Based Christians will say that if you are anti-Zionist then you have been led astray by Satan, because you're not supposed to be hostile to any part of Ezekiel 36. 24-28! We have a conclusion which says: you're on the Devil's side if you oppose Zionism in our time. That conclusion rests upon two premises. Premise 1. Ezekiel 36. 24-28 is from God, and, Premise 2. Ezekiel 36. 24-28 refers to Zionism in our time. If both Premise 1 and Premise 2 are correct, then the conclusion is correct, the conclusion being: you're on the Devil's side if you oppose Zionism.

Those of us who are Christian Zionists are waiting for the 2nd part of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 to be fulfilled, the part about God putting His Spirit into the Jews. Christians say the second part of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 can't be fulfilled until the Jews accept Jesus as God, as the Divine Son, recall Isaiah 9. 6, Psalm 2, Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9.5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16. But at the moment lots of Jews would be more inclined to recall Malachi 4. 1 and say you will be set aflame if you worship Jesus as God, and the Christians will be saying, no, no, we won't be set on fire for worshipping Jesus as God!

So, if the Jews are converted to Christianity, we then have to ask: have they been converted to True Christianity, or have they been converted to an evil form of Christianity, have they been converted to a Christian heresy? If these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 convert the Jews to their version of Christianity then this is of course True Christianity. But if the Antichrist shows up, and if he converts the Jews to an evil version of Christianity, then years or decades might elapse before Michael shows up to convert the Jews to True Christianity. Daniel 12. 1 and Ezekiel 36. 24-28 certainly say the Jews will eventually be delivered and reconciled with God, but we aren't given a precise timetable for all this.

All of my religious books focus on the new covenant mentioned by Christ at the Last Supper and mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-36. Matthew 26. 28: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...' And what is the new covenant? Long story short, the whole New Testament explains the new covenant. No one scripture in the New Testament explains the New Covenant. You need the entire New Testament to explain the New Covenant, you see. Turning, in the Bible, to the first mention of a new covenant, a new Divine Law to amend the Mosaic Law, to amend the old covenant. Again, we read in 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.'

A Christian is under lots of pressure to insist that he has this Divine Law written on his heart, because, if he doesn't have the Divine Law written on his heart, then he is a false Christian, a phony Christian: he is someone who is on the road to perdition: he is not on the road to heaven. But then if a Christian insists that he has the Divine Law inscribed on his heart, then he's under a lot of pressure to actually be a great authority on Divine Law, under a lot of pressure to actually have the Divine Law written on his heart. There's lots of pressure to not flip-flop on issues. Suppose you are saying on Monday that doctrines A, B and C are sound doctrines. But if you change your tune, and on Tuesday you say that doctrine C is a heresy that leads people to perdition, then you are saying you didn't have the Divine Law written on your heart on Monday. If you actually had God's Law written on your heart on Monday then you would not have been preaching heresy on Monday, but now on Tuesday you are admitting that you were teaching heresy on Monday. Christians are under pressure to say we have the Divine Law written on our hearts, because you are on the road to heaven if you have it written on your heart, and you are on the road to perdition if you don't have it written on your heart, so there's lots of pressure to say you got it written on your heart. Obviously, you want to change your mind and admit your mistakes if you must. You don't want to be stubborn and never your mind if you must change your mind in order to attain heaven and escape perdition, of course. If you are on the road to perdition, and if you must change some things to get on the road to heaven, then it would be insane to not change some things.

My nonfictional books try to paraphrase the True Faith, try to explain the Gospel of Jesus Christ – also known as the new covenant which God writes on the hearts of his people (Matthew 26. 28, Jeremiah 31. 31-34). Christ gave us 2 commandments – not to imply these invalidate the 10 Commandments – love God and love your neighbor, indeed the scriptures tell us you can't love God unless you obey the 10 Commandments, 1 John 5. 3. John 14. 23-26 tells us that one loves Christ if one will keep His words, and one doesn't love Christ if one doesn't keep His words. And of course Christ spoke quite a few words. So you can't expect a good paraphrase of Christianity to be super brief. I devote a good deal of time and effort merely to the cross and the crucifix. You certainly don't want to commit sacrilege with these things, or with anything else for that matter. Sacrilege is a sin which leaders offenders who fail to repent straight to eternal perdition. Declaring to be sacred something which God says is evil would be an example of a sacrilege. And declaring to be evil something which God says is sacred would be another example of sacrilege. We'll look

Suppose some angel shows up and he is pushing the doctrine that the sign of the cross is holy to God, and furthermore, it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. And suppose this angel is pushing the doctrine that you must have the mark of a cross on your forehead, during the great tribulation, see Revelation 18, in order to escape the tortures mentioned in Revelation 18. But if it turns out that God hates the sign of the cross and says it is evil, then recall that Revelation 14. 11 mentions that people who have an evil mark on their foreheads or right hands will burn in hellfire forever and ever. Obviously, if you have no mark whatsoever on your forehead or your right hand then you will never be shipped off to burn in hell forever and ever for the sin of having an evil mark on your forehead or right hand.

We might assume that the cross either symbolizes no evil or else it symbolizes some evil. We have various scriptures which tell us the cross of Christ is sacred to God, such as Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18. Could it be that those scriptures don't mean the actual pagan instrument of torture and execution used to crucify Christ, or a representation of it, is sacred to God? We know that God is sacred but graven images of God are evil, forbidden by the 2nd commandment. Of course Renaissance artists were not too concerned with the 2nd commandment. Tradition tells Catholics there is nothing wrong with the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, but the Bible says there's something wrong with it. Isn't it possible that the cross of Christ mentioned as sacred in scripture merely means that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred? If a person insists that the material cross is sacred, because it represents Christ's sacred sacrifice on the cross, well, this is just his opinion. It is an opinion with no scriptural authority. One might say that a graven image of God is sacred because God is sacred and therefore the graven image of God is sacred. But the graven image is evil under the 2nd Commandment. God is sacred but graven images of God are evil. In the same way, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but this doesn't mean that a pagan instrument of torture, or miniaturized material representations of the same, are sacred to God.

Anyway, we're left with 2 options, with 2 cases for the cross.

Case 1 says the cross symbolizes no evil. Case 1 says material crosses are sacred to God.

Case 2 says material crosses are not sacred to God and they symbolize some evil.

Case 1 says you commit sacrilege if you say the cross symbolizes some evil. It's a sacrilege to declared to be evil things which God says are sacred.

Case 2 says you commit sacrilege if you say the cross is sacred, because God says it's evil, and it is a sacrilege to declare to be sacred things which God says are evil.

The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and as a result we say the Nazi swastika reflects that evil. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century. Apropos of whether the cross symbolizes no evil, or whether it symbolizes some evil, 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.'

Abram Leon Sachar, a former president of Brandeis University, wrote in A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1960):

`This time the villain of the piece is the papal legate John of Capistrano, a Franciscan monk whose persecuting zeal earne him the unenviable title of "Scourge of the Jews."...Wherever he went, thousands...were carried away by his immense sincerity, his ferocious energy. Riots were common in Germany and Slavic lands after his tongue had lashed heretics and Jews...In Breslau a Bernadine chapel was built with Jewish money after nearly the whole community had been burnt alive for blasphemy...So went the tale of woe decade after decade, endlessly. Four hundred years had now passed since the hideous nightmare had begun. Hounded by successions of crusaders...Even sunny Spain was beginning to use the thumb-screw and the torch...Jews turned to their Bibles and prayer-books, scanning the tear-stained pages in vain for the consolation which the living world denied them...While France and England, Germany and Austria ransacked chambers of horror to discover new torments...In Seville several thousand were butchered...The riots spread like a plague...About seventy cities of Old Castile were thus devastated and a trail of broken homes and broken hearts was left in the wake of the bloody hooligans...The fertile province of Valencia, the prosperous seaport of Barcelona, even the islands off the coast of Spain, were all swept by the ferocity of the persecutors. After three months the orgy ended, with thousands of Jewish lives snuffed out and tens of thousands of forced baptisms.'

On the one hand we have a theory which says the cross is sacred in the eyes of God. This theory says that all of the evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries having nothing to do with how you judge the cross, because God says the cross is sacred, and if you say the cross reflects some evil then you commit sacrilege, and if you commit sacrilege you are on the road to hell. If the cross is sacred to God then it is probably this is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, the seal which saves one from months of torture if that seal is on one's forehead during the great tribulation.

On the other hand, if the cross is not sacred to God, and recall that Christ and the apostles never used the cross as their symbol, and if the evil perpetrated over the centuries by people carrying crosses are reflected in the cross, then you don't want the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand. Recall Revelation 14. 11 and the part about burning in hell forever if you have an evil mark on your forehead or right hand.

If the cross is the mark of the beast then every church under the sign of the cross is a false church which leads people to perdition, and no church under the cross is God's True Church. Suppose some church tells you the cross is sacred to God, and tells you that you have nothing to fear if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead. But then if you end up burning in hell forever because you took that church's advice, then it obviously wasn't God's True Church which led you to burn in hell forever. It was a false church which gave you the terrible advice. And false churches lead people to perdition.

If the general rule is one which says: Every church under the sign of the cross leads people to eternal perdition, because, not one of these churches under the cross is God's True Church, then what about exceptions to this general rule? What if some murderer kills a little kid, and so the little kid never had a chance to find God's True Church? You can speculate that God will make some exceptions to the general rule. But if the general rule is one which says: Every church under the sign of the cross leads people to eternal perdition, then there might be some exceptions to the general rule, but it is still the general rule.

If there is just one church under the cross, perhaps more than one, but at least one church under the cross which leads people to heaven, because it is God's True Church, the Bride of Christ, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you can trust that Church when it says the cross is sacred, when it says you have nothing to fear if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead.

But if you make a slip-up, if the cross symbolizes some evil, and if you end up burning in hell forever and ever should you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, then there's your proof the cross is the mark of the beast. There's your confirmation that the cross is not the seal of God which saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9.

Let's look at the Roman Catholic crucifix. There's also a Russian Orthodox crucifix, and an Eastern Orthodox crucifix and an Anglican crucifix.

The Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a Roman Catholic version of Jesus, a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven. If the True God / True Jesus says Rome is lost in heresy and leads people to perdition, if the True God says Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven is a lie, a false version of God / Jesus. If the crucifix is an image of a lie, if it is the image of a false god, then the image of the beast, Revelation 14. 11, comes to mind.

If the True God says Rome is the True Church which leads people to heaven, then there is nothing with the Roman Catholic crucifix, indeed it is sacred to God.  
But if the True God / True Jesus says Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholic crucifix, which is an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven, is an image of a lie, it is an image of a false version of Jesus, an image of a false god. And Revelation 14 deals with people worshipping an evil image, the evil image of a false god presumably \- the image of the beast.

Some issues with the Roman Catholic Church: The scriptures say that only God is sinless. Rome says that Mary is perfect and sinless. The scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters. Rome says it is heresy, a sin which leads to perdition, to say Mary was not ever Virgin. Rome calls the Inquisition the 'Holy Office.' But, obviously, the Inquisition was evil, and it is a sacrilege, a sin which leads to perdition, to say that evil things are holy.

There are lots more issues with Rome. But everything boils down to 2 alternatives: Rome is either God's True Church or else Rome is not God's True Church.

So, if Rome is God's True Church then just obey Rome in all things and Rome will lead you to heaven. But if you rebel against God's True Church then you might certainly go to hell. So, always obey the Roman Catholic Church if Rome is God's True Church. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility says that all who reject that Dogma are anathema - they are accursed, damned. So, profess the truth of that Dogma, don't rebel against Rome, if Rome is God's True Church. If Rome is God's True Church then it is very stupid and evil to risk hell by having these Senates and Parliaments, Executive and Judicial branches, all of which rebel against Rome. The Roman Catholic Church is the only government we need if Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is God's True Church. If you say it is preposterous to have the Roman Catholic Church govern the USA, if you say it is idiocy to always obey Rome, I share that opinion with you. But it would make perfect sense to want Rome to govern the whole world if Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is indeed God's True Church. Of course if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church which leads people away from heaven and drags them down to eternal perdition, then it makes no sense to want the Roman Catholic Church to govern the world.

If Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church, if Rome leads people away from heaven and drags them down to perdition, how do we rescue these poor lost deluded Catholics being led to the slaughter by their false church? Of course it would make no sense for them to convert from one false church to yet another false church. Obviously you have to locate God's True Church.

All of my books push the idea that the scriptures which say the cross of Christ is sacred – Galatians 6. 14, Philippians 3. 18 etc. \- mean that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but they don't mean that a material cross, the physical cross, is sacred. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and as a result we say the Nazi swastika reflects that evil. Obviously, if God says the cross is the holiest symbol in the universe then it is a blasphemy to say the cross reflects evil. But I just don't think it is all that farfetched to think Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but material crosses are not sacred to God.

Henry Charles Lea wrote in his `A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages.'

`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.'

That sort of evil went on for century after century under the sign of the cross. The so-called good Christians celebrated the Eucharist in an unworthy manner for century after century when they failed to excommunicate the evil Christians, recall 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says that's a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner.

So, again, we have a Case 1 and a Case 2. Case 1 says the cross is sacred to God. Case 2 says the cross is not sacred to God. Case 1 says the cross symbolizes no evil. Case 2 says the cross symbolizes some evil. Case 1 says the cross is the seal of God which protects you from the torments described in Revelation 9. But the cross has to be on your forehead to protect you from those torments.

If Case 2 is true, if the cross is not sacred to God, if the cross symbolizes some evil, then you have to expect the Antichrist will be saying the cross is sacred. The Antichrist will be trying to get you to put the mark of a cross on your forehead. Perhaps he will be saying the cross is the seal of God which saves you from the torments mentioned in Revelation 9 provided the cross is on your forehead. But if Case 2 is true, if the cross symbolizes some evil, then you don't want the cross on your forehead. Again Revelation 14. 11 mentions that people who have an evil mark on their foreheads or right hands will burn in hell forever and ever.

Again, if the cross is the mark of the beast then every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition. If some church tells you the cross is sacred and nothing bad will happen to you if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, and then if you end up burning in hell forever and ever, then, obviously, it wasn't God's True Church which gave you the terrible advice which led you to burn in hell forever and ever, rather it was some worthless false church which leads people to perdition which gave you the bad advice which led you to burn in hell forever.

If just one church under the sign of the cross leads people to heaven, perhaps more than one but if at least one church under the sign of the cross, among all these thousands, leads people to heaven, because it is God's True Church, then you can trust that Church when it says the cross is sacred to God. And if the cross is the seal of God, well, we've been over the info about the seal of God and the torments of Revelation 9.

But if every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, if no church under the sign of the cross is God's True Church, recall Matthew 16. 13-19, then this doesn't prove the cross is evil, but, nevertheless, if every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, well, why might this be?

Obviously, for one reason, 1 John 5. 3 says you must obey the commandments to love God. But Christians are always violating the Sabbath. They are always breaking other commandments. Look at Matthew 25. 31-46, John 14. 23-26, Acts 2. 44, Acts 4. 32, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, 1 Corinthians 11. 27, Galatians 1. 8-12, Revelation 18. 23, Revelation 22. 18-19....

Revelation 20. 12-15 is very clear in saying one's name is either written in the Book of Life or else it isn't. If your name is written in the Book of Life then you go to heaven. If your name is not written in the Book of Life then you get tossed into a lake of fire. And how long do you stay in the lake of fire? It's all speculation. Some theologians insist God can't be a God of love if He tortures minor sorts of sinners, like adulterers, in fire forever and ever, so He takes them out of the lake of fire and puts them some place in perdition where it is not so uncomfortable. That makes sense to me. Other theologians say that once you get tossed into the lake of fire you are tortured there forever. I don't like that interpretation of John 15. 6, 2 Thess 1. 8, Matthew 25. 31-46 and Revelation 20. 12-15 etc.

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. So you don't want to make a slip up with your religion.

St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27 that it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. So, if you're celebrating communion with an evil murderer then it stands to reason that you are celebrating communion in an unworthy manner, and are guilty of a terrible sin. Gibbon writes of the 4th century Catholic Emperor Valentinian and his judges,

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

Everything is simple in the sense that we are not confronted with a million confusing alternatives. We only have to choose the correct choice from 2 choices: 1) the cross reflects no evil, or else, 2) The cross reflects some evil.

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."

Case 1 says the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19. Case 2 says Rome is a false church not the True Church. Case 1 says the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome. So, if Case 1 is true, then, if you could just have enough sense to always obey Rome, God's True Church, you are assured of heaven. But if you rebel against Rome, such as by refusing to venerate John of Capistrano, if you rebel against God's True Church, well, it just make no sense to say that you will escape perdition and you will attain heaven if you rebel against God's True Church.

Case 2 says the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church. Case 2 says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, has fallen into heresy, and therefore Rome leads people to perdition. The gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church. So, if you are a Roman Catholic you must renounce Rome before Rome drags you down to eternal perdition.

Now if Case 1 is true, if Rome is God's True Church, then the smart thing to do is to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church. You will go to heaven if you always obey God's True Church, you see. Rome wants you to venerate Capistrano as a saint, so just venerate him as a saint. If you always obey God's True Church then you will go to heaven and will escape hell. But if you rebel against God's True Church then you will most likely go to hell. Yes, most likely.

Now, on the other hand, if Case 2 is true, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, if Rome is lost in heresy, if Rome is not the Bride of Christ, then Rome leads people to perdition not to heaven, so, in Case 2, you don't want to be a Roman Catholic. In Case 1 you want to always obey Rome. But if Case 2 is true then you don't want to be a Roman Catholic.

Not every Christian was an evil murderer, but for century after century ordinary Christians celebrated holy communion with evil murderers. 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. Of course churches such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church insist they have always been God's True Church; they insist they have never strayed into satanic heresy; they insist they have always led people to heaven. We have millions of people who, in one breath, will tell you that the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the True Church which leads people to heaven, the True Church which leads no one to perdition, but then these millions will, in the next breath, proceed to rebel against the church they claim is God's True Church. Talk about lost in delusion! If you will always be led to heaven if you obey Church X, but if you might go to hell if you rebel against Church X, such as by rejecting one or more of its official doctrines, then it seems so insane, so delusional, to rebel against Church X. 2 Thess 2 not only deals with the Antichrist but it also deals with strong delusion.

To review the simple stuff first. Those of us who are Christians – a Christian is a person who says Jesus is God, the Divine Son - are commanded to love God and love our neighbors, and love even our enemies. 1 John 5. 3 says you must obey the commandments in order to love God. 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 16. 13-19 is very clear that there is a True Church, that is, there is a collection of people who lead themselves and other people to heaven. Obviously, Non-Christians insist Matthew 16. 13-19 is a falsehood, but if Matthew 16. 13-19 is true, as we Christians insist it is true, then there are some complicated issues pertaining to finding God's True Church. Those of us who are Christians must try to persuade Non-Christians that it is wise for them to convert to Christianity. But in order for us to persuade them we must first explain Christianity, and Christianity becomes complicated in matters pertaining to the True Church. The True Church is comprised of human beings, of saints, and even the saints in the True Church are imperfect – only God is perfect and sinless, though the Catholics say Mary is perfect and sinless. So, on the one hand, you can't expect the True Church, comprised of human beings, to be perfect. But how much sin and evil can a church perpetrate before it ceases to be the True Church? Where do you draw the line? This is where Christianity gets confusing.

Prior to the Second Coming, before Jesus returns, the Antichrist - aka the man of sin / son of perdition - must be revealed. 2 Thess 2 is very clear this happens prior to the Second Coming of Christ. And Revelation 14. 6-11 mentions 3 angels from heaven showing up. It's easy to imagine that lost and confused people might be tricked into believing an angel from hell is an angel from heaven, and vice versa. The Antichrist might push the True Faith for the most part, aside for a few things. If the Antichrist pushes 90% legit Christianity, and 10% satanic evil, then you have to be sharp enough to embrace the 90% which is legit and sharp enough to reject the 10% which is satanic evil, so that you don't end up in hell.

Matthew 26. 28 and Jeremiah 31. 31-34 tell us in so many words that the True Faith is simple enough to be written on the hearts of even the least of God's people. Again, Christ commanded us to love God and to love our neighbors and even our enemies. To love God you must obey the Commandments, recall 1 John 5. 3. Simple enough so far. But, again, Christianity becomes complicated in matters relating to the True Church, the Bride of Christ, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19. Choose any church you want to choose. You should either obey it completely because it is God's True Church, and you risk perdition if you rebel against God's True Church, so obey it completely, or else you should reject that church completely, because it is not God's True Church, it is a false church. But how do you really know for certain if some church is a false church or if it is the True Church? We certainly know there is something crazy about a person if at one moment he is insisting that some church is God's True Church, and then the next moment he is rebelling against this church that he insists is God's True Church.

Christians have enough trouble managing the simple stuff, e.g., remembering that to love God you must obey the commandments. Look how so many Christians have fallen into the evil tradition of violating the Sabbath, or violating other commandments: the one against covetousness, the one against taking God's name in vain, e.g., saying OMG etc. You see a lot of `OMFG' online. There are lots of blasphemers out there. Even among the pious there are no end of misguided Christians who think you are preaching the heresy of 'salvation through works' when you are merely saying that the scriptures say that to love God you must obey the commandments, 1 John 5. 3. It's like these people have never read 2 Thess 1. 8, or 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, or Revelation 20. 12-15 etc. The reason why so many Christians labor, and buy or sell on the Sabbath, is because some preacher led them to believe that since salvation is through faith and not through works then it is OK to go ahead and violate the Sabbath. So, that's one example of the blind leading the blind.

Jeremiah 31. 31-34 tells us that even the least of God's people can understand the Divine Law. John 6. 53-55 is simple enough in telling us you must take communion to attain heaven and escape perdition. And 1 Corinthians 11. 27 is simple enough in telling us that it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. But to know if you are celebrating communion in a worthy manner or not requires you to be an expert on the abortion issue, and an expert on the gay marriage issue, and an expert on lots and lots of other issues. For example, suppose God says the pro-choice position is evil. Then you desecrate the sacrament of holy communion when you take communion with pro-choicers, with people who make no secret that they support evil. The New Testament tells us to obey the secular authorities, but only up to a point. If the secular authorities order you to crucify Christ, then you rebel against the secular authorities. We know the apostles refused to obey the emperor when ordered to worship the image of the emperor. If a modern ruler orders millions of soldiers into battle, orders them to throw themselves toward machine guns, or if a ruler orders you to drop nuclear bombs on cities - well, there are lots of scenarios where you have to decide if what you are doing is anti-Christian. You don't want to do anything anti-Christian that will lead you away from heaven and straight to perdition.

We can follow the transition from the super simple things in Christianity to the confusing complicated aspects quite easily. As for the easy material: Psalm 2 (the Son is begotten of the Father), Isaiah 9. 6 (the Son is Almighty God), John 1. 1-14 (Jesus is God), 1 Timothy 3. 16 (Jesus is God), John 14. 23-26 (to love Christ you must keep His words), John 15. 6 (those who do not abide in Christ are like sticks which are gathered up and tossed into the flames), Matthew 16. 13-19 (Jesus founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it), Matthew 25. 31-46 (pertains to hellfire), 2 Thess 1. 8 (pertains to hellfire), 2 Thess 2 (the Antichrist revealed before the Second Coming of Christ, 2 Thess 2 also deals with strong delusion) etc., are controversial scriptures, but they are simple to understand. Christianity gets complicated when you have to determine if you are on the road to perdition because you are committing sacrilege by celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner. Again, John 6. 53-55 tells us one must take communion to escape perdition, and 1 Corinthians 11. 27 tells us it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. You might assume it is a sacrilege to defile the sacrament of holy communion by taking communion with slanderers. The word 'slanderer' in ancient Greek corresponds to our word 'devil.' Look at all the hate and slander on social media surrounding thousands of various controversies. It's not always easy to know who is guilty and who is the innocent victim of slanderers, so confining ourselves to domestic controversy, suppose you catch your wife reading smut, or suppose you catch her looking at porn, you catch her right in the act, so she can't lie and say you didn't catch her looking at porn, and then suppose you take communion with her later that week. Did you commit sacrilege by celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner, by celebrating communion with someone guilty of a mortal sin? Or suppose some serial killer claims to have found religion, perhaps he has been reading the Bible while in prison, and suppose he wants to celebrate the Eucharist with the prison chaplain. If a guy was murdering people last month, but this month he claims he has renounced evil, and he asks you to celebrate holy communion with him, well, you're left to decide if that would be a sacrilege, if that would be celebrating holy communion in an unworthy manner. Or suppose you had been laboring on the Sabbath day. If so then you are guilty of violating the Commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. Would it then be a sacrilege for you to take holy communion on the next Sabbath? Naturally one would like to consult the True Church, the Bride of Christ, on these sorts of complicated issues. But there's a complicated problem here. You first need to find the True Church in order to consult the True Church. Of course every church claims to lead people to heaven. But if you have clear evidence that a church celebrates the Eucharist in an unworthy manner then you have to suspect that church leads people to perdition not to heaven.

If you have the Divine Law written on your heart, recall Matthew 26. 28 and Jeremiah 31. 31-34, then you ought to know how to avoid committing sacrilege. Suppose you are committing sacrilege with the cross or the crucifix. It makes no sense to say that someone who commits sacrilege with the cross or the crucifix has the Divine Law written on his heart. A sacrilege, for example, would be declaring to be evil things which God says are sacred, or declaring to be sacred things which God says are evil.

I repeat lots of remedial info in my books, repeat it over and over and over and over. I don't know how often I repeat the logic that runs as follows: the Roman Catholic Church is either, 1) God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, Matthew 16. 13-19, the Bride of Christ, and therefore Rome, the Bride of Christ, leads people to heaven, and therefore we should all obey Rome, God's True Church, and none of us should be stupid, and risk hell, by rebelling against God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church - you don't attain heaven and escape perdition by rebelling against God's True Church, the Bride of Christ! - or else - 2) The Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church: the Roman Catholic Church is not the Bride of Christ, and so Rome is a false church not the True Church, and so Rome leads people to perdition.

There's no sane reason to have any government other than the Vatican if Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is God's True Church, the Bride of Christ. If there is a conflict between the Vatican and some government on earth, then you side with the Vatican. It is simply insane to rebel against Rome if Rome is God's True Church.

Of course, of course, if Rome is a false church not God's True Church, if Rome is not the Bride of Christ, if Rome leads people to perdition, then how do you persuade Catholics to see sense and renounce Rome before Rome drags them down to eternal perdition?

People always say the Temple in Jerusalem must be rebuilt in order for the prophesy of 2 Thess 2 to be fulfilled. 2 Thess 2 says the Antichrist will sit in the holy place. Recalling Jeremiah 31. 31-34 (God writes His new covenant on the hearts of His people) and 1 Corinthians 3. 16 (the heart of a Christian is the temple of God) my theory is the Antichrist will write satanic evil on the hearts of nominal Christians - on the hearts of people are Christians but they are not True Christians - they are not saints - a saint is a person who attains heaven and escapes perdition - not every Christian is a saint! A Christian is simply a person who embraces John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16, scriptures which tell us Jesus is God. The Unitarians and the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. But merely being a Christian does not make one a saint, does not make one a True Christian. In any event, if the Antichrist writes satanic evil on the hearts of nominal Christians - True Christians have the Divine Law written on their hearts therefore it is impossible for the Antichrist to write satanic evil on the hearts of True Christians - then, perhaps, the Antichrist will sit in the temple, in the holy place. If so, then the temple in Jerusalem needn't be rebuilt in order for the prophesy of 2 Thess 2 to come to pass.

Christianity is very Liberal in the sense that you can live in sin for years and years and your sins are forgiven once you repent. But Christianity is very harsh toward those who never repent, recall Matthew 5, Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 13. 3, John 15. 6, 2 Thess 1. 8, Revelation 20. 12-15, Acts 26. 13-18, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, Ephesians 5. 5 etc. This is the easy stuff, the simple stuff.

A lot of Christians believe that once you read and profess John 3. 16 then you're saved, and they believe that nothing you do after that profession will prevent you from being saved. This sort of insanity is founded on the desire to make $$$. Churches have discovered that they make much less money when they excommunicate people, and they make much more money when they excommunicate no one, when they give the bread and the wine to everyone who wants to partake. Excommunicating people is very bad for a church's cash flow, very bad for business.

Again, we're waiting for the Antichrist to arrive. Again, 2 Thess 2 is very clear in saying this happens before the Second Coming.

And we're waiting for these 3 angels from heaven arrive, recall Revelation 14. 6-11.

When the prophesies contained in Revelation 18 come to pass - economic destruction, famine etc. - then it will be easier for Non-Christians to focus on the evidence for Christianity. Non-Christians say Christianity is a false religion which leads people away from heaven and to perdition. But when the Antichrist / the 3 angels from heaven show up, when the prophesies of Revelation 18 come to pass, then the Non-Christians will see powerful evidence favoring Christianity. They will then understand that they must renounce their false religions, and they must embrace Jesus, they must convert to Christianity, to attain heaven and to escape perdition.

Of course the Non-Christians don't want to convert to the Antichrist's religion. They don't want to convert from one heresy which leads to perdition to yet another heresy which leads people to perdition.

No doubt these 3 angels from heaven, Revelation 14. 6-11, will guide people to the True Faith and the True Church.

While waiting for the Apocalypse to arrive, one might try to make an accurate judgment of the Roman Catholic Church. Is Rome the Bride of Christ? Is Rome not the Bride of Christ? Does Rome lead people to heaven because Rome is God's True Church? Does Rome lead people to perdition because Rome is not God's True Church, is not the Bride of Christ?

Now if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then it would be stupid for anyone to risk hell by rebelling against the Roman Catholic Church. So, obviously, everyone on earth should obey the Vatican if Rome is God's True Church. Indeed it is satanic to rebel against Rome if Rome is God's True Church.

But, on the other hand, if Rome is not the Bride of Christ, if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome is a false church which drags people down to eternal perdition, then every Roman Catholic must renounce Rome before Rome drags them down to perdition.

Try also to make an accurate judgment of the Russian Orthodox Church. What do you think? Bride of Christ or not the Bride of Christ? Leads people to heaven or leads people to perdition?

And try to make an accurate judgment of the Church of England. We know everyone on earth should obey the Church of England if the Church of England is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Bride of Christ.

But, on the other hand, if the Church of England is not God's True Church, if the Church of England a false church which leads people to perdition, then no one on earth should be a member of the Church of England.

Matthew 16. 13-19 is really quite specific. The Bride of Christ, God's True Church, the Church which leads people to heaven, must exist somewhere in the world. We just have to find this Bride of Christ.

You don't want to commit sacrilege with the cross and the crucifix or anything else.

All of my religious books focus on the great tribulation which precedes the Second Coming of Christ, see Revelation 18. Revelation 14. 6-11 mentions 3 angels from heaven showing up. 2 Thess 2 deals with the Antichrist. And again 2 Thess 2 specifically says the man of sin / son of perdition, aka the Antichrist, will be revealed prior to the Second Coming. There is really no way to distinguish an angel from hell from an angel from heaven unless one can tell the difference between heresy and the True Faith. Recall 2 Corinthians 11. 13-15 says Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

All of my religious books push the idea that Christianity is true, Jesus is God, the Christian scriptures are trustworthy etc., etc., nevertheless, the people under the sign of the cross fell away from the True Faith in a big way in the 4th century. From the 4th century onwards there is no end of torture and judicial murder being perpetrated by Christians \- by emperors, kings, nobles, their henchmen etc. This is a new phenomenon in the world: Christians using brutality to attain power and to retain power. An emperor often comes to power the way a gangster comes to power. His soldiers eliminate the soldiers of some other gangsters. I suppose _The Godfather_ is the most famous movie about Christian gangsters, but the innovation of gangland methods perpetrated by people carrying crosses began a long time ago, in the 4th century. Of course most Christians throughout the centuries were just ordinary people, not evil murderers. Jesus tells us in John 6. 53-55, "At this, the Jews began to argue among themselves, `How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, `Truly, Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Many, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day....'"

We Christians are supposed to have the new covenant / Divine Law written on our hearts. Recall Christ said at the Last Supper, Matthew 26. 28, `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...' Turning to Jeremiah 31. 31-34 we read that God will write the new covenant / Divine Law on the hearts of His people. The new covenant must be fairly simple because Jeremiah 31. 31-34 says even the least of God's people will be able to understand this new covenant, also known as the New Law / the Divine Law / the True Faith / the Gospel of Jesus Christ etc. Suppose you're trying to teach Christianity to a kid. If you have the Divine Law / True Faith written on your heart then you will not teach sacrilege or heresy to that kid. You're not going to lead that kid to eternal perdition if you have the new covenant written on your heart. But society puts so much pressure on us that we have to watch out that we don't succumb to the pressure. If you succumb to the pressure you might lead the kid to perdition. I mean, suppose you are a Protestant minister and suppose a Catholic kid comes to your office and asks you if he must renounce the Roman Catholic Church in order to escape perdition and attain salvation. If you tell the Catholic kid that he must renounce the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome is not God's True Church, not the Church which Christ which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore Rome is a false church, a false church lost in heresy, a false church which leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, if you say all that to the Catholic kid, then the Catholic parents of the Catholic kid might show up at your office, and they might direct some angry words at you, like - `keep away from our kid you satanic Protestant bastard!'

But then, on the other hand, if the Protestant minister tells the Catholic kid that he will attain heaven and will escape perdition if he remains in the Roman Catholic Church, then the Catholic kid will take this to mean that Rome is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome always leads people to heaven and never leads anyone to perdition, then it would be stupid for anyone to risk hellfire by rebelling against God's True Church, Rome; therefore, one would be wise to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church. But if Protestants hear a Protestant minister telling people that they are fools if they refuse to obey the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome is God's True Church, then these Protestants will insist that that Protestant minister has gone insane. Protestants tend to think that a Protestant minister would have to be whacked out of his mind if he insists it is wise to always obey the Roman Catholic Church.

So, on the one hand, if a Protestant minister tells Catholics to renounce Rome, because Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then he will get bitched at by various people. But then, one the other hand, if the Protestant minister tells people that the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, and therefore your best strategy to attain heaven and to escape perdition is to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, then other people will bitch at him.

If we accept the premise that Christianity is true, if we say that everyone trust what Jesus said in Matthew 16. 13-19, that He founded His Church upon a rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church, then, it stands to reason that, either, 1) the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, and so Rome leads people to heaven, and so we all should obey Rome, God's True Church, because we would be foolish to risk hellfire by rebelling against God's True Church, Rome, or else, 2) the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church: Rome is a false church: Rome is lost in heresy; Rome would be God's True Church if Rome wasn't lost in heresy, but Rome is lost in heresy, and so Rome is a false Church not the True Church, and therefore Rome leads people away from heaven and to perdition.

Christ told us at the Last Supper, Matthew 26. 28: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins'. The first mention of a new covenant, of a New Law to amend the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is found in 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 new covenant is just another term for: The True Faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the New Law, the Divine Law etc. If you have the new covenant written on your heart, then you are in the True Church.

A Christian is under lots of pressure to insist that he has the new covenant written one his heart, because, if in fact he does have it written there then he is a True Christian, and so he is on the road to heaven; but if a person claims to be a True Christian, claims to have the new covenant written on his heart, but is deluded and doesn't have the new covenant written on his heart, then he is a false Christian not a True Christian, and you must be a True Christian to attain heaven and escape perdition. So, we Christians are under lots of pressure to insist that we have the Divine Law written on our hearts; we are under lots of pressure to say we are on the road to heaven and not on the road to perdition. But, you know how it goes: a person can claim to have the Divine Law written on his heart, a person can claim to be a True Christian on the road to heaven, but a claim is one thing and proof is something else. Obviously, a person can claim to be a True Christian, can claim to have the Divine Law written on his heart, but if he can't even teach Christianity to a kid without leading that kid into sacrilege and heresy, then that person is delusional when he claims to be a True Christian.

All of my religious books push the idea that the evils perpetrated over the centuries by people carrying crosses are reflected in the cross. I'm pushing the idea that the cross of Christ mentioned in scripture is sacred in the sense that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but material crosses are not sacred. If we look to the future and try to speculate upon the Great Tribulation then various scenarios come to mind. The Book of Revelation is very clear in saying the damned will put an evil mark on their foreheads or right hands and this mark will be a visible mark. But the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9 is somewhat ambiguous. Will it be a visible symbol that the saints place on their own foreheads with their own hands? Or will it be an invisible symbol that God Himself places on the foreheads of His saints? We have 2 scenarios which seem sort of easy to figure out. Recall that when the Antichrist is on earth, when 2 Thess 2 comes to pass, and when these 3 angels from heaven are on earth, when Revelation 14. 6-11 comes to pass, there will be powerful forces directing the inhabitants of the earth toward one of 2 factions, Faction 1 – the followers of the Antichrist, and Faction 2 – the followers of these 3 angels from heaven.

The title for `Rock Island' is derived from a _cause celebre_ which happened a few miles from Rock Island, IL in Atallissa, IA. That's where some retarded men were held in virtual slavery for decades, forced to live in squalid conditions, forced to work in a filthy turkey slaughterhouse. So this modern slavery becomes a parable. What sort of parable? Well, suppose a person is enslaved to some sort of delusion, perhaps enslaved to a religious delusion. How do you liberate the enslaved person from the chains of his delusion? Well, you don't attack his fundamental premises. At least not right away. You become a fool, an unpersuasive fool, in the eyes of the person you are trying to liberate from the chains of delusion if you attack that religious person's fundamental premises. What you do is you explain the logical conclusions which follow from his fundamental premises. All of this is best explained by concrete examples. Look at some of the more painful and controversial assertions in the Koran.

Surah 4. 14: Those who disobey Allah and His Apostle will abide in fire.

Surah 5. 33: Crucify or murder or cut of the hands of those who war against Allah and His Apostle

Surah 5. 36-9: Fire for unbelievers. Chop off the hands of thieves.

Surah 5. 51: Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends.

Surah 5.86 Disbelievers are the companions of fire.

Surah 7. 40-1: Those who reject the Koran will suffer in a bed of hell-fire.

Surah 9. 68: The hypocrites and the unbelievers will burn in hell.

Surah 17. 8: There is a hell for unbelievers.

Surah 22. 19-21: Boiling water, garments of fire and whips of iron will torment the unbelievers.

Surah 24, 2: Whip the fornicatress and the fornicator, give them each a hundred stripes.

Surah 32. 20: Fire for transgressors. Chastisement of fire for those who doubt the Islamic fire.

Surah 33. 64-6: Allah has cursed the unbelievers and has prepared flaming fire for them.

Surah 37. 55-74: The bottom of hell and serpents await unbelievers who were warned.

Surah 40. 70-2: Boiling water and fire for those who reject the Book and the Apostle.

Surah 41. 26-28: Those who reject the Koran will burn.

Surah 45. 20: These are clear proofs and a guide and a mercy for the people who are sure.

Surah 56. 92-5: Scoffers are given an ordeal of boiling water and will burn in hell.

Surah 76. 4: Chains and fetters and cruel fire await unbelievers.

Surah 88. 2-5: Unbelievers are thrust into burning fire and forced to drink boiling water.

Of course you might argue that things are complicated because some of these Surahs might be true and some might be false, and that complicates things. But the Surahs above are all so similar. I mean, if you can trust Surah 41. 26-28 - Those who reject the Koran will burn – if that is true - then why can't you trust all of them? If you can trust Surah 32. 20, if that is absolutely true, then it's crazy to then conclude that Surah 33. 64-6 is a big falsehood. To review,

Surah 32. 20: Fire for transgressors. Chastisement of fire for those who doubt the Islamic fire.

Surah 33. 64-6: Allah has cursed the unbelievers and has prepared flaming fire for them.

Surah 37. 55-74: The bottom of hell and serpents await unbelievers who were warned.

Surah 40. 70-2: Boiling water and fire for those who reject the Book and the Apostle.

Surah 41. 26-28: Those who reject the Koran will burn.

Well, of course, if you argue that the Koran is a work of fiction then the Muslims will see you as a fool, and they won't listen to a person they see as a fool. I happen to think you are right when you say the Koran is a work of fiction, but the more effective way to argue is to say: Let us assume the Koran is a work of nonfiction. What conclusions can we draw from this premise? The conclusions you draw from that premise are: 1) You will burn in hell if you refuse to convert to Islam, and 2) All of your dearly departed non-Muslim friends and ancestors are now either burning in hell, or soon will be.

Suppose I meet a Muslim person and he's thinking in his head that I will burn in hell unless I convert from Christianity to Islam, but then he makes no attempt to convert me. I could take offense at that – what this? - you're not even going to try to convert me to Islam? You're just going to let me burn in hell? How rude of you!

Actually, I really don't mind if a Muslim person, 1) sincerely believes that I will burn in hell should I remain a Christian and fail to convert to Islam, and also, 2) makes no attempt to convert me to Islam. You would think I ought to be offended, but I'm not.

Now if millions or billions of Muslims want to emulate Muhammad - and why wouldn't a Muslim want to emulate Muhammad? Isn't this the surest way to attain the Islamic heaven? Isn't this an excellent way to escape the hellfire described in the Koran? - so, if Muslims set out on a war of conquest, to bring the whole world under Sharia, that is, under Islamic Law, then, even though their intentions are good – they want to save non-Muslims from burning in hell, save them by doing their best to convert non-Muslims to Islam - nevertheless, you can see why Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists etc., etc., do not want to be slaughtered in wars, slaughtered resisting Muslim warriors waging their `Holy War.' Yes, I think it is obvious that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists etc., etc., would prefer to not be slaughtered by millions of Muslim warriors waging Holy War. Nevertheless, if one must be converted to Islam to escape hellfire...

And if one must be a good Muslim – and good Muslims wage Jihad – if one must be a good Muslim to attain heaven and to escape hellfire...

Do you ever wonder what the conversations between Ilhan Omar and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rachel Maddow and Alyssa Milano and Hillary Clinton sound like? Do you ever wonder if Rep Omar is saying stuff like – `Guys! Listen! Listen! Let me be perfectly clear, I don't want to see you guys slaughtered in Islamic Holy War! I don't want to see the USA conquered by Islamic warriors and then ruled by a committee of Islamic holy men. Guys, guys, come on, what on earth gave you the idea that I wanted the USA conquered by Islamic warriors and then governed by Islamic holy men?'

Suppose Rep. Ilhan Omar took a trip to the Middle East, perhaps taking a swing through Mecca, through Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Syria and Turkey, meeting the top Muslim leaders. You wonder if she would be telling those guys: `Patience, patience, soon the USA will be ruled by good Muslims! Soon we will bring the infidels in the USA under Sharia law!' I mean, those sorts of words would make her popular in the Middle East, right? And she would be unpopular with Muslim leaders in the Middle East if she was telling them: `Guys, guys, why are you pushing all this dark age barbaric crap that you like so much? We need more multi-cultural women running things here in these ass-backwards nations that you got here in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria Egypt etc. You men are so ass-backwards, so damned set in your damned ass-backwards medieval mindsets. Come on! Get with the 21st century would you please? You guys have got to get with the Democratic agenda in your Islamic nations. Iran and Iraq and Syria, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and every other Islamic nation in the world, have got to support what we Democrats in the USA support: Say Yes to abortion rights! Say Yes to gay-marriage! Where are your rainbow flags? You're not homophobic, are you? Go and see _Brokeback Mountain_ or any number of lesbian clips on You Tube. Educate yourselves! Get out of your narrow-minded heterosexual-only madness, would you please? Say Yes to the Empowerment of Women! Say No to Glass Ceilings keeping women down! Say Yes to Multi-Culturalism and Pluralistic Values! Say YES to those in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community! Say No to having Islamic holy men giving orders to women, telling women to do this, bossing women around and telling us to not do stuff we want to do. Say No to men telling women how to run our lives! Say No to the teaching of Islam or any other religion in the public schools! Say Yes to the separation of Mosque and State! Say Yes to people drinking a vodka tonic now and then, or as often as they want! Say Yes to women in bikinis getting drunk on the beach if we damn well choose to get drunk on the beach! Say No to Islamic law that whips drunken women and whips fornicators and executes adulteresses and executes Muslims who renounce Islam and executes infidels who insult Islam! Say No to that stuff but Say Yes to Uni-sex bathrooms and say Yes to Progressive Pluralistic Egalitarian Gender-Neutral Non-Judgmental Religion and Politics etc., etc.

If Rep. Omar was to tell Islamic leaders in the Middle East that sort of stuff, if Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Democrat - Minnesota, was all about pushing the Democratic agenda of Liberalism and Multi-Culturalism in Islamic nations, then you tend to think Muslim leaders, in the Middle East, would see her as a negative sort of Muslim, tend to see her as sort of an insincere or phony sort of Muslim, tend to see her as someone who had been brainwashed by the Western infidels, tend to see her as someone who had been destroyed by corrupt Western values. Perhaps they would see her as precisely the sort of Muslim woman who could benefit from some stern Islamic discipline as found in Islamic law – whips and chains etc –a woman in dire need of stern Islamic disciple to transform her from being a worthless Westernized Muslim into a good Muslim. So you can sort of see why Rep. Ilhan Omar might want to avoid going to the Middle East if she is indeed sincere in pushing the Liberal agenda of the Democratic Party. Like in _Mockingjay Part 1_ , when Coin, speaking of Katniss, says to Heavensby: `The Games destroyed her' the Islamic leaders of the Middle East might be saying that the infidels in the West destroyed Ilhan Omar, if in fact she was preaching a lot of Multi-culturalism and Western Liberalism at them, preaching a lot of pro-choice and pro-homosexual sex and pro-women's-liberation ideology at them, preaching a lot of anti-Sharia Law stuff at them.

Perhaps Ilhan Omar has not been destroyed by Western Liberalism. Perhaps she can still be rehabilitated. Or perhaps she doesn't need to be rehabilitated because she sincerely doesn't believe in the Democratic agenda, and she's being insincere if she says she wants the Democratic agenda: it's all a ploy to advance her real agenda.

So, like I asked before, do you ever wonder what the conversations between Ilhan Omar and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rachel Maddow and Alyssa Milano and Hillary Clinton sound like? You wonder if Rep Omar is telling them – `Listen! Listen! Let me be perfectly clear! Let there be no misunderstanding between us! I don't want to see you guys and your friends and families slaughtered in Islamic Holy War. I don't want to see the USA conquered by Islamic armies and then ruled by a committee of Islamic holy men. Guys, guys, come on, what on earth gave you the idea that I wanted the USA governed by Islamic holy men?'

What are the chances that Rep Omar is telling them: `You will all burn in hell if you persist in rejecting Islam! Get this through your damned infidel heads right now: We Muslims want millions of Islamic warriors to conquer this decadent anti-Islamic USA. We Muslims want the USA to become an Islamic nation ruled by Islamic holy men!'

She must be pretty smart, don't you think? How could a stupid person keep all this stuff straight in her mind? On the one hand, recall how simple the Koran is:

Surah 32. 20: Fire for transgressors. Chastisement of fire for those who doubt the Islamic fire.

Surah 33. 64-6: Allah has cursed the unbelievers and has prepared flaming fire for them.

Surah 37. 55-74: The bottom of hell and serpents await unbelievers who were warned.

Surah 40. 70-2: Boiling water and fire for those who reject the Book and the Apostle.

Surah 41. 26-28: Those who reject the Koran will burn.

If those Surahs are true, then Ilhan Omar should try to be a good Muslim, right? That's simple enough to understand! She should do what is necessary to attain heaven and to escape hellfire. And what are the chances that being pro-abortion and pro gay marriage, and being pro homosexual, and pro open-minded on all sorts of varieties of sex, will make one a good Muslim?

But if those Surahs are false, then this strongly suggests that all of the Koran is untrustworthy. I mean if Surah 33. 64-6 is a big lie, if "Allah has cursed the unbelievers and has prepared flaming fire for them" is a big falsehood, then you would tend to think that all of Islam is a big falsehood. How likely is it, what are the chances, what are the odds, that when you die, even if you're the best Muslim ever, that there won't be any 72 beautiful virgins waiting for you to play with?

In the USA we have people called Black Muslims, people like Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul Jabbar etc. These people converted from Christianity to a form of Islam which rejects lots of things which other Muslims don't reject. These Black Muslims in the USA aren't telling their black Christian friends that they need to be slaughtered if they refuse to live under Islamic Law. Lots of black people in the USA see Islam as a religion which is anti-Sharia Law. And if you are a white person who is an anti-Muslim sort of white person, then in the black neighborhoods, in the USA, then you are seen as someone who is hostile to guys like Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and so you are seen as a racist. Sharia law is that law which wants executioners to chop off the head of a person if he renounces Islam, and chop off the heads of adulteresses, chop off the hands of thieves, whip fornicators with 100 lashes etc., etc., Black Muslims in the USA are generally opposed to Sharia Law. But most Muslims in the world, like 95-99% of all Muslims, are pro-Sharia Muslims.

We have the simple logic which says that, if the Koran is true, and if my dearly departed non-Muslim ancestors are now burning in hell, well, there's nothing I can do about that. If Allah is the True God, and if the True God is bound and determined to torture in hell people who refuse to worship Allah and refuse to convert to Islam, then, obviously, we would all be wise to convert to Islam.

But, on the other hand, if Islam is not true, if Islam is a big falsehood that enslaves the minds of millions or billions of people...

Do you sort of get how Islam is either true, or else Islam is a falsehood? Can you sort of see how, IF, I SAY, IF the Koran is trustworthy, if people will burn in hell if they reject Islam, then, it makes no sense to reject Islam. That's sort of easy to understand, at least I think so. Furthermore, if you will burn in hell should you reject Islam, then, don't you think you are being sort of stupid if you argue against Jihad – you know, if you argue against Islamic Holy War – because, if the above hellfire verses from the Koran are true, then it makes perfect sense to use violence and deceit and subterfuge to force people to live under Islamic law, provided the Koran is trustworthy. If people are too stupid to know what's good for them then you're doing them a favor by forcing them to do what's good for them. If the above Islamic hellfire verses are trustworthy, if you will most certainly burn in hell if you reject Islam, then we want the Muslims to conquer the world, because we want everyone to convert to Islam, because we want everyone to escape the torments of hell. If those surahs which we saw above are trustworthy, if people will burn in hell in the afterlife if they reject Islam, then we want Sharia law to be the law enforced over all of the world, because Sharia law would seem to be the most effective way to convert the most non-Muslims to Islam in the most expedited conversionary process.

But then, of course, of course, of course, of course, if the above surahs from the Koran are untrue, if Islam is a fiction, a cult, if Islam is a falsehood, a big lie...

Acts 26. 13-18 tells us St. Paul's authority is from God. Therefore we can trust what St. Paul tells us, such as in 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, Galatians 1. 8-12, 1 Corinthians 11. 27 etc. Roman Catholics insist that the best paraphrase of Christianity runs as follows: the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, Matthew 16. 13-19. If this is true why do so many Catholics rebel against Rome? And if it is not true, and all my books push the idea that Rome is not God's True Church, Rome is a false church not the True Church, then, how do we help Roman Catholics escape their false church before it leads them to eternal perdition?

It would make no sense to convert them to some worthless Protestant church which also leads people to perdition. Recall John 6. 53-55 tells us in so many words that one must celebrate communion to attain heaven and escape perdition. But 1 Corinthians 11. 27 tells us it's a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. My books go into the reasons why so many Protestant churches celebrate communion in an unworthy manner: they are guilty of celebrating communion with people who make no secret that they are pro-choice, celebrating communion with people who make no secret that they are often Sabbath violators, celebrating communion with people who make no secret that they are porn viewers, celebrating communion with people who make no secret that they habitually take the LORD's name in vain etc. So many Protestant churches just give the Eucharist to anyone who asks to receive it.

2 Thess 2 says the man of sin / son of perdition is revealed prior to the Second Coming of Christ. Recall also 2 Thess 2 also says the man of sin sits in the holy place seeing himself as God. Some say the 3rd temple in Jerusalem must be rebuilt before the Antichrist can sit in the holy place. 1 Corinthians 3. 16 and Jeremiah 31. 31-34 tell us the heart of a Christian is the temple of God. So, if the Antichrist writes heresy on the hearts of Christians then he is, so to speak, sitting in the holy place, in accordance with 2 Thess 2. My theory is the Antichrist tries to write evil on human hearts. The strange thing here is that, suppose, just suppose, the Antichrist leads people to hell by preaching 99% true doctrine and 1% satanic evil. Or perhaps he preaches 90% true doctrine and 10% satanic evil. The point is, a lot of what the Antichrist preaches might be sound doctrine, so one has to be sharp enough to distinguish the heavenly doctrine from the hellish doctrine. Obviously, if one has the Divine Law inscribed on one's heart (Jeremiah 31. 31-34) one will not be led astray by heresy. But if one can't recognize heresy, if one thinks satanic evil is heavenly doctrine...

The typical Christian – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant etc - is incapable of recognizing heresy. Note that Revelation 22. 18-19 deals with curses on those who add or subtract from the Book of Revelation. One is always hearing Christians say that some person is now in heaven, or now burning in hell. The Book of Revelation is perfectly clear in saying the Last Judgment comes after the 1,000 year millennium, and this follows the Second Coming. The Last Judgment is far in the future, so it is heresy to say that some person has now been admitted into heaven, or tossed into a lake of fire. Recall Revelation 20. 12-15 give us those two options. The typical Christian is very deluded if he thinks he has the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on his heart. The typical Christian is clueless about John 1. 1-14, Matthew 16. 13-19, John 14. 23-26, John 15. 6, 2 Thess 1. 8, 2 Thess 2, Galatians 1. 8-10, John 6. 53-55, 1 Corinthians 11. 27, Revelation 22. 18-19, Acts 26. 13-18, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10...

I think the strongest argument saying the Antichrist and the 3 angels from heaven will show up very soon pertains to Ezekiel 36. 24-28. I reject the scenario that this scripture refers to the gathering of the Jews in the Holy Land after the return of the Babylonian Captivity. The whole context of Ezekiel 36. 24-28 refers to a time when God will bring the Jews back into the Holy Land, and then God will put His Spirit into the Jews, and then the Jews will never again rebel against God. If Christianity is true, and as a Christian I make the assumption that it is true, then, we certainly know that the Jews rebelled against God in crucifying Christ and in rejecting Jesus for century after century. So, Ezekiel 36. 24-28 can not refer to the return of the Jews following the Babylonian Captivity. But in modern times the Jews have been returning to the Holy Land, for over a hundred years now, and yet the Spirit of God has not yet been put into the Jews, as they continue to reject John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc. But the conversion of the Jews to Christianity must be imminent if indeed 1) Christianity is true, and 2) Ezekiel 36. 24-28 refers to our time, the 20th and 21st centuries. And so the arrival of the 3 angels mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 must be very close, and the revealing of the Antichrist must also be imminent, again 2 Thess 2 says the man of sin / son of perdition will be revealed prior to the Second Coming of Christ.

There is really no way to distinguish an angel from hell from an angel from heaven unless one can tell the difference between heresy and the True Faith. Recall 2 Corinthians 11. 13-15 says Satan masquerades as an angel of light. We Christians are supposed to have the new covenant / Divine Law written on our hearts. Recall Christ said at the Last Supper, Matthew 26. 28, `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...' Turning to Jeremiah 31. 31-34 we read that God will write the new covenant / Divine Law on the hearts of His people. The new covenant must be fairly simple because Jeremiah 31. 31-34 says even the least of God's people will be able to understand this new covenant, also known as the New Law / the Divine Law / the True Faith / the Gospel of Jesus Christ etc. Suppose you're trying to teach Christianity to a kid. If you have the Divine Law / True Faith written on your heart then you will not teach sacrilege or heresy to that kid. You're not going to lead that kid to eternal perdition if you have the new covenant written on your heart. But society puts so much pressure on us that we have to watch out that we don't succumb to the pressure. If you succumb to the pressure you might lead the kid to perdition. I mean, suppose you are a Protestant minister and suppose a Catholic kid comes to your office and asks you if he must renounce the Roman Catholic Church in order to escape perdition and attain salvation. If you tell the Catholic kid that he must renounce the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome is not God's True Church, not the Church which Christ which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore Rome is a false church, a false church lost in heresy, a false church which leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, if you say all that to the Catholic kid, then the Catholic parents of the Catholic kid might show up at your office, and they might direct some angry words at you, like - `keep away from our kid you satanic Protestant bastard!'

But then, on the other hand, if the Protestant minister tells the Catholic kid that he will attain heaven and will escape perdition if he remains in the Roman Catholic Church, then the Catholic kid will take this to mean that Rome is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome always leads people to heaven and never leads anyone to perdition, then it would be stupid for anyone to risk hellfire by rebelling against God's True Church, Rome; therefore, one would be wise to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church. But if Protestants hear a Protestant minister telling people that they are fools if they refuse to obey the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome is God's True Church, then these Protestants will insist that that Protestant minister has gone insane. Protestants tend to think that a Protestant minister would have to be whacked out of his mind if he insists it is wise to always obey the Roman Catholic Church.

So, on the one hand, if a Protestant minister tells Catholics to renounce Rome, because Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then he will get bitched at by various people. But then, one the other hand, if the Protestant minister tells people that the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, and therefore your best strategy to attain heaven and to escape perdition is to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, then other people will bitch at him.

If we accept the premise that Christianity is true, if we say that everyone trust what Jesus said in Matthew 16. 13-19, that He founded His Church upon a rock, and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church, then, it stands to reason that, either, 1) the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, and so Rome leads people to heaven, and so we all should obey Rome, God's True Church, because we would be foolish to risk hellfire by rebelling against God's True Church, Rome, or else, 2) the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church: Rome is a false church: Rome is lost in heresy; Rome would be God's True Church if Rome wasn't lost in heresy, but Rome is lost in heresy, and so Rome is a false Church not the True Church, and therefore Rome leads people away from heaven and to perdition.

Apropos of heresy and sacrilege, let's look at the Roman Catholic crucifix. It's either sacred in the eyes of God or else it is not sacred. It either symbolizes no evil or else it symbolizes some evil. If God says it symbolizes no evil then you commit sacrilege if you say it symbolizes some evil. On the other hand, if God says it symbolizes some evil then you commit sacrilege if you say it is sacred and symbolizes no evil. You can make similar arguments with the Russian Orthodox crucifix and the Anglican crucifix, etc., but my analysis of the Roman Catholic crucifix runs as follows: the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a Roman Catholic version of Jesus, and a Roman Catholic version of Jesus is a version who says the Roman Catholic Church leads people to heaven, who says the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19. It makes no sense to say the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a version of Jesus who says the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which leads people to perdition but the Mormon Church is God's True Church. It makes no sense to say the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition but the Russian Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

So, either Rome is God's True Church or else Rome is not God's True Church. We have a Case 1 and a Case 2. Case 1 says Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, God's True Church. Case 2 says Rome is a false church not the True Church. If Case 1 is true, if Rome is the True Church, then the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred to God, because God's True Church, Rome, says it is sacred. But if Case 2 is true, if the True God says Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a lie. Again, the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome is God's True Church, a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven: but if the True God / True Jesus says Rome is a false church which leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a false version of Jesus, an image of a false god. False gods are beastly because they lead people to perdition not to heaven, so if the roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a false version of Jesus then the image of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14 comes to mind.

So, again, if you have the new covenant / True Faith written on your heart then it stands to reason that you ought to be able to teach Christianity to a kid without leading him into sacrilege and heresy. But if you are leading a kid into sacrilege in regards to the Roman Catholic crucifix, then you are deluded if you insist you have the new covenant written on your heart. Again, 2 Thess 2 deals with delusion as well as the Antichrist.

I'll get to my analysis of the cross is a second or two, but let's first review some of the basics, Christ told us at the Last Supper, Matthew 26. 28: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins'. And we know the first mention of a new covenant, of a New Law to amend the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is found in Jeremiah 31. 31-34.

The new covenant is just another term for: The True Faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the New Law, the Divine Law etc. If you have the new covenant written on your heart, then you are in the True Church.

A Christian is under lots of pressure to insist that he has the new covenant written one his heart, because, if in fact he does have it written there then he is a True Christian, and so he is on the road to heaven; but if a person claims to be a True Christian, claims to have the new covenant written on his heart, but is deluded and doesn't have the new covenant written on his heart, then he is a false Christian not a True Christian, and you must be a True Christian to attain heaven and escape perdition. So, we Christians are under lots of pressure to insist that we have the Divine Law written on our hearts; we are under lots of pressure to say we are on the road to heaven and not on the road to perdition. But, you know how it goes: a person can claim to have the Divine Law written on his heart, a person can claim to be a True Christian on the road to heaven, but a claim is one thing and proof is something else. Obviously, a person can claim to be a True Christian, can claim to have the Divine Law written on his heart, but if he can't even teach Christianity to a kid without leading that kid into sacrilege and heresy, then that person is delusional when he claims to be a True Christian.

So, to review, the cross either symbolizes no evil or else the cross symbolizes some evil. If the cross symbolizes no evil then perhaps the cross is this seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. But if the cross symbolizes some evil then you have to wonder if the cross is the mark of the beast. Revelation 14. 11 says those with an evil mark on their foreheads burn in hell forever.

Benzion Netanyahu – he's the late father of the current Prime Minister of Israel, and also the father of the lone Israeli soldier killed in the raid on Entebbe to free the Jewish hostages – Professor 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.

Ultimately, you must have this new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on your heart. We've been over how it is that we Christians are under tremendous pressure to tell people that we have the Divine Law / new covenant written on our hearts, because if a Christian was to say he doesn't have the Divine Law written on his heart then he would be admitting that he is a false Christian, he would be admitting he is on the road to perdition and not on the road to heaven. Christians are also under a great deal of pressure to not change their minds on key issues. Suppose, on Tuesday, a Christian says it is no big deal to celebrate communion with pro-choicers. But then if he changes his tune, and on Friday he insists that you put yourself on the road to perdition if you celebrate communion with pro-choicers, then he has changed. Nothing wrong with changing if you change from being on the road to perdition to putting yourself on the road to heaven with that change. It's just that a person will sound crazy if he insists, on Friday, when he claims it is heresy to celebrate communion with pro-choicers, that he had the Divine Law / new covenant written on his heart on Tuesday, when he was saying it is no big deal to celebrate communion with pro-choicers. If a guy is saying, in one breath, that he was a heretic on Tuesday but he teaches the True Faith on Friday, then he will sound like a crazy man if he says he had the Divine Law inscribed on his heart on Tuesday, when he admits he was preaching heresy on Tuesday.

Or suppose a Christian says on Monday that it is no big deal to put price tags on Bibles and on other books which teach Christianity. But suppose on Thursday he is saying it is simony, a sin which leads offenders straight to perdition, to sell the True Faith. Well, suppose he is right in what he is saying on Thursday. Then he was preaching heresy and simony in what he was preaching on Monday, and so he was certainly deluded when he claimed on Monday to have God's New Law written on his heart. So, he is wise to change his tune. It is wise to change from being on the road to perdition to putting yourself on the road to heaven. But Christians are hesitant to change. If you change, then, you admit you were deluded when you claimed, prior to the change, that you had the Divine Law written on your heart.

So, to review, Christians are under tons of pressure to insist that we have the Divine Law written on our hearts, because we are on the road to perdition and we are not on the road to heaven if this Divine Law, this new covenant mentioned by Christ at the Last Supper, Matthew 26. 28, and mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34, is not written on our hearts; and we are under tons of pressure to not change our minds on key issues....if a person actually had God's New Law written on his heart, if he wasn't delusional in making this claim, then he won't be flip-floppingon key issues. If you're saying, on Tuesday, that it is no big deal to labor and to buy and sell on the Sabbath Day, but then on Saturday you're saying that Sabbath violators and those who celebrate communion with Sabbath violators put themselves on the road to perdition, then you're not making a very strong case saying you had the Divine Law written on your heart on Tuesday.

Suppose some angel shows up and he's all about pushing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or suppose some angel shows up and he's all about pushing the Jehovah's Witnesses, or suppose he is all about pushing the Roman Catholic Church as the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you have to determine if he is an angel from hell who leads people to hell, or if he is an angel from heaven who leads people to heaven.

In order to distinguish an angel from heaven from an angel from hell you have to know the difference between sound doctrine and heresy. Suppose the Antichrist shows up and he's pushing 99% sound doctrine and 1% satanic heresy, and suppose this 1% satanic heresy is enough to lead people straight to hell if they accept that satanic heresy. You have to be able to recognize and accept the 99% which is sound, and recognize and reject the 1% which is satanic heresy.

Again, those of us who are Christians are waiting for the Second Coming of Christ, but before this happens 2 Thessalonians 2 is quite specific in saying the man of sin / son of perdition, aka The Antichrist, will be revealed. Daniel 12. 1 tells us the Jews will be delivered during a time of enormous and unprecedented trouble on earth when the archangel Michael shows up. Revelation 14. 6-11 tell us, in so many words, that 3 angels from heaven will show up on earth prior to Christ's Second Coming. All of my religious books push the idea that one will not be able to tell the difference between and angel from hell and an angel from heaven if one can't tell the difference between heresy and the True Faith.

All of my religious books push the idea that while the Christian scriptures are trustworthy, nevertheless, the people under the cross fell away from the True Faith in a big way in the 4th century. Before the 4th century Christians didn't murder and torture people, or if they did they were excommunicated. From the 4th century onwards there is no end of torture and judicial murder being perpetrated by Christians - by emperors, kings, nobles, their henchmen etc. This is a new phenomenon in the world: Christians using brutality to attain power and to retain it. An emperor often comes to power the way a gangster comes to power. His soldiers eliminate the soldiers of some other gangsters. I suppose _The Godfather_ is the most famous movie about Christian gangsters, but the innovation of gangland methods perpetrated by people carrying crosses began a long time ago, in the 4th century. Of course most Christians throughout the centuries were just ordinary people, not evil murderers. Jesus tells us in John 6. 53-55, "At this, the Jews began to argue among themselves, `How can this man give us His flesh to eat?' So Jesus said to them, `Truly, Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Many, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day....'"

St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27 that it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. So, if you're celebrating communion with an evil murderer then it stands to reason that you are celebrating communion in an unworthy manner, and are guilty of a terrible sin. Gibbon writes of the 4th century Catholic Emperor Valentinian and his judges,

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

So Christianity took an evil turn in the 4th century. Ordinary Christians began celebrating holy communion with evil Christians, and 1 Corinthians 11. 27 is clear in saying it is a terrible sin to celebrate holy communion in an unworthy manner. Of course churches such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church insist they have always been God's True Church; they insist they have never strayed into satanic heresy; they insist they have always led people to heaven. What becomes especially interesting in the 21st century is that we have millions of people who, in one breath, will tell you that the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the True Church which leads people to heaven, the True Church which leads no one to perdition, but then these millions will then proceed in one way or another to rebel against the church they claim is God's True Church. If you will always be led to heaven if you obey Church X, but if you might go to hell if you rebel against Church X, such as by rejecting one or more of its official doctrines, then it just seems so insane, so delusional, to rebel against Church X. 2 Thess 2 not only deals with the Antichrist but it also deals with strong delusion. Suppose the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which the gates of hell will not prevail against – Matthew 16. 13-19 – then you will go to heaven if you always obey Rome, but you might very well go to hell if you rebel against Rome, against God's True Church. So, if Rome is God's True Church it would be stupid to rebel against Rome such as by refusing to venerate a person Rome has declared to be a saint, and Rome orders people to venerate as saints those people declared by Rome to be saints.

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."

We have a Case 1 and a Case 2. Case 1 says the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19. And the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome.

Case 2 says the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church. Case 2 says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, has fallen into heresy, and therefore Rome leads people to perdition. The gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church.

Now if Case 1 is true then the smart thing to do is to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Rome wants you to venerate Capistrano as a saint, so just venerate him as a saint. If you always obey God's True Church then you will go to heaven and will escape hell. But if you rebel against God's True Church then you will most likely go to hell. Yes, most likely.

Now, on the other hand, if Case 2 is true, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, if Rome is lost in heresy, then Rome leads people to perdition not to heaven, so, in Case 2 you don't want to be a Roman Catholic. In Case 1 you want to always obey Rome. But if Case 2 is true then you don't want to be a Roman Catholic.

In giving a paraphrase of Christianity you're always in danger of getting lost on long tangents. For instance, 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...'

Of course many say that scripture is voodoo. I'm pushing the doctrine that Christianity is true and the Bible is trustworthy. Of course parts of the Old Testament might be parables – fictions which teach spiritual truths. Whether the account of the fall of Adam and Eve, or the account of Noah, is literal truth in every detail, or a parable, is of little importance. As long as we are taught spiritual truth then that is all that matters. We're already getting lost on a tangent. If Malachi 4. 1 is true then why would you say Malachi 3. 5 is false? Malachi 3. 5 has the LORD saying,

"Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me," says the LORD of hosts."

And of course everything gets rather complicated from this info, assuming Malachi 4. 1 and Malachi 3. 5 are perfectly true. Must Israel admit aliens who are pledged to destroy Israel? Does that make any sense? In the USA it would be easy enough to say every alien who is not a rapist or murderer or some such vicious criminal ought to be given asylum in the USA – still assuming Malachi 3. 5 and Malachi 4. 1 are true – but our laws and tax structure are so oppressive. The rich know how to evade crushing taxation. The poor have no money to be taxed. But the middle class can be crushed by taxation. If you own a restaurant that is struggling to survive, and if you are hit with more and more taxes to pay for the welfare payments of millions of new immigrants, then how is justice being served to you? How is making you destitute in accord with Christianity?

It takes a great deal of effort just to explain Christianity. There are so many tangents. Some Christians say you're a fool if you reject the Roman Catholic Church. They say you're a fool if you say Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Well, if they are right, if one is a fool to say Rome is not God's True Church, then it is stupid to have all these Senates and Parliaments. If Rome is God's True Church, then Rome is the only government we need. But if Rome is a false church not the True Church, then Rome will drag you down to perdition if you don't get out of the false church that is the Roman Catholic Church. Some people say John 3. 16 is all you need to know to understand Christianity. That's crazy. John 3. 16 doesn't tell us anything about whether or not Jesus is God. John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10 and 1 Timothy 3. 16 tell us Jesus is God. If it is a lie to say Jesus is God, and if Malachi 4. 1 is true – again Malachi 4. 1 has the LORD saying the day is coming, burning like an oven, when the proud and wicked and proud people will be set on fire – then Christianity leads one to the flames. But if Christianity is true, if Jesus is God, then you can trust what Christianity teaches in the famous Christian hellfire scriptures: Matthew 25. 31-46, John 15. 6, 2 Thess 1. 8, Revelation 20. 12-15 etc.

Matthew 25. 31-46 has Jesus saying you will burn in hell if you are not generous to poor people. This gets you thinking that if you are always giving your money away to poor people then you will soon be a poor person yourself, and you will soon be dependent upon charity to be delivered from starvation. Acts 2. 44-47 and Acts 4. 32-35 are scriptures which tell us that during the apostolic age there was equal sharing of the wealth among Christians. Socialism and Communism are modern systems which use policemen and prisons to force people to hand over money in taxes to pay for socialistic governments and programs. In the early Church there was a voluntary system. The Church collected money from Christians who willingly gave it. Of course everything changed over the centuries, and we're still looking into the question of whether the people under the sign of the cross fell away from the True Faith taught by Christ and the apostles. Again John 6. 53-55 tells us one must celebrate communion in order to attain heaven and to escape perdition. But you mustn't celebrate communion in an unworthy manner, recall 1 Corinthians 11. 27. You must not celebrate communion with evil people.

The Protestants reject the crucifix, seeing it as a violation of the 2nd commandment. But the Roman Catholic Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Church of England, and the Eastern Orthodox Church etc., use crucifixes. Let's use the Russian Orthodox crucifix as an example. You can use the same sort of logic with any of these crucifixes. With the Russian Orthodox Church we have two main cases to consider when recalling Christ's words in Matthew 16. 13-19, where Christ says He has founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church. We call this Church the True Church, God's True Church, the Bride of Christ etc. Case 1 says the gates of hell HAVE NOT prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 21st century. Case 1 says the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to heaven in the 21st century. Case 2 says the gates of hell have prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 21st century. Case 2 says the Russian Orthodox Church in the 21st century has fallen away from the True Faith, and is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and so the Russian Orthodox Church in the 21st century leads people to perdition. So if Case 1 is true there is nothing wrong with the Russian Orthodox crucifix. If Case 1 is true, if the Russian Orthodox Church is God's True Church, then you can trust God's True Church when it insists the Russian Orthodox crucifix is sacred. But if Case 2 is true, if the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to perdition, then there's a problem with the Russian Orthodox crucifix. When Russian Orthodox people fall to their knees to worship God, they don't worship a Mormon version of god, or an Anglican version of god, or a Roman Catholic version of God, they worship a Russian Orthodox version of god, a god who says the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to heaven. A Roman Catholic version of god says the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. A Roman Catholic version of god says: obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and you will be led to heaven. A Roman Catholic version of god says the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome, Rome is God's True Church, so just obey all of those official doctrines of God's True Church, such as the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, which damns those who reject that Dogma, and the Russian Orthodox reject that Dogma, just have enough sense to always obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and you will attain heaven and escape hell. So, the Russian Orthodox do not worship the same god as the Roman Catholics. The Russian Orthodox worship a god who says the Russian Orthodox Church is God's True Church, and it stands to reason that the Russian Orthodox crucifix is an image of a Russian Orthodox version of Jesus on the cross, and a Russian Orthodox version of Jesus is a version of Jesus who says the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to heaven, because the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church, because the Russian Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. So again, from above we have, we have 2 Cases with the Russian Orthodox Church. Case 1: the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church leads people to heaven. Case 2: the gates of hell have prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian Church leads people to perdition. So, there is no problem with the Russian Orthodox crucifix if Case 1 is true. But if Case 2 is true then there is a big problem with the Russian Orthodox crucifix. If Case 2 is true, then, in Case 2, where the True Version of God / the True Jesus says the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to perdition, therefore, the Russian Orthodox crucifix, which is an image of a version of Jesus who says the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to heaven, is an image of a false god, and image of a false version of Jesus, and false gods are beastly because they lead people away from heaven and drag them down to perdition. So if Case 2 is true then the Russian Orthodox crucifix becomes a suspect for this image of the beast mentioned for instance in Revelation 14. 11.

We know that one can't be damned to eternal hellfire for having an evil mark on ones forehead if one has no mark on ones forehead. What would drive one to put a mark on ones forehead? I suppose if one was 100% convinced that the sign of the cross is sacred, and 100% convinced that it just might save one from the torments described in Revelation 9, 100% convinced it is the seal of God...

But then if one makes a slip-up in ones calculation, if the cross is not the seal of God, if in fact the cross is the evil mark of the beast, if one gets caught with the evil mark of the cross / beast on one's forehead or right hand - well - `the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night...whoever receives the mark...' Just imagine it! Being tortured in the flames of hellfire for billions and billions and endless never-ending infinite billions of years!

So, we have one theory which says it is very satanic to say or imply that one will burn in hellfire forever and ever if one puts the mark of a cross on ones forehead or right hand. If God is a big fan of the sign of the cross, then, what doctrine could be a more monstrously satanic than the doctrine which say one will burn in hell forever if one puts the mark of a cross on one's forehead or right hand?

But then, on the other hand, if it is insane to think that a representation of a pagan instrument of torture and execution is sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - to the Creator of the Universe - if the spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred, in the sense that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred - but if the material cross – if the pagan instrument of torture and execution - is not sacred to God, then this changes things.

The Nazis committed evil for a few years and we say the Nazi swastika reflects this evil. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century. So, if God says the sign of the cross, and material crosses, reflect this evil that was perpetrated for century after century, then, it stands to reason the cross becomes the number one suspect as this mark of the beast mentioned in Revelation 14.11.

So, the cross either reflects no evil or else it reflects some evil. The evils perpetrated over the centuries by people carrying crosses are either, 1) divorced from the sign of the cross, because God says the sign of the cross is sacred, or else, 2) those evils are relevant in judging the sign of the cross, and therefore the cross reflects some evil.

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 in Catholic, Dark Age France. Barbarism reigned for centuries. Assassination, torture, slaughter, treachery, adultery, fornication and incest were the 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. Durant also told us in `The Age of Louis XIV' of the suffering of the Jews in Poland, Lithuania and Russia from 1648-58, such as in Pereyaslav, Piryatin, Lubny, and hundreds of other towns, was brutal beyond belief. Many thousands of Jews were slaughtered by Cossacks and Lithuanians, Tatars and Poles, by people brandishing crosses. We read of the cruelest tortures: Jews flayed alive, split asunder, clubbed to death, roasted over red-hot coals, scalded with boiling water, thousands of Jewish infants thrown into wells or buried alive.

One might say that when the archangel Michael converts the Jews to Christianity, then Michael and Jews he converts to Christianity will obviously teach the true doctrine about the sign of the cross, and everything else, because Daniel 12. 1 says that the Jews will be delivered when Michael shows up. As we saw earlier Ezekiel 36. 24-28 also pertains to the deliverance of the Jews - and the Jews won't be delivered if they commit sacrilege with the sign of the cross. And then there's the argument which says you have to be careful when you listen to Jews who have been converted to Christianity, because, perhaps, the Antichrist will convert the Jews to a hellish version of Christianity, and perhaps years or decades will elapse before the archangel Michael shows up to convert the Jews to the heavenly version of Christianity. Or, perhaps, the Antichrist will never convert the Jews to a hellish version of Christianity.

When Christians comport themselves like devils, then this looks like evidence which says Christianity is a false religion, but there are prophecies in the scriptures which says that Christians will corrupt Christianity. 2 Corinthians 11. 13-15 says the devil masquerades as an angel of light and his ministers portray themselves as ministers of righteousness. St. Paul says wolves will enter the Christian flock – Acts 20. 28-30. St. Paul didn't want women to have authority over men. I explain this by saying he was a prophet and St. Paul wanted to keep women out of the clergy because he looked into the future and saw that the Christian clergy would become corrupted and would be led astray by satan. It's a speculation but consider this logic. Suppose a Church with a male only clergy leads people to heaven, because it is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock – Matthew 16. 13-19. Then it would make no sense for a woman to rebel against God's True Church. Just obey God's True Church and you will go to heaven. That's a good deal for you. Don't blow it by rebelling against God's True Church. And if a church with a male only clergy is a false church not the True Church, if it is a false fallen church which leads people to perdition not to heaven, then why would any sensible woman want to be a priestess in that worthless church?

Suppose you are a Protestant minister in Atlanta in 1819. If you tell Christians in Atlanta in 1819 that they will go to hell if they enslave blacks, then you will be hated, perhaps tarred and feathered, perhaps beaten or lynched. There is great pressure on Christians to try to avoid getting lynched. But then there is also great pressure on Christians to insist that we have the Divine Law written on our hearts. Take the abortion issue in our time. There is lots of pressure on pro-life Christians in the USA, in 2019, to push for soft and lenient pro-life laws. If all the pro-life Christians in the USA were to push, in 2019, for tough pro-life laws: push for jail time for women convicted of a 1st offense abortion, push for life in prison, or push for the electric chair, for doctors after their 1st offense of performing an abortion, then you would tend to think this would greatly empower the pro-choice side, in 2019, in the USA. You would tend to think a pro-life candidate is not going to be elected president in 2020 if all pro-lifers in the USA were to start demanding tough pro-life laws. But suppose the year is now 2029, not 2019, and suppose the world has changed a great deal in those 10 years, and suppose we have a Christian who is on the record pushing for lenient pro-life laws in 2019, and suppose this is still his position in 2029, and suppose the vast majority of Christians in 2029 are saying he is a devil-dog and a satanic heretic, because of his stance, suppose the vast majority of Christians in 2029 insist God demands harsh pro-life laws not lenient ones. Suppose you can't find any pro-choicers in 2029. Suppose it is next to impossible to even find a pro-lifer who pushes for lenient pro-life laws in 2029. And suppose, more or less, every Christian in the world is calling you an evil satanic bastard because you insist that you had the Divine Law written on your heart when you pushed for lenient pro-life laws in 2019, and now, in 2029, you still push for lenient pro-life laws, and you still insist you have the Divine Law written on your heart, and you still refuse to change, you still refuse to agree with the entire Christian world that God not only hates abortion, but He demands tough pro-life laws, and He sends to hell people who push for soft pro-life laws. You can always say that you had the Divine Law written on your heart in 2019 when you were pushing for soft pro-life laws: you were doing what was best to get pro-life politicians elected, doing what was best to rescue those being aborted. You were taking a pragmatic approach. But when 2029 shows up, and there are no pro-choice people any longer, and everyone is convinced God demands tough pro-life laws, then, well, I guess you just have to do what you sincerely think is best. But there would be a powerful inclination to conform with the masses and get with the tough pro-life laws program. I mean, if you have the Divine Law written on your heart then why wouldn't you simply advocate for what you sincerely believe is best? But if everyone is saying you're wrong, then there's a tendency to think you are wrong and everyone else is right. Still, if you were to let political considerations, or money issues, or self-seeking pride override the Divine Law written on your heart, well that would be anti-Christian, that would be irrational.

The pro-slavery Christians in 1819 were very convinced that God supported them. A Christian basically has to say he has the Divine Law written on his heart. If he says he doesn't have the Divine Law written on his heart, he is saying he is a false Christian, he is saying he is on the road to perdition. So, a pro-slavery Christian in 1819 has to argue that God, and God's Law, favor the African slave trade. The pro-slavery Christians had terrible difficulty seeing how slavery could be evil when the apostles told slaves to obey their masters. I've been all over this issue in other books. The pagan Roman Empire in the 1st century was a huge slave empire. All or nearly all labor was performed by slaves. There were no honest jobs available for slaves who escaped their chains. An escaped slave might become a gladiator, or a prostitute, or a soldier in the Roman army - a job which involved lots of slaughtering and conquering. Obviously those are anti-Christian jobs. A Christian apostle can't advise someone to do an anti-Christian job. The apostles had to tell the slaves to obey their masters. Were they supposed to tell the slaves to rebel? They would either have been tortured to death, or else they would have starved to death, or else they would have to do anti-Christian things to survive if they were killed during their revolt: become brigands, prostitutes etc. The apostles never told Christians to become like Vikings and set out on raids to plunder for gold and to capture slaves. That's basically what the African slave trade was, Christians becoming like plundering pagan Vikings. A pro-slavery Christian in 1813 couldn't think so well! To say that the apostles supported slavery, and so this gives Christians the right to enslave Africans, is sort of retarded thinking, don't you think?

As we saw before, if a Roman Catholic kid asks a Protestant minister if he, the Roman Catholic kid, must renounce the Roman Catholic Church in order to attain heaven and escape perdition, the Protestant minister is put under lots of pressure here, because if he tells the Catholic kid that he does not have to renounce Rome to attain heaven and escape perdition then he is saying that Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19, or he is at least saying that lots of different Churches including the Roman Catholic Church make up the True Church. He is also telling that kid that since Rome is God's True Church, or part of God's True Church, he would be wise to obey all of Rome's official doctrines. If he tells the kid that Rome is God's True Church, and tells him also that he must sometimes rebel against God's True Church, to attain heaven and escape perdition, then that Protestant minister is talking like an idiot. But if he tells the kid to always obey Rome's official doctrines, then this will anger lots of Protestants, and they will say that Protestant minister is a heretic, an agent of the Devil, or a madman, because a Protestant minister would have to be insane if he tells people to always obey Rome's official doctrines. But then if he tells the Catholic kid that he must renounce Rome in order to attain heaven and escape perdition, then he might hear some bitter words directed at him from the Catholic parents of the kid, and from other Catholics.

The Protestant minister doesn't want to get bitched at, but, often times, on the tough issues, you are going to get bitched at by one side or the other, so you might as well get used to the fact that you are going to get bitched at.

So, getting back to the religious and the political aspects of the abortion issue, in politics we want to find a large faction of people to support our political positions, large enough to get the candidates we like elected. You might have one faction hating you, but you're OK as long there is a big faction that doesn't hates you. You won't get very far in politics if everyone hates you. But in religion you just want to attain heaven and escape perdition: you really don't care how popular or unpopular you are with people; you just want to teach the Divine Law accurately; you just want to be a True Believer not some deluded heretic; all you care about is getting on the road to heaven and getting off the road to perdition.

Romans 14. 12 tells us that everyone will eventually have to stand before the Creator of the Universe and give an account of himself / herself. The people under the sign of the cross in the 21st century no longer use the rack and the wheel and the stake on their enemies. Probably the most conspicuous way that millions of people under the sign of the cross in the 21st century indulge in anti-Christian heresy is in regards to abortion and supporting the pro-choice philosophy. Again Roman 14. 12 says everyone will have to stand before God and give an account of himself. So, naturally, you will want to do well in your big interview with the Creator of the Universe. You'll want to be prepared for some tough questions. Let's look at this abortion issue in some detail. The most conspicuous supporters of torture under the sign of the cross today are not some generalissimos in Latin America, rather it is the pro-choice Christians: the Liberal Protestants, Cafeteria Catholics etc. And then the pro-life Christians come under condemnation because they don't excommunicate the pro-choice Christians. It's very important that one not celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, recall 1 Corinthians 11. 27. Abortion often involves terrible torment for the aborted child, but let's let other people make this case. 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 the USA has outlawed partial-birth abortions, such as the one described above. 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.

Approximately 70 million abortions have been performed in the USA since `Roe v. Wade' (1973).

Christ said at the Last Supper: `This cup is my blood of the new covenant...' To Christians the new covenant, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Divine Law, the True Faith are all different names for the same thing. Jeremiah 31: 31-34 tells us God will write His new covenant on the hearts of His people. Some other verses from the Book of Jeremiah include: Jeremiah 1: 5, which 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.'

I earlier mentioned the Antichrist and these 3 angels from heaven, Revelation 14. 6-11. Let's suppose some angel shows up and he is saying: ignore what you read in Jeremiah 2. 33-34. Ignore it because it is untrue. It is a pile of crap. Suppose this angel is all about pushing the pro-choice philosophy. So, you want to determine if that angel is an angel from hell or an angel from heaven. I mean, if an angel shows up then it would be stupid to automatically assume that that angel is an angel from heaven. The Devil is an angel. The New Testament mentions the Devil walking about like a roaring lion looking to devour souls. The New Testament says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light – 2 Corinthians 11. 13-15. So, obviously, you don't want to be dragged down to hell because you were so terribly gullible and naïve that you thought some angel from hell was an angel from heaven. So, if an angel shows up and he is saying Jeremiah 2. 33-34 is a pile of crap, if he is pushing the pro-choice philosophy, then you need to determine if he is from hell or from heaven.

So, let's suppose God says the pro-choice philosophy is evil. Then Christians are not to hold communion with pro-choicers. St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6. 17 - `Come out from them and be separate.' In I Corinthians 11. 27 St. Paul warns Christians that it is a terrible sin to celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. Celebrating the Eucharist with people who support evil is an example of celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. I Corinthians 5 is all about excommunicating evil Christians.

Arland K. Nichols writes in `New Oxford Review' (Dec, 2010, p. 35),

`A woman eighteen weeks pregnant was lying on the operating table before a young female doctor. By coincidence, the doctor was also eighteen weeks pregnant and would, in a matter of months, welcome her child into the world. Turning to the patient, she dutifully began the surgery that had been scheduled - an abortion. This physician, by means of a popular pro-abortion blog, described the graphic and shocking details of her experience: "I realized that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing this procedure as usual...I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick - a fluttery `thump, thump' in my own uterus...There was a leg and a foot in my forceps, and a 'thump, thump' in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body..."...Abortion...is one thing and one thing alone - murder of the most gruesome sort. And yet, this doctor and mother's experience did not hinder her from continuing to dismember and kill not only this one but other innocent, vulnerable, and dependent human beings. She writes, "Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder." To think that this mother continues to directly participate in the murder of innocent children dependent upon the nurturing and loving care of their mothers is perfidious...'

Of course most pro-life Christians insist that they do not come under condemnation, that is, they insist they do not put themselves on the road to perdition by celebrating the Eucharist with people who make no secret that they are pro-choice Christians. But, so often, we don't actually have to prove a religious doctrine in order to be wise in subscribing to that doctrine. I mean, suppose we Christians are right in insisting that Jesus is God, but suppose we can't prove to the satisfaction of some Atheist that Jesus is God. Merely because we can't prove Jesus is God to the satisfaction of some Atheist doesn't mean we are wrong when we insist Jesus is God. It just stands to reason that if we pro-lifers are correct in saying the pro-choice philosophy is an anti-Christian philosophy, then it follows that pro-lifers are celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner when they celebrate the Eucharist with people who make no secret that they support the anti-Christian pro-choice philosophy. John 6. 53-55 and 1 Corinthians 11. 27 are key scriptures concerning the Eucharist. Christians reason as follow: `my pastor is a great pastor! He wouldn't do anything that would put me on the road to perdition! You're crazy if you think my church leads people to perdition! You're crazy if you think the gates of hell have prevailed against my church! You're crazy if you say my church is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock etc., etc.'

The churches try to survive in a competitive world, a dog-eat-dog world. If a church excommunicates pro-choice Christians, then these pro-choice Christians will simply take their $$$ to a church which does not excommunicate pro-choicers, and therefore a church which excommunicates pro-choicers loses out on the $$$.

Suppose a Protestant was to say to you: Go ahead and ignore John 14. 23-26. You don't need to know John 14,. 23-26. And suppose the Protestant tells you go ahead and ignore John 1. 1-14, and ignore John 15. 6, and ignore John 6. 53-55, and ignore 1 Corinthians 11. 27, and go ahead and ignore Acts 26. 13-18, and ignore 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, and ignore Revelation 22. 18-19, and ignore Galatians 1. 8-12 etc. Suppose he says that all you need to know to attain salvation and escape damnation is to profess what is written in John 3. 16. Then you have to make a determination. Does this guy have the Divine Law written on his heart? Or suppose a guy tells you he has the new covenant written on his heart, and then he insists the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, and insists Rome leads people to heaven. Well, Rome is either God's True Church or else Rome isn't God's True Church.

If Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to perdition, then it would be stupid to rebel against God's True Church. You can expect to go to eternal perdition if you rebel against god's True Church.

But if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome leads people to perdition, then if you refuse to renounce Rome you will be led to perdition. Any exceptions to this? I suppose you could argue that God will have mercy on some who are lost in false churches, false religions. Suppose a little kid is murdered before he has had a chance to find the True Faith and the True Church...

But, generally speaking, if a church is a false church, if it is not God's True Church, if it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then, if you are a member of this false church, and if you fail to renounce that false church...

Or suppose a guy has fallen into sacrilege and heresy, such as in regards to the sign of the cross. Then we know he doesn't have any Divine Law written on his heart, since he has fallen into sacrilege and heresy. If he had the Divine Law inscribed on his heart then he wouldn't fall into sacrilege and heresy, obviously.

Revelation 14. 6-11 mentions 3 angels from heaven showing up. You can't distinguish an angel from heaven from an angel from hell if you can't distinguish religious truth from religious error. Suppose an angel shows up and this angel says the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church. Or suppose some angel shows up and he says the Russian Orthodox Church is God's True Church. If only way you can tell the difference between an angel from hell from an angel from heaven is by determining if they teach heresy or if they teach the True Faith, then you have to know what the True Faith is. Suppose you are lost in heresy. Suppose you say some false church is God's True Church. Then when some angel from hell shows up, and you like what he is preaching, you will think he is an angel from heaven, but that angel from hell will lead you to hell. Or suppose an angel from heaven shows up, and suppose you think that he is preaching heresy, because, to you, the True Faith looks like a heresy...

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 is more or less assumed that the man of sin / son of perdition in 2 Thess 2, and the Antichrist of 1 John 2. 18, and the beast of Revelation 19. 19 pertain to the same person. We're waiting for the Antichrist / beast from hell to show up. And we're also waiting for these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 to show up. And we're waiting for the prophecies of Revelation 18 to come to pass – economic collapse, famine etc. When Revelation 18 comes to pass, and when the Antichrist shows up, and when these 3 angels from heaven show up, then, you would think, the fulfillment of these Christian prophecies will inspire Non-Christians to convert to Christianity. You certainly want to be able to tell the difference between an angel from heaven from an angel from hell! You might exercise you theological skills, by trying to make a sound decision on the Roman Catholic Church. If Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven and leads no one to perdition, then don't you think everyone on earth would be wise to obey God's True Church, Rome? But if Rome is not God's True Church, if the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, if Rome which leads people to perdition not to heaven, then don't let Rome drag you down to eternal perdition.

One scenario says the Antichrist will convert the Jews to a hellish satanic version of Christianity, and then months or years will elapse before Michael shows up, recall Daniel 12. 1, which says the Jews will be delivered when Michael shows up. Christians say the Jews will be delivered when they convert to the true and heavenly version of Christianity. Another scenario says the Jews will not make any mistakes in confusing Michael with the Antichrist and they will be converted to Christianity by Michael and they will never be converted to any hellish version of Christianity being pushed by the Antichrist.

The scriptures, especially 2 Thess 2, seem very clear that the Second Coming of Christ happens after the Antichrist shows up, and after these 3 angels prophesied in Revelation 14. 6-11 show up. Daniel 12. 1 says the Jews will be delivered during a time of enormous trouble on earth when the archangel Michael arrives. Those of us who are Christians can't see how anyone can be delivered if they reject Jesus, reject John 1. 1-14, John 15. 6 etc. From the Christian perspective, it seems probable that one of these 3 angels mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 is the archangel Michael.

The scriptures never actually say the whole world worships the Antichrist. Revelation 13. 1-8 says the following,

`Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns _were_ ten diadems, and on his heads _were_ blasphemous names. And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like _those_ of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. _I saw_ one of his heads as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed _and followed_ after the beast; they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?" There was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies, and authority to act for forty-two months was given to him. And he opened his mouth in blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, _that is,_ those who dwell in heaven. It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, _everyone_ whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Obviously, this might be interpreted to mean the world worships the Antichrist. But I think it is more reasonable to believe, though it is still just speculation, to say that the people of the world who worship false gods are the people who worship, figuratively speaking, this multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 1-8.

Christianity insists God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The scriptures which say Jesus is God, the Divine Son, include: Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9.5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc. We have various deities which compete for the Title of the True God. When the Hindus fall to their knees to worship to worship the Creator of the Universe then we have to ask if they worship the True God as they claim, or if they are deluded and actually worship false gods not the True God. If they in fact worship false gods who lead them to perdition, though they claim to worship the Creator of the Universe, then perhaps the Hindus are some of the people who, in a figurative sense, worship this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8. If you worship a false god, and this false god leads you away from heaven and to perdition, then it stands to reason that false god is beastly, evil. When the Muslims fall to their knees to worship God, do the Muslims worship the Creator of the Universe or do they worship some false god who will lead them to perdition? What do you think about this Islamic god, Allah? Did Allah create the universe? The Koran explains the attributes of Allah. The Koran is quite explicit in explaining that Allah tortures in hell the souls of those who reject Allah and Islam. Islam says it is a blasphemy to worship Jesus as the Creator of the Universe. Islam says Jesus was a man not God. John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 say Jesus is God. Who do you believe? Christianity or Islam? Anyway, if Islam is true then you can expect to burn in hell if you reject Islam. The Islamic scriptures are very clear on this point. But then, on the other hand, if Islam is a big lie, if Islam a big beastly worthless false religion that leads naïve Muslims away from heaven and to perdition, if Islam is a satanic deception etc., etc., then it stands to reason that Muslims are some of the people who worship, in a figurative though not in a literal way, this multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 1-8. They claim to worship the Creator of the Universe, but if Allah is a beastly false god who leads Muslims to eternal perdition...

The Roman Catholics worship a god who says Rome is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But if the True God says Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the True God say Rome has fallen into heresy, has fallen away from the True Faith, if the True God says the Roman Catholic Church leads people to perdition not to heaven, then the Roman Catholics worship a false god. The Roman Catholics worship a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit who says Rome leads people to heaven, who says the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But if the True God, if the True Trinity says Rome is lost in heresy and leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholics worship a false god, a false version of the Trinity, and so the Roman Catholics worship this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8, unless of course the True God says the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, in which case the whole world would be wise to obey Rome. But if the True God says the Roman Catholic Church is a false fallen church which leads people to heaven, then the whole world would be wise to...

Take any church you care to take, call it Church X. The members of Church X worship a god who says Church X leads people to heaven, they worship a god who says Church X is the True Church, who says Church X upholds the True Faith, but, if in fact the True God says Church X leads people to perdition, if the True God says Church X does not uphold the True Faith, if the True God says Church X is lost in heresy, then the members of Church X, who worship a god who says their church leads people to heaven, worship a false god, because though they claim to worship the Creator of the Universe, the actual Creator of the Universe says Church X is lost in heresy and so it leads people to perdition not to heaven, and this True God who rejects church X is different than some false god who says Church X leads people to heaven, so the people in Church X worship a false god, so they worship, in a figurative sense, this multi-headed beast of Revelation 13. 1-8.

Suppose the True God says the spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in scripture is sacred, suppose the True God says Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred, and suppose the True God says the material cross is evil. Then if you worship a god who says the material cross is sacred, you are worshipping a false god. You don't know God. Recall 2 Thess 1. 8 deals with punishments for those who don't know God. If you knew God you would know he rejects the material cross. Of course, on the other hand, if the True God...

As we know, Christ told us in Matthew 16. 13-19 that He has founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church claims to be this Church, God's True Church. So you can't get anywhere, you can't understand the simplest things about Christianity, if you can't make a sound judgment in regards to the Roman Catholic Church. Rome is either God's True Church or else it is a false church. Either the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome or they haven't. Rome is either lost in heresy or else Rome isn't lost in heresy. The Roman Catholic Church either leads people to heaven or else Rome leads people to perdition. People often use the feminine `she' in referring to Rome. Some insist Rome is the Bride of Christ. Others say she is the Whore of Babylon. In either case a feminine `she' is appropriate. If the Roman Catholic Church is in fact God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then you will be led to heaven if you always obey Rome, but you might burn in hell if you rebel against Rome, rebel against God's True Church, still assuming Rome is the True Church. Why do we need these Senates and Executive branches and Supreme Courts if Rome is God's True Church? Rome is the only government we need. If a Rome is God's True Church and if Rome will absolutely lead you to heaven if you always obey the Roman Catholic Church, then it is crazy to ever rebel against God's True Church, Rome.

Well, of course, of course, on the other hand, if the gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome is a false church lost in heresy and so Rome leads people to perdition, if the True God says Rome leads people to perdition not to heaven, then this changes things.

You meet Protestants who insist that all you have to do to attain heaven and escape hell is to profess what is written in John 3. 16. It is as if these Protestants have never read James 2. 26 – faith without works is dead. St. Paul is clear that we are saved by faith not by works, but faith is illegitimate if it is not backed up with good works. What do you think of a paraphrase of Christianity which summarizes Christianity in the following way: Just profess what is written in John 3. 16 and then go ahead and completely ignore James 2. 26, and go ahead and completely ignore Matthew 7, Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 13. 3-5, Luke 16. 19-31, John 6. 53-55, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, 1 Corinthians 11. 27, John 14. 23-26, John 15. 6, Acts 26. 13-18, Galatians 1. 8-12, 2 Thess 1. 8, 2 Thess 2, Revelation 20. 12-15 etc? What do you think about a Christian who says that all you need to know about Christianity is this: Profess what is written in John 3. 16 and you are saved, and so just go ahead and ignore everything else written in the New Testament? Don't you think that's more than just misguided? Don't you think that is insane? Merely because a person has proven he can provide lip service with John 3. 16 doesn't prove he has true faith.

My religious books try to break complicated issues down into simple exercises in logic. Take a scripture like John 1. 1-14, which tells us Jesus is God, tells us Jesus created the universe. It is obvious that John 1. 1-14 is either true or else it is false. If it is true then it would be crazy to say that John 1. 1-14 is trustworthy in telling us that Jesus is God but you can't trust what God is saying in John 15. 6, which says that those who do not abide in Him are like sticks which are given to the flames. But if you say Jesus is not God, if you say the True God says it is a wicked blasphemy to say that Jesus is God, and if you quote Malachi 4. 1, which has God saying the day is coming burning like an oven when God will set afire the wicked and the proud, then this makes perfect sense provided, 1) Jesus is not God and the True God says it is a wicked blasphemy to worship Jesus as God, and 2) and Malachi 4. 1 is true.

Of course, if in fact Jesus is God, as we Christians insist, if you are blaspheming God by saying Jesus is a fraudulent god when in fact Jesus is indeed the Creator of the Universe, then hellfire scriptures such as Malachi 4. 1, John 15. 6, Matthew 25. 31-46, 2 Thess 1. 8, Revelation 20. 12-15 become very relevant to your case.

Some main ideas in my religious books, besides saying Christianity is true, are that these 3 angels prophesied in Revelation 14. 6-11 will show up sooner or later. And the Antichrist and the false prophet will show up sooner or later. In order to distinguish between an angel from heaven from an angel from hell you have to know the difference between sound doctrine and heresy. Suppose the Antichrist shows up and he's pushing 99% sound doctrine and 1% satanic heresy, and suppose this 1% satanic heresy is enough to lead people straight to hell if they accept that satanic heresy. You have to be able to recognize and accept the 99% which is sound, and recognize and reject the 1% which is satanic heresy.

The most important material in my books deal with the cross and the crucifix, though one should distinguish between the Roman Catholic crucifix, the Eastern Orthodox crucifix, the Anglican crucifix etc. Take the Roman Catholic crucifix. My contention is that 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. It is an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven. I don't see how it is sensible to say the Roman Catholic Church is an image of a version of Jesus who says the Baptist Church is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. It makes no sense to say the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a version of Jesus who says the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

We have a Case 1 and a Case 2. In Case 1, the True God / True Creator of the Universe / True Version of Jesus says the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, and says Rome leads people to heaven, because Rome has not fallen into heresy. In Case 2 the True God / True Creator of the Universe / True Version of Jesus says the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church, says Rome leads people to perdition because Rome has fallen into heresy. So, if Case 1 is true, if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then there is nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic crucifix. God's True Church says it is sacred, so it is indeed sacred.

But if Case 2 is true, if the True God / True Creator of the Universe / True Version of Jesus says Rome has fallen into heresy and therefore Rome leads people to perdition, if the True God says Rome is not God's True Church, then the Roman Catholic crucifix, which is an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven, a version of Jesus who says Rome is the True Church, is an image of a false version of Jesus, it is the image of a lie, at least it is in Case 2, where the True God says Rome leads people to perdition. So if the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a false version of Jesus, the image of a lie, the image of a false god, a false version of Jesus, then the image of the beast from Revelation 13 and 14 comes to mind. False gods are beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition. Of course it is a terrible blasphemy to say or imply the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14 if in fact Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven. But if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome has fallen into heresy and leads people to perdition, if the True God says Rome is a fallen false church which leads people to perdition, then an image of a false version of Jesus, an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven, when in fact Rome drags people down to perdition, is an image of a false god, and again false gods are beastly because they lead people to perdition, so it is perfectly natural in Case 2 to speculate that the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14.

Revelation 22. 18-19 warns people that curses will befall those who add to or subtract from the Book of Revelation. But you are permitted to speculate upon its meaning. Rome says a saint goes immediately into the presence of God upon death. The Book of Revelation says the dead sleep until the Last Judgment, which is far in the future, after the Second Coming, after the Millennium. The Bible says only God is perfect. Rome says Mary is perfect. On the one hand Rome claims that Rome does not worship Mary, but if the Bible is correct in saying only God is perfect, and since Rome says the Bible is trustworthy, and since Rome says Mary is perfect - Rome says Mary never committed a single sin - Rome implicitly teaches that Mary is God. Rome explicitly teaches that Mary is not God, but implicitly Rome teaches that Mary is God. The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sister. Rome says it is a heresy, a mortal sin that leads offending souls straight to perdition to teach the `heresy' that Mary was not ever-Virgin. Rome called the Inquisition the `Holy Office' for centuries. If the Inquisition was evil in the eyes of God then it is a sacrilege to call the Inquisition a `Holy Office.' The Dogma of Papal Infallibility damns those who reject that Dogma. Well, if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then the Dogma of Papal Infallibility makes sense. But if Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome leads people to perdition, then perhaps you will not be damned to hell if you reject the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

Anyway, it is easy to imagine Roman Catholics insisting that a person would have to be rather satanic if he was to say that the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of the beast from Revelation 13 and 14. And, suppose these Catholics are right. Suppose that is a satanic heresy to say or imply the Catholic crucifix is the image of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14. Suppose Rome is God's True Church. Suppose Rome leads people to heaven and leads no one to perdition. Suppose the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred to the Creator of the Universe, because God says so, and because God says the Roman Catholic Church is His True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which leads people to heaven and which leads no one to perdition. If this is true then it is stupid and satanic to rebel against God's True Church, Rome. We are delusional for having these Senates and Parliaments and Houses of Representatives, we are brainless fools whenever we accept a Supreme Court decision which contradicts the will of God's True Church, the Church of Rome, still assuming here the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church. Rome is the only government we need if Rome is God's True Church. To elevate some human organization, some organization which rebels against God's True Church, Rome, which therefore leads people to perdition, is just brainless idiocy. It make no sense to ever rebel against God and God's True Church! How can you expect to attain heaven and escape perdition if you rebel against God and God's True Church? Of course of course if the Roman Catholic Church is not God's True Church, if Rome has fallen into heresy and therefore Rome leads people away from heaven and to perdition, then this changes things. If Rome leads people to perdition then an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven when in fact Rome leads people to perdition, is the image of a lie. And if the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a lie, the image of a beastly false version of Jesus, then the image of the beast from Revelation 13 and 14 comes to mind when we consider the Roman Catholic crucifix.

We were earlier on the subject of these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11, and on the subject of the Antichrist, who is the leader of the damned, the leader of those who burn in hell forever because they have the mark of the beast on their foreheads or right hands. We know that if one has no mark whatsoever on his forehead or right hand, then he won't get tossed into eternal hell for the sin of having an evil mark on his forehead or right hand. My theory is that the Antichrist will claim the cross is sacred to God and will claim it is the seal of God which saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9. But suppose I'm wrong. Suppose the first of these 3 angels from heaven shows up and announces that you must put the mark of a cross on your forehead, because it is the seal of God, and it will save you from the torments described in Revelation 9. All this follows from Case 1, which again says the cross reflects no evil. But if Case 2 is true, if the cross reflects some evil, if God says the cross is evil, and if you believe the Antichrist when he tells you the cross is sacred to God, then the Antichrist will lead you to burn in hell forever if you put the cross on your forehead, if in fact the cross is the mark of the beast.

So, if one of these 3 angels from heaven mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11 tells you that he has spoken to God, and God wants people to put a mark on their foreheads, and this mark is not the mark of the cross, and if the angel says that God says that this mark will protect people from the torments described in Revelation 9, then you can trust an angel from heaven if in fact God has told him this info. But then if the devil, masquerading as God, tells some angel from hell, like the Antichrist, to tell the people to hurry up and put a mark on their foreheads, because they will soon be tormented by the torments described in Revelation 9 if they don't have the mark on their foreheads, but if this mark is not the seal of God, rather it is the mark of the beast, well then, you can see how you have to be sharp enough to not let the Devil and the Antichrist lead you eternal hellfire.

Case 1 says the cross is sacred to God. Case 1 says the cross symbolizes no evil. Case 2 says the cross symbolizes some evil.

So if Case 1 is true, then you have to be prepared for an angel from heaven telling people that he has spoken to God, have to be prepared for the possibility that God told this angel to the people that God says: `Hurry up and put the mark of a cross on your forehead, because the time is up, My patience is over. I've had it with the evil people on earth! Had it up to here! I am now going to punish the evil people on earth. So Move it. Get that cross on your forehead, fast.' But the Devil, or rather the Antichrist, if Case 1 is true, if the cross is symbolizes no evil, will perhaps be saying that the cross is evil, and perhaps saying it is the mark of the beast, and you will burn in hell forever and ever if you put that evil cross on your forehead. Perhaps the Antichrist will say he has spoken to God on this matter. Who knows?

Now if Case 2 is true – recall the cross either symbolizes no evil or else it symbolizes some evil – Case 1 says the cross symbolizes no evil. Case 2 says the cross symbolizes some evil – if Case 2 is true, then some angel from heaven might say he has spoken to God and might say that God wants the people to hurry up and put a mark on their forehead, and this mark is not the mark of a cross, because we are in Case 2 now, and in Case 2 the cross symbolizes some evil, and God is certainly not going to ask people to put an evil symbol on their foreheads! So if God tells some angel to tell the people to hurry up and put a mark on their foreheads, this being the seal of God which saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9, then you'll have to hurry up, especially if God's patience is over, and the torments described in Revelation 9 are about to be inflicted on the evil people any second now. In this scenario the fans of the sign of the cross would say this angel from heaven is an angel from hell, and this mark he is trying to persuade people to put on their foreheads, and is trying to persuade them is the seal of God of Revelation 9, is actually the mark of the beast, because the fans of the cross are convinced Case 1 is true, convinced the True God says the cross is sacred. But if Case 2 is true, if the cross is evil, then you don't want the evil cross on your forehead, because you don't want to burn in hell forever and ever.

You might say that none of this will ever happen! You might insist that the devil, perhaps masquerading as God, will never tell the Antichrist to tell the people to hurry up and put a mark on their foreheads, to save themselves from the torments of Revelation 9, soon to be inflicted on the wicked. You might say God will never tell some angel from heaven to tell the people to put some sort of mark on their foreheads, and do it fast, because they will need this mark on their foreheads to save themselves from the torments described in Revelation 9. You might insist that the seal of God placed on the foreheads of the elect is an invisible sort of mark which God Himself places on the foreheads of the elect. I tend to agree. That sounds most likely to me. But you still have to be prepared for other possibilities. You don't want to be fixated on option A while option B hits you over the head. You don't want to be like those people who insisted the _Titanic_ was unsinkable, and so it would be stupid to clutter up the _Titanic's_ decks with a lot of useless lifeboats.

If no church under the sign of the cross is God's True Church, if every church under the sign of the cross is lost in heresy and leads people to perdition, this wouldn't prove the cross is no good; the cross might be sacred to God in this scenario, but if every church under the cross leads people to perdition then every church under the cross is seriously corrupted in one way or another. I tend to think celebrating communion with pro-choicers is the most obvious way churches in the 21st century put themselves on the road to perdition.

If just one church under the cross, perhaps more than one, but if at least one church under the cross leads people to heaven, because it has not fallen away from the True Faith, and is God's True Church, then you can trust that Church when it says the cross is sacred to God.

But, if every church under the cross leads people to perdition, if no church under the cross is God's True Church, well, again, this doesn't prove the cross is evil in the eyes of God, but if every church under the cross leads people to perdition, then big changes are required in these churches.

If the cross is the mark of the beast then certainly every church under the sign of the cross / mark of the beast is a false fallen church which leads people to perdition. If some church tells you the cross is sacred to God, and tells you that you needn't fear hellfire if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, but then you if end up burning in hell forever because the cross is the mark of the beast, then, obviously, it wasn't God's True Church which led you to burn in hell forever: it was a worthless false church which leads people to perdition which led you to burn in hell forever.

The evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries are either reflected in the cross, or else they are not reflected in the cross. The cross either symbolizes no evil or else it symbolizes some evil. I'm saying the cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred, but this cross of Christ is a spiritual thing. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred. What about material crosses? Recall God is sacred but material images of God are violations of the 2nd Commandment. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and we say the Nazi swastika reflects that evil. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century.

Anyway, the cross, or the sign of the cross, or material crosses, either symbolize no evil or else they symbolize some evil.

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.

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.'

We read on pp. 118-123 of H. R. Trevor-Roper's The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and Other Essays (Harper, 1956) that with the crime of witchcraft being declared a crimen exceptum by Pope Innocent VIII. in 1468, the use of torture had papal sanction to be employed against those accused of witchcraft. Torture was deemed necessary to obtain convictions, and very feeble suspicion was enough to initiate the use of torture. As it was highly unlikely that an investigator would find a written pact with the devil, or a pot of human limbs, or a supply of toads, etc., less incriminating evidence, such as an inability to shed tears, or the inability to sink in water, or the presence of a wart, or a calloused part of skin which wouldn't bleed when pricked, became evidence sufficient to initiate torture, so as to secure confessions and testimony against `accomplices.' Trevor-Roper lists the various instruments of suffering: various devices which crushed the fingers and toes; the Spanish Boot which broke shin-bones; the self-explanatory `Bed of Nails.' There was also much driving of needles under finger-nails.

Ezekiel 20. 25 is not a bad scripture to begin a paraphrase of Christianity. It says God gave the children of Israel bad laws because He was angry with their incessant rebellions. The whole Old Covenant system of animal sacrifice is not at all good in the estimation of most people today. Exodus 29. 20 tells us that God wanted the blood of a ram to be placed on the tip of Aaron's right ear, and on the tips of the right ears of his sons, and on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. This curious little ritual certainly appears to be an example of God mocking man, mocking him because of his incessant rebellions and eternal heart of stone. Other objectionable laws under the Mosaic Law include: execute the Sabbath violator, execute the homosexual, execute children who curse their parents, execute enchantresses, burn alive the harlot daughter of a priest etc., etc. Christianity fully agrees with the assertion made by Christ at the Last Supper that Christianity is the New Covenant, recall Christ's words from Matthew 26. 28, `This cup is My blood of the new covenant...' And of course in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 God tells us He will give His people, the house of Israel and the house of Judah, a new covenant, a New Law to amend and perfect the Old Law, the Mosaic Law. Yes, the Old Law is an eternal law, but, you know, it is eternal in the sense that it will be eternally remembered, and parts of the Old Law, like the 10 Commandments are incorporated into the New Law, but this business about slaughtering bulls and goats and birds is all obsolete, over and done with. Even among those who accept that last sentence there is still no end of disagreement. The Russian Orthodox Church claims to teach the New Law correctly and claims to be God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, Matthew 16. 13-19. But every Christian church on earth makes that same claim, at least I don't know of any Christian church which claims to be a false church or which boasts that it preaches a satanic or heretical or false version of the new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 and Matthew 26. 28. If in fact the Russian Orthodox Church is God's True Church, if in fact you will go to heaven if you obey the Russian Orthodox Church, but, like satan, you will be cast into hell if you rebel against God's True Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, then it would be supremely idiotic to ever rebel against the Russian Orthodox Church. But then, on the other hand, if the Russian Orthodox Church is not God's True Church, not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the Russian Orthodox Church is a false church which has been led astray by satan...

So much depends on being able to draw the line between things which are Anti-Christian and things which are not Anti-Christian. Suppose you like to labor on the Sabbath Day. And there are Christians who will tell you that it is not Anti-Christian to labor on the Sabbath day. Well, if the commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy is no longer enforced under the New Law, then what about the commandment to have no other gods above The LORD? Is the 1st commandment obsolete? It would certainly contradict Luke 13. 3 to say that Christians will go to heaven even if they refuse to repent, or if they insist that under the New Law Christians are permitted to steal and bear false witness and covet and kill and commit adultery and violate the Sabbath etc. Christ gave two commandments: love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself, and Christ is very clear in saying that to love God you must keep the commandments. Violating the Sabbath, and coveting, and committing adultery, and having graven images, seem to be the most common ways that Christians violate the commandments in the 21st century.

Moving along to Matthew 16. 13-19, where Christ declares He has founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church, we might look at the Russian Orthodox Church in the 15th centuries. As an exercise in rational thinking, let's try to determine if the gates of hell have prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 15th century. Apropos of evidence saying the Russian Orthodox Church fell away from the True Faith, the Russian Orthodox clergy, for century after century, was notorious for celebrating communion with evil monarchs and their evil henchmen. And St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11. 27 it is a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. Of course, of course, if the gates of hell prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 15th century this wouldn't prove that the gates have prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 21st century. But nevertheless, let's exercise our analytical abilities and try to determine if the gates of hell prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 15th century. Benson Bobrick writes in `Fearful Majesty: The Life and Reign of Ivan the Terrible' (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1987),

`[In Russia under the Russian Orthodox Church] Counterfeiters had molten lead poured down their throats. Those found guilty of sacrilege were torn to pieces with iron hooks...Ivan stepped out of the shadows of his long minority and had Andrey Shuisky thrown to the dogs...At the age of twelve he began torturing animals for fun, and dropped dogs off the Kremlin battlements "to observe their pain and convulsions." At fourteen, he gathered about him a gang of teenage thugs...and not unlike the Emperor Nero...he roamed the streets and squares of Moscow...He stressed social `justice,' but something of the primitive intelligence he brought to the matter may be glimpsed in a refinement he proposed for judicial duels: "Let the litigants be left, unarmed and naked, in a dungeon where a single razor is hidden. Whoever finds the razor wins the duel, and has the right to butcher his opponent on the spot...To staff his new court and administration and (as was soon apparent) to enforce the expropriation of land, Ivan assembled a sort of Praetorian Guard. Weirdly foreshadowing Hitler's SS, these Oprichniki, as they were called, donned black uniforms, displayed enigmatic or morbid insignia...Whereas the SS sported a death's head badge and runic double-S flash, the Oprichniki rode on black horses and carried at their saddlebrow a dog's head and broom as symbols of their determination to guard, day and night, the safety of their master and to sweep away his enemies...Torture, once an instrument of the code, began to dominate it; hearsay permitted a judge "to begin to pull a person's joints out and break his bones, to lacerate his body with the knout and burn him with fire"...Another prince, impaled on a stake "which came out at his naeck, languished in horrible paine for fifteen hours, and spake unto his mother brought to behold that woefull sight...the Emperor saying, `such as I favour I have honoured, and such as be treytors will I have thus done unto'"...During the meal, Ivan stood and read occasionally from the lives of the saints...Not infrequently...he would descend into the dungeons to observe acts of torture. "Blood often splashes his face,' goes one eyewitness account...he occasionally convened the brethren for an orgy...Ivan embarked on the most infamous atrocity of his reign...On January 2, 1570, Ivan came within sight of Novgorod...Some 400 prominent citizens - boyars, courtiers, abbots, officials, and merchants - were hauled off to Gorodischche for trial. The method of investigation was torture; the inevitable verdict, death. Ivan built a kind of hill-slide down to the Volkhov River, bound his torn and broken victims to sleds, and sped them precipitously into the icy water, where Oprichniki armed with pikes and axes moved about in boats hacking and stabbing at anyone who tried to swim. Others were hanged, beheaded, impaled, or thrown off the Volkhov Bridge. The Gorodischche massacres continued for five weeks, and ended with a general pillage of Novgorod...At length, on February 13, Ivan condescended to pardon all who remained alive. He summoned about sixty elders to Gorodischche, spoke to them `with mildness,' we are told, and gazed upon them `with kind and merciful eyes.' With the cruelest irony, he asked them to pray that heaven might grant him a long and happy reign...The scale of Ivan's atrocity has been the subject of much debate, and estimates vary widely at to the total number slain. The Chronicles say 60,000...on the Orthodox `Feast of St. James the Apostle' (whose theology of good works Ivan had so recently extolled) a squad of Oprichniki cordoned off Red Square and hammered twenty heavy stakes into the ground. Transverse beams were fastened to them, and behind them copper cauldrons of iced and boiling water were hung in pairs...300 torn and crippled prisoners were brought forth from the dungeons to hear their doom...Viskovaty was made to advance. For each charge pronounced against him Schchelkalov struck him with a whip. But the aged diplomat denied them all, asserting that he had faithfully served Russia and his sovereign throughout his long career. To Ivan's chagrin he resolutely refused to beg for mercy, and looking around him at the instruments of torture littering the square, exclaimed for all to hear: `a curse on you, you bloodsuckers! God will judge you too, in the next world, for the evil you have done"...The next to die was Nikita Funikov, state treasurer since 1561...Two Oprichniki took turns savagely dousing him with cold and boiling water `until his skin came off like an eel's'...The Tartars had surrounded the city [Moscow]. No one could escape. The tsar's English physician, Arnold Lindsay, and twenty-five London merchants also perished, along with the English lions Ivan had kept in the Kremlin moat. Those not burned to death were smothered by the `fierie eyre;' fully half the population of Moscow and its environs [perished]...contemporary accounts claimed up to a million. 'Mosco,' wrote one eyewitness, `is burnt every sticke'...Ivan began to compile his Synodical, or list of the victims of his terror, to be remembered by the clergy in their prayers. Over 1500 names were inscribed from the sack of Novgorod alone, many followed by the words `with his wife,' `with his wife and children,' `with his daughters,' `with his sons'; while unremembered others were acknowledged by the relentless, sad refrain: `As to their names, O Lord, you know them.' Copies of the Synodical were circulated to all principal monasteries in Muscovy for services... By January 1584, he had begun to show signs of internal putrefaction, to "griviously swell in his coddes," wrote Horsey, "with which he had most horriblie offended, boasting of a thowsand virgins deflowered'...Sixty Lapland witches, "sent forth owt of the North," were brought in haste to Moscow where they were daily consulted...Ivan saw a comet flash through the sky, its tail forming a nebulous cross which lingered between the domes of two cathedrals. He stared at it gloomily and proclaimed to his attendants: "This portends my death"...He was laid to rest among his ancestors in the Cathedral of St. Michael the Archangel.'

So, you see how it goes. The cross either reflects no evil or else it reflects some evil. Case 1. The cross is sacred to God. The evils perpetrated over the centuries by people carrying crosses are not reflected in the cross. Case 2, the cross reflects some evil. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and as a result the Nazi swastika reflects that evil. Of course not every person under the sign of the cross was an evil murderer, but St. Paul is quite clear in saying good Christians are not to celebrate the Eucharist with evil Christian. It is a terrible sin to celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. If you say the gates of hell did not prevail against the Russian Orthodox Church during the 15th century, if you say this church leads people to heaven, because it is God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then it stands to reason it would be evil to rebel against this Russian Orthodox Church, provided it is indeed God's True Church. It stands to reason you would put yourself on the road to hell if you rebelled against that church. But then, on the other hand, if the gates of hell prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church of the 15th century, if the Russian Orthodox Church of the 15th century was not God's True Church, if the Russian Orthodox Church of the 15th century led people to perdition not to heaven, then this changes things. Of course we're more interested in the Russian Orthodox Church of the 21st century than the Russian Orthodox Church of the 15th century. But the key questions remain the same. Have the gates of hell prevailed against the Russian Orthodox Church in the 21st century? Does the Russian Orthodox Church of the 21st century lead people to heaven or does it lead people to perdition? Obviously, so much depends on the sign of the cross. Suppose the Russian Orthodox Church advises you to put the mark of a cross on your forehead. And suppose you end up burning in hell forever because you take the advice of the Russian Orthodox Church when it says the cross is sacred to God, but it turns out the cross is evil, and therefore you get to burn in hell forever for putting the evil cross on your forehead, therefore, the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be God's True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because God's True Church does not lead people to burn in hell forever. Now, if Case 1 is true, if the cross is sacred to God, and if the cross is the seal of God which saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9, then, if the Russian Orthodox Church advices you to put the mark of a cross on your forehead, and this advice saves you from months of torment, the months of torment described in Revelation 9, then, just because the Russian Orthodox Church is right about the cross, this doesn't prove the Russian Orthodox Church is God's True Church. Perhaps the Russian Orthodox Church leads people to perdition because it teaches heresy on some other issue, even though, if Case 1 is true, it teaches the truth about the sign of the cross. But then if Case 2 is true, if the cross reflects evil, then the Russian Orthodox Church is sunk in sacrilege and heresy. It is sacrilege and heresy to say that things which are evil in the sight of God are sacred, you see.

People are always attacking their religious and political enemies by calling them fools, retards, brainless bastards, Trumptards, Libtards, degenerates, low-lives, swine, vermin, scum-sucking devil dogs etc. Christianity teaches that your religion is useless if you don't bridle your tongue – James 1. 26 – and of course we Christians are sometimes or often guilty of forgetting James 1. 26. This phraseology `your religion is useless if you don't bridle your tongue' is just another way of saying you put yourself on the road to perdition if you don't clean up your foul language. Luke 13. 3: Repent or Perish. 2 Thess 1. 8 mentions hellfire for those who don't obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Everyone knows Christ and the apostles didn't advocate the use of gutter language. At the heart of Christianity is the doctrine that God, the Creator of the Universe, is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Old Testament scriptures of Deuteronomy 6. 4-5 read as follows: `Hear O Israel, The LORD our God is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength...' These words imply God is not a Trinity. But Isaiah 9. 6 specifically calls the Son `Almighty God,' and Psalm 2 says the Son is begotten, and the word begotten certainly implies that since the Father is divine then the Son is also. We don't actually have a scripture which says the Holy Spirit is God but Jesus said that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgiveable offense, so the obvious conclusion from this is the conclusion that the New Testament teaches the Holy Spirit is God. The New Testament scriptures which say Jesus is God include: Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Romans 9. 5, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc.

Of course non-Christians will insist we Christians are fools or blasphemous fools for insisting Jesus is God. But you can't always be worried about what the critics are saying about you. So much depends on being right on a few issues. In Acts 26. 13-18 St. Paul is given a mission to turn people from the power of Satan to the power of God. Revelation 2. 9 has Jesus saying the Jews are a synagogue of Satan. You have to be right on this issue of whether or not Jesus is God. I mean, if Jesus is God, if Matthew 1. 23, John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc., are trustworthy, and if people refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is God, if they implicitly or explicitly insist Jesus is a fraud, a bogus sort of deity, and certainly not the Creator of the Universe, then it stands to reason these people are under the power of Satan. Of course non-Christians will argue that we Christians are blasphemous because we...but let's not get lost on a long tangent here. The point is you just have to be right on some big issues. You can't very well expect to go to heaven after you die if you insist Jesus is unworthy of worship if indeed Jesus is God.

Political Correctness more or less says that all good people go to heaven, or at least Political Correctness wars against John 15. 6 - Those who do not abide in Christ are like sticks tossed into the flames. Political Correctness wars against all of the famous hellfire scriptures in the Christian scriptures – Malachi 4. 1, Matthew 25. 31-46, Luke 16. 19-31, John 15.6, 2 Thess 1. 8, Revelation 20.12-15 etc. The Christian scriptures are very specific about how you attain heaven and how you escape perdition: you must celebrate the Eucharist – recall John 6. 53-55 - but you must not celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner – 1 Corinthians 11. 27. There are quite a few scriptures on this issue of attaining heaven and escaping perdition, Matthew 5 and 7, Matthew 25. 31-46, 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10, James 1. 26-7, John 15. 6, Matthew 16. 13-19, Luke 13. 3-5, Galatians 1. 8-10, Revelation 22. 18-19 etc. Christianity is very clear in rejecting the doctrine that says all good people go to heaven. Merely because one can find kind and generous Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Eastern Orthodox believers etc., this doesn't prove their various doctrines are any good. Just because you can find 4 nice people, or 40 nice people, or 400 million nice people who support Religion X doesn't prove Religion X leads people to heaven.

Look at the account in Genesis of the Garden of Eden and the fall of Adam and Eve. We have to choose between two main options. The account is either trustworthy or else it is untrustworthy. Whether the account is literal history or whether it is a parable from God is somewhat irrelevant. It's central message is either trustworthy or it is untrustworthy -- it's central message is that a person will suffer anguish and lots of it if he rebels against God. Recall Matthew 16. 13-19. The gates of hell have either prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church or else the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church. Two scenarios to consider. If Rome is God's True Church, then this is only more reason to never rebel against Rome. But if Rome leads people to perdition, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, then you want to get out of the Roman Catholic Church, you see.

Some people paraphrase the New Testament by insisting that the New Testament teaches Christians to always obey emperors and kings and other such temporal authorities. But a closer reading of the New Testament shows that Christians are never to do anti-Christian things. Even if the emperor commands a Christian to do something anti-Christian, the Christian must refuse to obey those commands. Recall the early Christians were sent to the lions because they refused to obey the commands of the emperor to worship the emperor. And if the emperor ordered Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods, Christians are of course forbidden to obey those anti-Christian orders. Atheists often insist that the New Testament endorses slavery. The issue is a little complex. It's true that St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters. But you have to understand that if he told slaves to rebel against their masters they would have been tortured to death, as the Roman Empire was a huge slave empire which tortured to death slaves who revolted. St. Paul never commanded Christians to go on raids to capture slaves. But churches under the sign of the cross did endorse the various slave trades active over the centuries, and this sort of evil is of course powerful evidence saying those churches fell away from the True Faith and are not the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

Recalling Matthew 16. 13-19 (Christ founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church), let's look at 2 arguments. The first argument says the Roman Catholic Church of the 21st century leads people to heaven because the gates of hell have not prevailed against Rome in the 21st century, because Rome in the 21st century is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, God's True Church, the Bride of Christ. The second argument says the Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century leads people to perdition, because the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, because Rome is simply not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, is simply not the Bride of Christ, not God's True Church. Naturally you would want to know God's opinion on this issue! When Roman Catholics fall to their knees to worship God, they worship a Roman Catholic god, a god who says the gates of hell have not prevailed the Roman Catholic Church. But if the True God says the gates of hell have prevailed Rome, if the True God says Rome leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholics are quite delusional, because they insist they are on the road to heaven when in fact they are on the road to perdition, plus they worship a false god – they worship a god who says Rome leads people to heaven, whereas the True God says Rome leads people to perdition. I'm not saying I have proven anything here aside from something which is more or less obvious. We have a Case 1 and we have a Case 2. Case 1 says the gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church. Case 1 says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, and Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and so, in Case 1, Rome leads people to perdition. If Case 1 is true then no one on earth should be a Roman Catholic. Case 2 says the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church. Case 2 says the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore Rome leads people to heaven. If Case 2 is true then Rome is God's True Church and everyone on earth would be wise to obey God's True Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Somehow, we have to arrive at the correct answer to the question: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century or have the gates of hell not prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century?

Well, to answer that question we might look at some of Rome's more controversial doctrines. Either you can accept these doctrines or else you can't accept them. If you can't accept them, then perhaps you have good reasons for not being able to accept them. The Church of Rome in the 21st century says you are a blasphemer if you direct abusive language at anyone Rome has canonized, such as Capistrano, Borromeo. Pius V etc. Abram Leon Sachar, a former president of Brandeis University, wrote in _A History of the Jews_ (Knopf, 1960):

`This time the villain of the piece is the papal legate John of Capistrano, a Franciscan monk whose persecuting zeal earned him the unenviable title of "Scourge of the Jews."...Wherever he went, thousands...were carried away by his immense sincerity, his ferocious energy. Riots were common in Germany and Slavic lands after his tongue had lashed heretics and Jews...In Breslau a Bernadine chapel was built with Jewish money after nearly the whole community had been burnt alive for blasphemy...So went the tale of woe decade after decade, endlessly. Four hundred years had now passed since the hideous nightmare had begun. Hounded by successions of crusaders...Even sunny Spain was beginning to use the thumb-screw and the torch...Jews turned to their Bibles and prayer-books, scanning the tear-stained pages in vain for the consolation which the living world denied them...While France and England, Germany and Austria ransacked chambers of horror to discover new torments...In Seville several thousand were butchered...The riots spread like a plague...About seventy cities of Old Castile were thus devastated and a trail of broken homes and broken hearts was left in the wake of the bloody hooligans...The fertile province of Valencia, the prosperous seaport of Barcelona, even the islands off the coast of Spain, were all swept by the ferocity of the persecutors. After three months the orgy ended, with thousands of Jewish lives snuffed out and tens of thousands of forced baptisms.'

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.'

To this day the Church of Rome demands that all true Christians venerate those whom she has canonized, such as John of Capistrano. And, obviously, if the Church of Rome is God's True Church, then you should always obey God's True Church, and venerate everyone whom Rome has canonized, because you will probably go to perdition if you rebel against God's True Church - but you can't lose if you simply obey God's True Church. Even if she makes a few mistakes now and then, you can't lose if you simply have enough sense to understand that you can't be led to perdition, if you simply obey God's True Church, Rome. Now, if the Church of Rome is not God's True Church, if Rome has fallen away, if the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then you will want to recognize this reality, and you don't want to suffer any delusions about the Roman Catholic Church leading people to heaven when in fact it drags people down to eternal perdition. As for some more problematical people that Rome orders all Christians to venerate as saints, we might look at St. Pius V. and St. Carlo Borromeo.

Apropos of the former Archbishop of Milan, Mrs. H. M. Vernon informed us in her book `Italy From 1494 to 1790' (Cambridge at the University Press, 1909):

`Carlo Borromeo conducted a campaign against witchcraft no less terrible than his campaign against heresy, and hundreds of wretched women were burned...The horrors of the Plague were doubled by the persecution of the `Untori'...who were supposed to spread it.'

In `Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,' J. A. Symonds reported:

`The pestilences of the Middle Ages, notably the Black Death of 1348...exceeded in virulence those which depopulated Italian cities during the period of my history...At Venice in 1575-77, a total of about 50,000 persons perished...in 1630-31, 46,490 were carried off...Milan was devastated at the same periods by plagues...At Naples, in the year 1656, more than 50,000 perished...Savoy was scourged by a fearful pestilence...In Val Moriana, forty thousand expired...In May 1599, the inhabitants of Turin were reduced by flight and death to four thousand...The streets were encumbered with unburied corpses, the houses infested by robbers and marauders...The infected were treated with inhuman barbarity, and retorted with savage fury...To miseries of pestilence and its attendant famine were added lawlessness and license, raging fires, and, what was worst of all, the dark suspicion that the sickness had been introduced by malefactors...The name given to the unfortunate creatures accused of this diabolical conspiracy was Untori, or the Smearers...They were popularly supposed to go about the city daubing walls, doors, furniture, choir-stalls, flowers, and articles of food with plague stuff...Hundreds of such Untori were condemned to the most cruel deaths by justice firmly persuaded of their criminality. Exposed to prolonged tortures, the majority confessed palpable absurdities. One woman at Milan said she had killed four thousand people. But, says Pier Antonio Marioni, the Venetian envoy, although tormented to the utmost, none of them were capable of revealing the prime instigators of the plot...The rack-stretched wretches could not reveal their instigators, because there were none...As in cases of witchcraft, the first accusation was founded upon gossip and delation. The judicial proceedings were ruled by prejudice and cruelty. Fear and physical pain extorted confessions and complicated accusations of their neighbors from multitudes of innocent people."

David Christie-Murray told us in `A History of Heresy' (Oxford, 1976) that Charles Borromeo burned at least eleven elderly women at the stake.

Pope St. Pius V., a great champion of the Inquisition, is another man that the Church of Rome orders people to venerate as a saint. 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.'

Peter De Rosa writes in `Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy' (Crown 1988),

`In all the Greek Fathers there is not one word about the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, no suggestion he had jurisdiction over them. No one, Greek or Latin, appeals to the bishop of Rome as final and universal arbiter in any single dispute about the faith. As a point of fact, no Bishop of Rome dared decide on his own a matter of faith for the church. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. St. Augustine's phrase, "Rome has spoken, the dispute is at an end," is quoted endlessly by Catholic apologists. With reason. Out of ten huge folios of his work, that is the one phrase which proves that the Bishop of Rome has, on his own, the right to settle controversies in the church. But does it? The context shows Augustine arguing that after two synods, with the bishop of Rome concurring, it is time to call a halt...Gregory the Great said that unbaptized babies go straight to hell and suffer there for all eternity...Everywhere, the rule of celibacy triumphed at the expense of chastity. The efforts of Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine were to produce ever more bitter fruit. Jerome was not afraid to admit that he regularly saw clerics who passed their entire lives in female company, surrounded by beautiful girl slaves...In the eighth century, St. Boniface went to Germany. He found such depravity among bishops and priests that he begged Pope Gregory III to let him wash his hands of the whole crowd...Young men who spent their youth in rape and adultery were rising in the ranks of the clergy...A large part of the history of celibacy is the story of the degradation of women - an invariable consequence - frequent abortions and infanticide...Since the end of the Roman Empire, historians say that infanticide was probably not practiced in the West on any great scale - except in the convents. The Council of Aix-la Chapelle in the year 836 openly admitted it...Children, the fruit of incest, were killed by the clergy, as many a French prelate put on record...The matter was finally settled by Urban II at Piacenza in the year 1095. A council of 400 clerics and 30,000 laity condemned clerical marriages once and for all. To prove the evangelical impulse of this measure, they sold priests' wives into slavery.'

Rome does not claim to worship Mary, but Rome calls Mary the Co-Redeemer, and Rome says she is sinless - she never committed a single sin during her life on earth, or at any time. Rome sees Mary as the Queen of Heaven, and Rome authorizes people to bow down before images of Mary and the saints, to be in accord with II Nicaea. So, Rome worships a god who is the sort of god who supports all of this Roman Catholic doctrine / voodoo. The Roman Catholic god is very is very clear: there is only one True Church - the Church of Rome - and those who reject the Church of Rome are damned. The Roman Catholic god says the Inquisition is holy - it is the `Holy Office'. So, if the True God is hostile to the Inquisition, hostile to the Church of Rome, hostile to Capistrano, Borromeo, hostile to having people fall to their knees before images of Mary and the saints etc., then the Roman Catholics don't worship the True God, rather they worship a false god.

John 14. 23-26 tells us that those who love Christ keep His words. Christ, in Revelation 2. 9, calls the Jews a synagogue of Satan. He didn't mean they prayed to the devil. He meant they are heretics, and heretics are people who, unwittingly, teach false doctrines which drag souls down to perdition. Though heretics don't mean to lead people away from heaven and to perdition, nevertheless, that's what they do.

Protestantism has no reason to exist if either Rome, or the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Russian Orthodox Church – in October of 2018 the Russian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had a divorce - is God's True Church, the Church Christ founded on a rock. But if neither Rome nor Eastern Orthodoxy nor Russian Orthodoxy uphold the True Faith, if none of these three churches is the Church Christ founded on a rock, if all three drag souls down to perdition, then Protestantism has a reason to exist.

I'm not dogmatically asserting there will never be mercy - never be admittance into the kingdom of heaven - given to anyone in an heretical church. And merely because there might be some exceptions to the general rule that heretical sects drag souls down to perdition doesn't mean the general rule is invalid.

Recall the economic collapse prophesied in Revelation 18. Recall also that Daniel 12. 1 prophesies a time of enormous unprecedented trouble on earth when the archangel Michael shows up to deliver the Jews. If Christianity is God's true religion - and those of us who are Christians say it is - then it stands to reason that Michael will deliver the Jews by converting the Jews to the true version of Christianity, not to some false fallen version of Christianity which leads people to perdition. Consider 5 cataclysmic events. There are the 3 proclamations of the 3 angels mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11. There is the economic collapse prophesied in Revelation 18. And there is the deliverance of the Jews during a time of enormous unprecedented trouble on earth, prophesied in Daniel 12.1, when the archangel Michael shows up to deliver the Jews.

There are big problems with the `Protestant reformers' of the 16th century, because these people were, like the Catholics, big fans of torturing women accused of witchcraft. This means they were big fans of torturing women who were usually innocent, but they nevertheless tortured the women until they made false confessions of witchcraft. So, when 16th century `Protestant reformers' fell to their knees to worship God, they envisioned God to be the sort of God who approved of their actions in burning and torturing people. So they did not worship the True God, though they claimed to worship the True God, rather, they worshipped a beastly god. And recall 2 Thess 1. 8 and the punishment for not knowing God. The Calvinists burned Michael Servetus over a slow fire. I suppose I'm being dogmatic by insisting the True God doesn't want people to torture and murder other people during religious disputes, and by insisting the True God was hostile to the 16th century Calvinists. They claimed to know and worship the True God - but they actually worshipped a false god: they worshipped a beastly god who delighted to see Servetus roasting. Still pursuing this theme which says that the people under the sign of the cross fell away from the True Faith preached by Christ and the apostles, and still on this theme saying Christians might claim to know God but this doesn't prove they actually do know God – you know, if some guy says God wants people to torture some woman accused of witchcraft then that guy doesn't actually know God, he's suffering a delusion, because the True God doesn't want you to torture some woman, the True God wants you to comport yourself like an apostle, like Peter or Paul, the True God wants you to be gentle and merciful etc., etc. – on these themes Lord Acton 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.'

Still on the theme of the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2, consider the 6th century Catholic Emperor Justinian. He claimed he was a Christian, he claimed he worshipped the True God. But I think we can say with some confidence that he fell away from the True Faith. We read in J. B. Bury's `History of the Later Roman Empire From the Death of Theodosius I. to the Death of Justinian', vol. ii, pp. 423-4,

`Procopius gravely asserts that he himself and "most of us" had come to the conclusion that the Emperor and Empress [Justinian and Theodora] were demons in human form, and he did not mean this as a figure of speech. He tells a number of anecdotes to substantiate the idea. Justinian's mother had once said that she conceived of a demon. He had been seen in the palace at night walking about without a head, and a clairvoyant monk had once refused to enter the presence chamber because he saw the chief of demons sitting on the throne. Before her marriage, Theodora had dreamt that she would cohabit with the prince of the devils..."Anxious [Procopius remarks now on Justinian's ecclesiastical policy] to unite all men in the same opinion about Christ, he destroyed dissidents indiscriminately, and that under the pretext of piety; for he did not think that the slaying of men was murder unless they happened to share his own religious opinions."'

So often Protestants don't seem to know why they are Protestants. To explain matters, you join a Protestant church if you want to sing in its choir, or if you like to bake cake and cookies and you want to participate in the bake sales that some Protestant church holds, or, rather, the only logical reason for Protestantism to exist is because both the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church lead souls to perdition. If one of these two churches was the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then all of Protestantism would be an evil rebellion against God's True Church. Protestantism is founded upon the logic that Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have both fallen away from the True Faith, and hence both lead souls to perdition, but, Protestantism insists that Protestantism doesn't lead souls to perdition!

The Britannica (1963) gives us the following:

`Innocent III (Lotario de' Conti di Segni), pope from 1198 to 1216, son of Trasimund, count of Segni, and of Claricia, a Roman lady of the noble family of Scotti...As he wrote to the Tuscan rectors, in Christian society the sacerdotium stood to the regnum as did the sun to the moon. Likewise to the patriarch of Constantinople he wrote: "The Lord has left to Peter the governance not of the Church only but of the whole world."...Other popes before Innocent - notably Gregory VII - had maintained the doctrine that the pope had eminent dominion over secular princes; but it was reserved for Innocent to make it a reality...by a bull of Oct. 12, 1204, Innocent permitted crusaders to fulfill their vows by assisting the Knights of the Sword in the conquest of Livonia for the church...Innocent IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), pope from 1243 to 1254, belonged to the noble Genoese family of the counts of Lavagna...Innocent went beyond his predecessors in claiming for the papacy a direct temporal sovereignty over all earthly kingdoms.'

Paragraphs 881, 882, 883, 884, 936, 937, 2034 in the Catechism don't phrase matters in quite such explicit terms, but, nevertheless, those Paragraphs essentially state that the authority of the Roman Catholic Church surpasses the authority of every other institution on earth - Republics, Kingdoms, Parliaments, Universities - rather as the luminosity of the sun surpasses the luminosity of a lump of coal - because, obviously, the True Church of the Creator of the Universe - the Bride of Christ - must far outshine all human institutions which are not the True Church, which are not the Bride of Christ.

The unambiguous nature of Christ's Second Coming -see Matthew 24. 27 - it will arrive like a lightning flash \- creates problems for the Antichrist if the Antichrist can't fabricate his arrival on earth to be like a lightning flash. Therefore one is led to think the Antichrist might attempt an imposture of the archangel Michael rather than an imposture of Christ. Of course the Antichrist will see himself as God, not a mere created being, not a mere archangel, but it might nevertheless be conducive to his ends to masquerade as Michael. So please remember to worship the True God - the True Creator of the Universe \- not some false and beastly deity. And please remember also, especially during a time of unprecedented trouble on earth, to not confuse the guardian of the Jews, the archangel Michael, with Satan or the Antichrist. That would be huge slip-up which could only land one in hell. Honestly, confusing the archangel Michael with Satan or the Antichrist! That's the sort of slip-up the damned would make but not the elect, not God's beloved saints. Again, concerning Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews, and concerning the deliverance of the Jews, we read in Daniel 12. 1,

`And at that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people, and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was sincere was a nation, even unto that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.'

But then you can't distinguish an angel from hell form an angel from heaven if you are all mixed up in your religious beliefs. Suppose you insist the gates of hell have not prevailed against some church, some church which you say is God's True Church, when in fact that the gates of hell have prevailed against that church of yours, then, when an angel from heaven tells you that the gates of hell have prevailed against that church of yours, this angel from heaven will appear to you to be an angel from hell.

What about the Roman Catholic Church? Have the gates of hell prevailed against Rome? 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.'

These Popes and Catholic laymen who burned people to death for defying Rome's order to not read the Bible, when they fell to their knees to worship God, were worshipping a god who they believe supported them in their actions to burn people for reading the Bible. They believed that was the sort of god who had given the keys of St. Peter to the popes, and whatever the popes decided to bind and loose was OK with the True God. So is this god the True God or is he an imposter? We have to decide if the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is a Divine Law which gives the Popes St. Peter's authority to burn people at the stake for defying orders when order to not read the Bible, or if the Popes are perpetrating a usurpation. There's also the problem with the Cafeteria Catholics, people who remain in the Roman Catholic Church but they don't obey Rome. Look at JFK. When he became president of the USA he refused to take orders from the Pope and yet he refused to renounce the Roman Catholic Church. If the Popes have inherited St. Peter's authority to bind and loose, if Rome is God's True Church, if Rome leads souls to heaven, then someone like JFK is rebel against God's True Church: his example in rebelling against Rome is an example which leads souls to perdition. And if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then JFK's example of remaining in a church which leads souls to perdition sets a poor example for others, as his example leads souls to perdition.

Charles 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.

Major Griffiths wrote the following in his `In Old French Prisons' (Dorset Press, 1992):

`We are familiar enough with the "rack," the "wheel," the thumb screw" and the "boot." Other less known forms of torture were the "veglia" introduced into France by the popes when the Holy See came to Avignon. The "veglia" consisted of a small wooden stool so constructed that when the accused sat upon it his whole weight rested on the extremity of his spine. His sufferings soon became acute. He groaned, he shrieked and then fainted, whereupon the punishment ceased until he came to and was again placed on the stool. It was usual to hold a looking glass before his eyes that his distorted features might frighten him into confession.'

The medieval popes, when they fell to their knees to worship the Creator of the Universe, envisioned God to be the sort of god who approved their actions in using the rack and the stake and the veglia and other instruments of torture on people. In the first one thousand years after Christ there was probably very little tortured inflicted by Catholic priests - though one reads of tumultuous monks in the East and in Alexandria \- the people doing most of the torturing were kings and nobles who needed to strike fear into their enemies to either attain power or to retain power once they had it. But the popes had some logic which said they were above kings and nobles, because, if they led souls to heaven then naturally they would be closer to God and superior to laymen who merely administered earthly justice - and in time, mainly from the 13th century until the early 19th, the popes imitated the kings and nobles in subjecting those who rebelled against them to ghastly torments and hideous prison conditions - dark dungeons where men and women would spend decades fending off hungry rats, blood-sucking lice and other vermin. When the Catholic popes, kings and nobles fell to their knees to worship the Creator of the Universe they did not worship a God who hated their cruelty. They worshipped a god who supported them in their use of cruel measures. If the True God wanted the Popes to use the rack and the stake and the veglia and hideous dungeons on people, then the Popes probably worshipped the True God. But if the True God did not want the popes to use cruel methods on people, then the popes worshipped a false god. Whenever people worship false gods one is reminded of Revelation 13. 4-8, where the whole world worships a multi-headed beast. It is unlikely that a literal interpretation would make any sense - literal people worshipping a literal seven-headed beast? - so we are looking for a figurative interpretation. People might claim they are worshipping the Creator of the Universe, but if they ascribe false and evil attributes to the Creator of the Universe, then they are worshipping an evil god not the True God. Recall Jesus saying He knew the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews but are a synagogue of Satan. The Jews were quite sincere when they claimed to worship the Creator of the Universe, but since they participated in crucifying Christ, since they denied that Jesus is God the Son, then you can see why Jesus said they are a synagogue of Satan.

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.'

Roman Catholics say the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 says the Roman Catholic Church is God's True Church, says Rome leads people to heaven, says it is always evil to renounce the Roman Catholic Church.

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 Roman Catholic confessional system is an attempt to avoid the sin of celebrating the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. So many Protestant churches just give the bread and the wine to whoever shows up to receive it: these Protestant churches make no inquiry to determine if those who celebrate the Eucharist are recently guilty of adultery, fornication, Sabbath violating, covetousness, cursing, reviling, drunkenness etc.

Lots of questions to answer. Do the Protestant sects lead souls to perdition because they celebrate communion in an unworthy manner? Does the Church of Rome lead souls to perdition, because Rome fell away from the True Faith, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome? Dr. Milman wrote in `History of Latin Christianity,'

`James, Cardinal of Porto, was proclaimed Pope, and assumed the name of John XXII....He was born in Cahors, of the humblest parentage, his father a cobbler. This, if true, was anything but dishonorable to the Pope, still less to the Church. During an age when all without was stern and inflexible aristocracy, all functions and dignities held by feudal inheritance, in the Church alone a man of extraordinary talents could rise to eminence...But the profound learning of John XXII., though reputed to embrace not only theology, but both branches of the law, the canon and the civil, was but the melancholy ignorance of his age...A dark conspiracy was formed, or supposed to be formed, in which many of the Cardinals were involved, against the life of the Pope...The full vengeance of the Pope fell on...Gerold, Bishop of the Pope's native city, Cahors...he was now degraded, stripped of his episcopal attire, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment. But the wrath of the Pope was not satiated. He was actually flayed alive and torn asunder by four horses...A fierce and merciless Inquisition was set up; tortures, executions multiplied...those that perished at the stake were but few out of the appalling numbers. The prisons of Narbonne and of Carcassonne were crowded with those who were spared the last penalty. Among these was the Friar Deliciosus of Montpellier, a Franciscan, who had boldly withstood the Inquisition, and was immured for life in a dungeon. He it was who declared that if St. Peter and St. Paul should return to earth, the Inquisition would lay hands on them as damnable heretics...Men who could not be argued into belief must be burned. The corollary of a Christian sermon was a holocaust at the stake...All those who declared that Christ and His apostles had no property, only the use of things necessary, were pronounced guilty of damnable heresy.'

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...The Philosophes ransacked the past to expose...evil.'

Richard Mackenney of the University of Edinburgh states in his book `Sixteenth Century Europe,'

`There can be fewer darker corners of European history than that in which the conquistadores indulged their distaste for manual labor with a ruthless and inefficient exploitation of the Indians, which appears to have sent the native population of Mexico plunging from 27 million in 1500 to 1 million in 1600...When we read of the silver that poured into Seville in the latter part of the century, we should remember that Indians dug it out of the mountains, placed it in sacks which weighed 23 kilograms when full and hauled it out of shafts often 250 meters deep, onto mountainsides where the thin air of the Andes brought further exhaustion. And then the Indians carried the silver from the mountains to the sea. The native population is said to have fallen from 7 million in 1500 to 500,000 in 1620. As the Indian population collapsed under the strain, some of the silver had to be paid to the Portuguese to supply black slaves: 50,000 went from Africa via Portugal to Spanish America in the sixteenth century, and similar numbers were transported to the sugar plantations which the Portuguese ran for themselves in Brazil, which they had taken from the French in 1563. The Portuguese had fewer qualms about slavery, and the Church sanctified `AS conquistas' in terms such as those of Padre Jose da Anchieta in Brazil in 1563: `for this kind of people, there is no better kind of preaching than with the sword and the rod of iron.'"

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.'

Pope Sixtus IV., for whom the Sixtine Chapel is named, gave the Papal blessing to the Spanish sovereigns to establish the Inquisition in Spain. J. A. Symonds writes in `Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction' (Smith, Elder & Co, London):

"If he escaped burning or perpetual incarceration, he was almost certainly exposed to the public ceremony of penitence...dressed up in a San Benito...This costume was a sort of sack, travestying a monk's frock, made of coarse yellow stuff, and worked over with crosses, flames, and devils, in glaring red It differed in details according to the destination of the victim: for some ornaments symbolized eternal hell, and others the milder fires of purgatory...To make these holocausts of human beings more ghastly, the pageant was enhanced by processions of exhumed corpses and heretics in effigy. Artificial dolls and decomposed bodies, with grinning lips and mouldy foreheads, were hauled to the huge bonfire, side by side with living men, women and children. All of them alike - fantoccini, skeletons, and quick folk \- were enveloped in the same grotesquely ghastly San Benito, with the same hideous yellow mitres on their paste-board, worm-eaten, or palpitating foreheads. The procession presented an ingeniously picturesque discord of ugly shapes, an artistically loathsome dissonance of red and yellow hues, as it defiled, to the infernal music of growled psalms and screams and moanings, beneath the torrid blaze of Spanish sunlight...Spaniards - such is the barbarism of the Latinised Iberian nature - delighted in these shows as they did and do in bull-fights. Butcheries of heretics formed the choicest spectacles at royal christenings and bridals....The Holy Office grew every year in pride, pretensions and exactions...It depopulated Spain by the extermination and banishment of at least three million industrious subjects during the first 139 years of its existence...It filled every city in the kingdom, the convents of the religions, and the palaces of the nobility, with spies...Ignorant and bloodthirsty monks composed its provincial tribunals, who, like the horrible Lucero el Tenebroso, at Cordova, paralysed whole provinces with a veritable reign of terror. Hated and worshipped its officers swept through the realm in the guise of powerful condottieri. The Grand Inquisitor maintained a bodyguard of fifty mounted Familiars and two hundred infantry...Spain gradually fell beneath the charm of their dark fascination. A brave though cruel nation drank delirium from the poison-cup of these vile medicine-men, whose Moloch-worship would have disgusted cannibals. Torquemada was the genius of evil who presided over this foul instrument of human crime and folly...Sometimes, while reading the history of the Holy Office in Spain, we are tempted to imagine that the whole is but a grim unwholesome nightmare, or the fable of malignant calumny. That such is not the case, however, is proved by a jubilant inscription on the palace of the Holy Office at Seville, which records the triumphs of Torquemada. Of late years, too, the earth herself has disgorged some secrets of the Inquisition. `A most curious discovery,' writes Lord Malmesbury in his Memoirs, `has been made at Madrid. Just at the time when the question of religious liberty was being discussed in the Cortes, Serrano had ordered a piece of ground to be levelled, in order to build on it, and the workmen came upon large quantities of human bones, skulls, lumps of blackening flesh, pieces of chains, and braids of hair. It was recollected that the autos da fe used to take place at the spot in former days. Crowds of people rushed to the place, and the investigation was continued. They found layer upon layer of human remains, showing that hundreds had been inhumanely sacrificed. The excitement and indignation this produced among the people was tremendous, and the party for religious freedom taking advantage of it, a Bill on the subject was passed by an enormous majority. Let modern Spain remember that a similar Aceldama lies hidden in the precincts of each of her chief towns.'

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.'

We read on pp. 118-123 of H. R. Trevor-Roper's `The European Witch-Craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and Other Essays' (Harper, 1956) that with the crime of witchcraft being declared a crimen exceptum by Pope Innocent VIII. in 1468, the use of torture had papal sanction to be employed against those accused of witchcraft. Torture was deemed necessary to obtain convictions, and very feeble suspicion was enough to initiate the use of torture. As it was highly unlikely that an investigator would find a written pact with the devil, or a pot of human limbs, or a supply of toads, etc., less incriminating evidence, such as an inability to shed tears, or the inability to sink in water, or the presence of a wart, or a calloused part of skin which wouldn't bleed when pricked, became evidence sufficient to initiate torture, so as to secure confessions and testimony against `accomplices.' Trevor-Roper lists the various instruments of suffering: various devices which crushed the fingers and toes; the Spanish Boot which broke shin-bones; the self-explanatory `Bed of Nails.' There was also much driving of needles under finger-nails.

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 inquisitors reasoned that since it is OK for God to burn His enemies, and since Rome is God's True Church, then it is certainly OK for Rome to burn her enemies. You'll notice this logic falls apart if Rome is not God's 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.'

Romans 12. 5. There is `one body in Christ.'

I Cor 1. 10...Now I plead with you brethren, speak the same thing, let there be no divisions among you.

I Cor 12. 27 - you are the body of Christ.

Again, Ephesians 4. 4 - there is one body.

Col 1. 18 - And He is head of the body, the church.

The members of `the body' are the members of the True Church.

In Galatians 1. 8-12 St. Paul tells us that he learned his doctrine directly from Christ, and that one is accursed if one corrupts this doctrine. If one says there is not `a body' - if one says there is no True Church - then this would be an example of corrupting Christ's and St. Paul's doctrine.

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...'

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.'

So to answer correctly the question: is Protestantism satanic? - You first have to determine if the Church of Rome is God's True Church. Lots of theologians say that lots of churches comprise God's True Church. But if you say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, God's True Church, then it would make no sense for you to go on to say that it is sensible to rebel against God's True Church, Rome, by rejecting the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, which specifically damns all those who reject that Dogma. So, if Rome is God's True Church, if that is true, then it would not be sensible to reject the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. So, if Rome is God's True Church, then all those persons and churches which reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility are damned, hence all churches and persons which rebel against Rome are satanic. But if Rome has fallen away, if the Church of Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then there's some hope for Protestantism, unless of course every Protestant sect has also fallen away. If the Church of Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith, if the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads souls to heaven and leads no one to perdition, then everyone should be Roman Catholic, and everyone should obey Rome, and every sect which rebel's against Rome is satanic. If the Church of Rome is God's True Church, then, obviously, Protestantism is a rebellion against God's True Church, hence Protestantism is satanic. But if the Church of Rome has fallen away, if the Church of Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads souls to perdition - then one will certainly want to get away from the Roman Catholic Church. If the Church of Rome has fallen away, perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock? If both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away from the True Faith, if both lead souls to perdition, then one might consider the Church of England. If that isn't the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the Church of England along with Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away, if none of these churches is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then one might turn to the various Protestant sects when one searches for God's True Church.

If a Christian says there is no True Church then this Christian denies the scriptures which tell us there is a True Church. And if a Christian denies the scriptures that tell us there is a True Church, then, the reasoning runs, this Christian is rather like Judas! - he has betrayed Christ and Christianity. Lets suppose you can trust John 1. 1-14 (Jesus created the universe) then it stands to reason you can trust John 15. 6 (those who do not abide in Christ are like sticks given to the flames), and if you can trust John 1.1-14 and John 15. 6 then you can certainly trust Matthew 16. 13-19 (Christ founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church.)

If the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, then it is idiotic, and satanic, to rebel against the Roman Catholic Church. But if the Roman Catholic Church leads souls to perdition, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has fallen away, then where is the Church which Christ founded on a rock?

To evaluate Rome one might look at her most basic and her most controversial doctrines. St. Paul told us a bishop must be a man of one wife. Rome says a bishop must have no wife. Recall that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached polygamy. If St. Paul was a true apostle, then Joseph Smith was a false prophet because he contracted St. Paul. And recall Galatians 1. 8-12 – St. Paul learned his doctrines directly from Christ and all those who contradict St. Paul's doctrines are damned. But Rome does not say Rome is damned. Rome contradicts 1 Tim 3. 2 but Rome does not say Rome is damned because of Galatians 1. 8-12. Rome says Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a Rock! Either it is or it isn't. If it is then everyone would be wise to obey Rome. If it isn't then everyone would be wise to reject Rome. Rome along with the Eastern Orthodox Church upholds the Seventh Ecumenical Council which authorized bowing down before images. Protestants say you are an idolater, a violator of the 2nd Commandment, if you bow before an image, such as a statue of Mary or the graven image of some alleged saint. Roman Catholics say Protestants are heretics who lack the sense to understand that Rome and only Rome is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If this is true, then behold the madness of those Cafeteria Catholics and all non-Catholics who rebel against Rome and Rome's official teachings. If it is untrue, then behold the madness of the Cafeteria Catholics, and all other Catholics, who refuse to renounce Rome. Rome teaches the doctrine that the Inquisition is a `Holy Office'. But if the Inquisition was evil, then it is a sacrilege to say the evil Inquisition is holy - sacrilege involves saying that evil things are holy, and it involves saying that holy things are evil. Rome points to various apparitions at Lourdes in France and Fatima in Portugal to insist that the real Virgin Mary appeared in these places, and to insist that the real Virgin Mary is a big fan of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants point to 1 Timothy 4. 1-3 and tell Roman Catholics to note carefully the parts about giving heed to deceiving spirits and the doctrines of demons.

The Early Christian Church did not perpetrate evil or connive with evil. So, when you are looking for evidence of a falling away from the True Faith, recall 2 Thess 2 deals with the Antichrist and a falling away, you might ask yourself: when did churches under the sign of the cross unite themselves with evil? Gibbon writes of Constantine, the first `Christian' Roman Emperor:

`The laws of Constantine against rapes were dictated with very little indulgence for the most amiable weaknesses of human nature; since the description of that crime was applied not only to brutal violence which compelled, but even to gentle seduction which might persuade, an unmarried woman, under the age of twenty-five, to leave the house of her parents. The successful ravisher was punished with death; and as if simple death was inadequate to the enormity of his guilt, he was either burnt alive, or torn in pieces by wild beasts in the amphitheatre. The virgin's declaration that she had been carried away with her own consent, instead of saving her lover, exposed her to share his fate. The duty of a public prosecution was intrusted to the parents of the guilty or unfortunate maid; and if the sentiments of nature prevailed on them to dissemble the injury, and to repair by a subsequent marriage the honor of their family, they were themselves punished by exile and confiscation. The slaves, whether male or female, who were convicted of having been accessory to rape or seduction, were burnt alive, or put to death by the ingenious torture of pouring down their throats a quantity of melted lead.'

Matthew 14. 27 tells us that Christ's Second Coming will transpire in a very unambiguous way. Presumably there will be no confusion about the identity of Christ at His Second Coming. I know the scriptures tell us that Christ's Second Coming will arrive like a thief in the night, but the Book of Revelation leads one to believe that the pronouncements of the three angels in Revelation 14. 6-11 precede the Second Coming. So we are awaiting the first of these angels - and it is not perhaps a farfetched speculation that the first angel is Michael, but who knows?

A big problem with Protestantism is that it sounds crazy to say that some little Protestant sect and only that little Protestant sect is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But this brings us back to the fundamentals of Christian theology. If you say there is no True Church, then you are rejecting the scriptures which tell us there is a True Church. You're rejecting Matthew 16. 13-19, and Revelation 20. 12-15, and other scriptures. Revelation 20. 12-15 says, in so many words, that if your name is written in the Book of Life then you are in the True Church. Christ says in John 14. 23-26 that those who love Him keep his words and those who don't love Him don't keep His words. So, if you reject Christ's words in Matthew 16. 13-19...

One must make sure one does not confuse the Antichrist with the archangel Michael. But one is perfect positioned to confuse Michael with the Antichrist if one is lost in a cult, if one is stuck in a false church which leads souls to perdition, though one is convinced one is in the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If you are lost in a false church which leads people to perdition, lost in a cult, then the truth will seem like a satanic lie to you, and a satanic lie will seem like the truth to you - so you are terribly lost indeed if you are lost in some false church which claims to be God's True Church.

Daniel 12. 1,

`And at that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people, and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was sincere was a nation, even unto that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.'

Either the Church of Rome is God's True Church, or else it isn't. Rome either leads souls to perdition or it leads souls to heaven. Either Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore everyone would be wise to obey Rome, or Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock: Rome has fallen away, and therefore Rome leads souls to perdition, and therefore everyone would be wise to reject Rome. So, a person is perfectly positioned to confuse Michael with the Antichrist if he is a member of a church which leads souls to perdition, though he is deluded enough to believe that his fallen church which leads souls to perdition is God's True Church.

Looking again at Daniel 12. 1, there have been times of great tribulation for the Jews in the past - the Babylonian Captivity - the Roman Destruction of Jerusalem - the endless persecution of the Jews over the centuries by people brandishing crosses and Islamic crescents, the Nazi holocaust etc. But when, in the Christian sense, were the Jews ever delivered during a time of immense tribulation? If Jesus was a false Messiah, then the Jews will be delivered when the True Messiah arrives - recall Psalm 2. But if Jesus is the True Messiah, and those of us who are Christians insist that Jesus is the True Messiah, then, it follows quite logically - though it is terribly Politically Incorrect to say that the Jews will be delivered when the Jews are converted to Christianity, to the true version and not some hellish version.

If Jesus is a false Messiah, then, those of us who are Christians have pinned our hopes to a false Messiah! But if those of us who are Christians are correct, if Jesus is the True Messiah, then, evidently, during a time of unprecedented trouble on earth, Daniel 12. 1 means the archangel Michael will convert the Jews to Christianity, and therefore the Jews will be delivered by being converted to the True Faith.

People will want to make sure that they don't confound Michael with the Antichrist, and vice versa! Recall 2 Corinthians 11. 13-15, which tells us that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and his ministers masquerade as ministers of righteousness. The Antichrist, recalling 2 Thess 2, will see himself as God, but he might have a difficult time fabricating his arrival on earth in the manner described in Matthew 24. 27 - as the lightning which shoots from east to west - and, therefore, he might masquerade as the archangel Michael, not as Christ at Christ's Second Coming. The elect will not confuse Michael with the Antichrist, but the damned might not be so astute.

The principal scriptures dealing with the Antichrist would be Daniel 7. 8-28, 1 John 2. 18, 1 John 4. 3, 2 Thess 2, Revelation 19. 19. Revelation 13. 4-8 picks up the same sort of imagery as given in Daniel 7, where the heads of envisioned beasts symbolize evil civilizations, and the horns on these envisioned beasts symbolize various evil kings.

We've been over Revelation 13. 4-8,

`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?" And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted 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 the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'

The context of Revelation 13. 4-8 describes a beast with multiple heads. It's not very likely to think people will worship a literal beast with multiple heads. So we are looking for a figurative interpretation. What's wrong with the interpretation which says people lost in cults, in false religions which lead people to perdition – Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and false versions of Christianity etc., etc. are the people who worship this beast. Suppose the True God says the Church of England leads people to perdition. Suppose the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church of England. Then, if you worship a god who says the Church of England leads people to heaven, then you are worshipping an evil beastly false god who will lead you to perdition. Recall again 2 Thess 1. 8 – hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, the True God says one of two things in regards to the Church of England: 1) the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church of England, and so that church leads people to perdition, or else 2) the True God says the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church of England, and so that church leads people to heaven. And, somehow, we have to determine which of the two is true and which is false. And we don't want to be deluded on the matter.

Apropos of delusion, recall again 2 Thessalonians 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.'

So we have a few scenarios to consider. 1) The Antichrist begins his journey to conquer the world by preaching evil doctrines right from the beginning. 2) The Antichrist embarks on his tour of world conquest by preaching the pure gospel truth, but, at some time, he changes his tune and begins preaching satanic doctrines.

St. Paul writes about false Christians in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15,

`For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.'

We've looked at some scriptures which tell us there is a True Church. What are some of the principle scriptures which tell us there is a True Faith?

Matthew 26. 28,

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

Mark 14. 24,

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

Luke 22. 20,

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

The first mention in the Bible of a new covenant, a New Law to amend the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is found in 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.'

It stands to reason that the Divine Law, the new covenant which God writes on the hearts of His People, will not be a mass of conflicting creeds; it will be sane and coherent. It must be something reasonably simple to understand, because even the least of God's people will be able to understand it.

The contention that various altruistic and loving people found in the Roman Catholic Church, and in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and in the Church of England, and in The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and in the Baptist Church, and in the United Methodist Church etc., etc., are all in the True Church is problematical. Jeremiah 31. 31-34 tells us God's people will have God's new covenant inscribed on their hearts, therefore, these people, the saints, will not have conflicting creeds inscribed on their hearts. The Divine Law, also known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is not an insane, incoherent, mass of conflicting creeds.

You simply can not advance very far in your Christian education if you never learn to give the correct answers to certain questions: Is Protestantism satanic? Do Protestants rebel against God's True Church? Is the Roman Catholic Church the Church which Christ founded upon a rock? Or has the Church of Rome fallen away from the True Faith? Has the Eastern Orthodox Church fallen away from the True Faith - the Holy Faith taught by Christ and the apostles? Has the Church of England fallen away? Has every sect under the sign of the cross fallen away from the True Faith?

The Dogma of Papal Infallibility specifically damns those people who reject that Dogma. The Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants reject that Dogma. If the Dogma is true, then the people who reject that Dogma are damned, and hence they are not in the True Church. If the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is false, then this is just another piece of evidence which has you wondering if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, wondering if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. The Church of Rome has an advantage over the Eastern Orthodox Church in that everyone knows who is in charge of the Church of Rome: it is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, along with the Bishops in communion with the Pope. Experts on the Eastern Orthodox Church will tell you that the scriptures and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils form the foundations of the Eastern Orthodox Church. These canons give great authority to the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople - and from the Eastern Orthodox perspective this means these canons give great authority to the Eastern Orthodox Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Everyone in the world knows who the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome is - Pope Francis I. - but who is Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome today? Is there even an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome?

If Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome is God's True Church, then you should not rebel against god's True Church, Rome, such as by denying the truth of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, by denying the part which damns those who reject that Dogma. It doesn't make any sense to rebel against God's True Church. Even if God's True church is wrong about something, nevertheless, just agree with God's True Church and don't rebel against God's True Church - you can not be led to hell if you simply obey God's True Church, but you can be led to hell if you rebel against God's True. The key attribute of God's True Church is not that she never makes mistakes. The key attribute is that regardless of whatever mistakes God's True Church makes, she only leads souls to heaven and she never leads anyone to hell. So, if the Church of Rome is God's True Church, it is always idiotic to rebel against Rome, even if you are convinced she makes mistakes. And of course if Rome is not God's True Church, if the gates of hell have prevailed against Rome, if Rome drags people down to perdition, then it would be crazy to think Rome leads people to heaven.

From the Protestant perspective, perhaps the most objectionable thing about the canons of the Ecumenical Councils is that the Seventh Ecumenical Council - II. Nicaea 787 - authorized Christians to bow down before images of Mary and the saints. From the Protestant perspective this means that both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, as both uphold the authority of II. Nicaea 787, worship Mary and the saints, and of course this is idolatry and blasphemy in Protestant eyes. Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy insist they do not worship Mary and the saints. And how does one define the word `worship'? The human heart is not equipped with an instrument which gives you a digital read-out on the depths of it's feelings. How is one to know the difference between `love', `adoration', `veneration' and `worship'? Protestants say that if you bow down before an image - then you worship that image. Protestants say it is simply sophistry - the upshot of shabby priestcraft - when those who bow down before images insist they do not worship those images.

Exodus 20. 4- 5,

`You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above...you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God...'

Revelation 22. 8-9,

`Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. Then he said to me, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."'

Getting back to this falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2, did it happen in the past or will it happen in the future? If the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2 happened in the past, when did it happen? During and after the 4th century, the people under the sign of the cross really became quite prolific at torturing and murdering people. This was a falling away from the previous three centuries of Christianity when Christians were quite benevolent, for the most part. So, when you ask: when did this falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2 happen? - you might want to look at the 4th century. Gibbon shocks us with the savagery of the Christian Dark Ages, but in the first 3 centuries of Christianity's existence we don't find savagery from Christians. But from the 4th century and the following centuries there is savagery piled on top of savagery! Gibbon described for us 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.'

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.'

St. Paul writes about false Christians in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15,

`For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.'

So to review, it stands to reason that the sign of the cross either reflects no evil or else it reflects some evil. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years in the 20th century and, as a result, we say that the Nazi swastika is evil. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century. Christ and the apostles never said the material cross is sacred. Christ and the apostles never used the sign of the cross. They never said it was sacred. The spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred. Christ's sacrifice on the cross is sacred of course But does this mean that material crosses are sacred? Are the evils perpetrated by cross-bearers over the centuries reflected in the sign of the cross, in material crosses? Is the cross, the material cross, a pagan instrument of torture, or a representation of a pagan instrument of torture, sacred in the eyes of the Creator of the Universe?

What do you think of the following logic? To say that the material cross must be sacred, because the spiritual cross of Christ, mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred, is like announcing that, since God is sacred, therefore, a picture of God that some kid has drawn on a piece of paper with a crayon must also be sacred, and therefore a person would have to be like the Devil if he refused to bow down before this picture of God drawn by some kid with a crayon.

Jesus tells one in Matthew 16. 24-25 to take up your cross and follow Him if you want to attain eternal life in heaven. Does this mean that one must embrace the sign of the cross as a sacred object? Does it mean one must be prepared to suffer martyrdom via crucifixion, but, nevertheless, it is a sacrilege to say that a pagan instrument of torture - a cross - is sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Does it mean that a pagan instrument of torture is sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and it is a sacrilege to say the sign of the cross is an evil symbol?

Concerning Revelation 13. 4-8, what about this theory that it is the people who worship false gods, it is the people who are lost in false religions and do not know the True God, who are the people who worship this seven-headed beast described in Revelation 13? If Christianity is trustworthy, if Allah is a false deity, perhaps those who worship the false deity Allah might be said to worship the beast of Revelation 13, as one of the heads on the seven-headed beast might symbolize Allah. The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans and the Protestants all claim to worship the Creator of the Universe; they all claim to worship a Trinity - three Persons in one God - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But they nevertheless have different conceptions about the Trinity. The Roman Catholics worship a god who says it is always evil to renounce the Roman Catholic Church and it is always good to join the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox worship a god who says it is always evil to renounce the Eastern Orthodox Church. So, while both the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics both claim to worship the Creator of the Universe, and though they both claim to worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - they don't worship the same trinity of gods - because the trinity envisioned by the Roman Catholics is different than the trinity envisioned by the Eastern Orthodox, and both are different than the various trinities envisioned by the various Protestant sects. The Roman Catholics worship a god who says Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But if the True God says Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the True God says Rome is lost in heresy and leads people to perdition, then roman Catholics worship a false god not the True God. The Roman Catholics worship a god who says the Inquisition is holy - a god who says it is the `Holy Office'. But if the True God says the Inquisition is evil not holy, then the Roman Catholics worship a false god not the True God. The god worshipped by the 16th century Calvinists was a deity who smiled to see various people, such as Servetus, burned to death. When the 16th century Calvinists fell to their knees to worship the Creator of the Universe, they envisioned God to be the sort of god who approved their actions in torturing various people to death. Well, maybe the True God, the True Creator of the Universe, did not approve when the 16th century Calvinists tortured people to death. And perhaps the True God says Capistrano, Borromeo and Pius V are damned, though Rome demands that you venerate them as saints. The Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox worship gods who support the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which authorized people to bow down before images. If the True God condemns image worship as idolatry, then both the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox worship false gods, not the True God. The Anglicans worship a god who says the Church of England leads souls to heaven. The Anglicans worship a god who says this Divine Law we read about in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is a Law which supports the Church of England. But if the True God says the Church of England has fallen away from the True Faith, if the True God says the Church of England leads souls to perdition, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then the Anglicans worship a false god not the True God. If the Church of England leads souls to heaven because the Church of England is none other than the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if this Divine Law we read about in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is very much a pro Church of England Divine Law, then the Church of England certainly leads people to heaven. But if the Church of England leads souls to perdition, because it has fallen away, because the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church of England, because it is not the True God's True Church, it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then everyone needs to renounce the Church of England. It will just drag your eternal soul to eternal perdition if you don't renounce it. If the god worshipped by the Anglicans - again this god is the sort of god who says the Church of England leads souls to heaven - if this god is a false god, then this false god will lead Anglicans to perdition.

So much depends on locating this Church which Christ founded on a rock! So much depends on understanding the True Faith, and not straying into heresy, and not straying into sacrilege.

About this True Faith, also known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, also known at the new covenant and the Divine Law, 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.'

Those schooled in the basics of Christian theology know that Christianity claims to be this new covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Recall Christ's words at the Last Supper - `this cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for the remission of sins of many'. Recall Hebrews 8. Jeremiah 31. 31-34 drives one to be dogmatic. If one has the Divine Law written on one's heart then one will have some religious opinions! Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 tell us, in so many words, that the cross of Christ is sacred. We have to decide if there is a distinction between this spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18, and material crosses, and the sign of the cross.

We have a Case 1, a Case 2 and a Case 3.

Case 1. Material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred. It is a sacrilege, a mortal sin which leads offending souls straight to perdition, to say the material cross and the sign of the cross are evil. The sign of the cross is this seal of God which protects one from the torments mentioned in Revelation 9.

Case 2. The spiritual cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred - it represents Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross - but the sign of the cross and material crosses are material, not spiritual, and they are not sacred. Christ and the apostles never used the material cross as their symbol. Christ and the apostles never made the sign of the cross. A cross is a pagan instrument of torture and execution. It is sacrilegious to say that a material cross, or the sign of the cross - representations of a pagan instrument of torture and execution - are sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The cross is evil in the eyes of the Creator of the Universe. The sign of the cross and material crosses reflect centuries of evil perpetrated by people carrying crosses. The sign of the cross is evil in the eyes of God. It is a sacrilege to say evil things are holy. Sacrilege is a mortal sin which leads the offending soul straight to perdition. Since the cross is evil you would have to suspect the mark of the cross is this evil mark of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14. The mark of the cross reflects the evil perpetrated by people under the marl of the cross over the centuries.

Case 3 says the sign of the cross has nothing to do with the Book of Revelation.

So, Case 1 would be The Best Case Scenario for the sign of the cross.

In Case 1, again, the sign of the cross is sacred in the eyes of God, it is the seal of God, and it protects one from the torment described in Revelation 9. Case 2 would be The Worst Case Scenario for the sign of the cross. Again, in Case 2, the sign of the cross is evil in the eyes of God, and, when the mark of a cross is placed on one's forehead or right hand, it leads one to suffer eternal torment in eternal hell.

Now if one subscribes to the True Christian Faith, if one has the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on one's heart, then one will not commit sacrilege: one will not say that evil things are holy, and one will not say that holy things are evil.

But if one has fallen away from the True Faith, then one might very well be led to commit sacrilege.

Jesus says in Matthew 16. 24-25 to take up your cross and follow Him if you want to attain eternal life in heaven. Does this mean that one must embrace the sign of the cross as a sacred object? Does it mean one must be prepared to suffer martyrdom, and, furthermore, is it a sacrilege to say that a cross, a representation of a pagan instrument of torture, is evil in the eyes of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Does the Creator of the Universe say the cross is sacred? Or does the Creator of the Universe see the cross as something which is evil? You might consult the True Church on these questions. You just have to make sure you know the difference between the True Church and a false church.

1 Corinthians 11. 27 says it's a terrible sin to celebrate communion in an unworthy manner. If a church has fallen away from the True Faith, a church such as Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, you might ask why did it fall away? And when did it first fall away? When did it cease to be God's True Church, assuming it was ever God's True Church? You might also ask: did the church celebrate holy communion in an unworthy manner? Did it give the bread and the wine to evil people?

Gibbon writes of Constantine, the first `Christian' Roman Emperor:

`The laws of Constantine against rapes were dictated with very little indulgence for the most amiable weaknesses of human nature; since the description of that crime was applied not only to brutal violence which compelled, but even to gentle seduction which might persuade, an unmarried woman, under the age of twenty-five, to leave the house of her parents. The successful ravisher was punished with death; and as if simple death was inadequate to the enormity of his guilt, he was either burnt alive, or torn in pieces by wild beasts in the amphitheatre. The virgin's declaration that she had been carried away with her own consent, instead of saving her lover, exposed her to share his fate. The duty of a public prosecution was intrusted to the parents of the guilty or unfortunate maid; and if the sentiments of nature prevailed on them to dissemble the injury, and to repair by a subsequent marriage the honor of their family, they were themselves punished by exile and confiscation. The slaves, whether male or female, who were convicted of having been accessory to rape or seduction, were burnt alive, or put to death by the ingenious torture of pouring down their throats a quantity of melted lead.'

We might look at Joseph Boyarsky's `The Life and Suffering of the Jew in Russia' (Los Angeles, 1912) to get a general idea how Russian Orthodox people conduct themselves. Are they good Christians or not so good? And of course we're trying to make a sane and rational judgment on the sign of the cross. Does it reflect no evil or does it reflect some evil?

`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...Ivan the Terrible died in 1584, leaving heir to the throne of Russia his son, Feodor, a half-witted young man, who was married to Borys Godunov's sister. This Borys Godunov was a son-in-law of Maliuta Skuratov, executioner during Ivan the Terrible's reign...Because Feodor was half-witted, his wife was supposed to be the ruler, but, in truth, her brother, Borys Godunov, held the reins of government in his hands. Realizing that at the death of his brother-in-law, the half-wit, the boy Dmitri would succeed to the Throne, Borys Godunov set about making his plans to usurp the Throne. To make himself popular with the people, he caused his minions to set fire to Moscow, selecting a windy day. Then riding out to the sufferers, he shed crocodile tears, telling them that he would give money and timber to them to rebuild their homes. One day the boy Dmitri, with his nurse, was taken from the monastery; two men approached them, and while one was speaking to the nurse, the other cut the boy's throat from ear to ear, and fled; the nurse screamed and fainted. Passers-by saw the terrible deed...some chased the murderers...The murderers were overtaken and brought back to the place where the crime was committed. They confessed, but claimed that they had done this deed by order of Borys Godunov. The murderers were torn limb from limb by the populace. The news of the murder of Dmitri reached Moscow, and the confession of the murderers was commented upon. Borys Godunov...to vindicate himself before the Russian people...sent one of his friends, a courtier, whose name was Vasili Shiski, to Uglich to investigate the case. The investigation was conducted with the aid of torture. The witnesses were made to testify that the boy Dmitri, while playing with a sharp knife, was overcome with a fit, had fallen upon the knife and killed himself. The result was that some of the inhabitants were executed for the murder of the two assassins, many more were exiled to Siberia...Godunov reigned in Russia....Nicolas was a man of great determination...In his reign the first railroad was built in Russia, between St. Petersburg and Moscow; it bears his name "Nicolas Road."...."Show me on the map where St. Petersburg is!" ordered Nicolas. They complied. "Now," continued Nicolas, "Show me where Moscow is!" He was obeyed again. Nicolas drew a straight pencil mark from the spot indicating St. Petersburg to that indicating Moscow, and said, "Make the road thus!" The engineers obeyed, but it cost the Russian government an enormous amount of money. Private residences had to be demolished, a number of bridges built, tunnels dug, but "Nicolas Road" is the straightest in Russia...Jewish parents were always in dread for their boys' safety. A child would be sent to a Jewish school in the morning, - an hour later the teacher would come running to the child's home, informing the parents that their Abe or Aaron had been seized by the "catchers" and hurried away from the town to a military post. The child was lost to his parents forever...Nicolas the First died in March, 1855....Alexander the Second...the serfs were emancipated in 1861...the Russian Jews did not forget the suffering and injustice their forefathers had endured in Poland. They had suffered from the Polish clergy, who accused them of using Christian blood for ritual purposes...the Jew had to bow and to flatter the Polish nobleman...A Polish nobleman, while walking in the street, heard the Russians coming, and in order to hide himself, he entered a Jew's house...The Jew suggested the best place for concealment would be inside a large brick oven. The Russians would not look into the oven for a Polish nobleman. The nobleman crawled into the oven and entered the furthest corner. A few minutes later the Jew heard the Pole calling out "Zydzie Zdym Chapke Bo to jest Pan." (Jew take off your hat, because a nobleman is present.) While crouching in the corner of the oven, with the noise of the Russian soldiers ringing in the Pole's ears, trembling for his life, he still insisted upon his honors as a Polish nobleman. The above...happened in 1863, sixty-eight years after the final partition of Poland...In "Nijni Novgorod," a city on the Volga, a Christian child, a girl of about six years, tried to cross a muddy street in the early Spring, just before the Jewish Passover and Easter Sunday. The child stuck in the mire. The more the little girl tried to extricate herself, the deeper she sank. She cried. A Jewish woman passing by at the time pulled the child out and took her to a nearby Jewish house to wash and clean the dirt from her garments. The child's mother missed her little one, and became alarmed. She inquired of her Christian neighbors if anyone had seen her child. One Russian woman remembered seeing the Jewish woman leading the little girl away. An alarm was raised, the Jews being accused of kidnapping the child with the intention of killing her for ritual purposes. The ignorant and superstitious Russians fell upon the Jewish inhabitants and killed and crippled many of them before the child was restored to its mother, safe and clean. The Metropolitan of Nijni Novgorod delivered a sermon against the outrage of the Christians. His sermon is printed and can be found in many synagogues of Russia...In 1885, I was employed as salesman in a dry goods store in the city of "Rostov on the Don." A few weeks before Easter Sunday and the Jewish Passover two women entered the store, a mother and daughter, leading a child about three years of age by the hand; they were Polish women; they spent considerable time selecting goods; there were a large number of Russian men and women in the store; the two Polish women missed the child and both of them became alarmed; all the clerks, a few Russians among them, and the customers, all Russians, made a thorough search in the store - but of no avail; the child could not be found. Naturally the mother was frantic, running back and forth, and wringing her hands in despair. A terrible suspicion entered her mind. "Oh, the Jews have stolen my child!" she screamed. Some of the Russian customers present became sullen; their jaws set; all the Jewish clerks, myself included, were more dead than alive from fright. The terrible blood accusations loomed up before me. I already imagined the Jewish population being massacred...The mother of the child ran outside into the street, screaming; a crowd gathered in front of the store. At the crucial moment a Russian appeared carrying the tot in his arms; he had picked her up a block away, where he had found her lying on the sidewalk crying and sobbing...That Russian never realized what a calamity to the Jews of that city he had prevented. In the reign of Nicolas the first, in the city of Saratov, there was a small Jewish community. Before the Jewish Passover and the Christian Easter Sunday, a Jew was selling small pamphlets for the reading of the Jews during the holidays, in which was described the well known Biblical story of Pharaoh's order that all the new-born male Jewish babes be thrown into the Nile. On the cover of the pamphlet was a picture representing the Egyptians taking away a boy baby from his mother, and preparing to throw him into the Nile. Some of the ignorant Russians, seeing this picture, took it to be a representation of a Jew stealing a Christian child for ritual purposes. The Russians fell upon the Jews and began butchering them...When Nicolas the First heard of this he exclaimed, "Nevertie Etomoo Eto Lozsch Ieverie nie Liudoieda!" (Don't you believe it! This is a lie! The Jews are not cannibals)...He, in company with several other Jews, residents of K---, was coming home from the city of Kharkoff, where all of them had purchased a quantity of merchandise. Passing in the wagon through a village, in the province of Kharkoff in the night time, the whole company was halted by a few peasants, wearing badges on their breasts, which indicated that they were the village police. They demanded passports from the travellers, who, unfortunately, had forgotten to bring them along. They were in a predicament. They were over fifty versts from K--- and in a province where Jews were not allowed to reside permanently. It meant arrest and a march of over fifty miles to the county seat of that village, where they would be chained like criminals and another march of a hundred miles afoot to K---, where all of them would have to be identified. In the meantime spending a few weeks in filthy Russian jails. Umelsky realized the danger at once. Knowing that the village police are a lot of ignorant and illiterate peasants, he produced one of the many bills issued to him from the merchants of Kharkoff, from whom he bought merchandise, and handed it to the leader of the police, with the words: "Here is my passport." That official examined the document, holding it upside down, pretending to read it. "Chorosho," said he. The rest of the Jews followed Umelsky's example, and the travelers went on their way. This joke became known in K--- by Jews and Russians alike, who laughed at the stupidity of the peasants, and nicknamed Umelsky "Philosopher."...Greenburg was assigned to Company 2, and with about twenty more men was placed under the command of a Diadko, and marched towards the quarters of the company. A Diadko, in Russian, means Uncle, whose duties in the army consist of taking charge of the recruits entrusted to him. He must instruct them in the first and minor rules of discipline...In the evening, the Diadko instructed them in Sloviestnost. This word can only be described in English. It means that every Russian soldier must memorize the names and titles of the whole royal family, from the Tzar and Tzarina down, including every child, uncle, aunt, duke or duchess; not merely their first names but the name of their fathers, as well. For instance, the Tzar's name was Alexander, who was the son of Nicolas the First, so his title was, His Imperial Majesty Gosudar Imperator Alexander Nicolaievich, Tzar of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, etc., etc., etc. And so in the case of every individual member of the Romanov's family, Nicolai Nicolaievich, Peter Constantinovich, and so on. Besides, some of the titles were of German origin, and could be traced to the time of Elizabeth, and were a positive impossibility for the Russian peasants to pronounce...The first man...was asked all the names of the immediate family of the Tzar and Tzarina. That was easy, but when it came to the more distant members of the Royal family, ªthat was different. If the first man answered the question properly, he would be told to sit down, and called a Molodietz, (good boy). Should he fail to answer correctly, the next man to him was told to hit him in the jaw, and knock him down. Should the second man in line fail in his answer, then, the first man who was knocked down...would be told to knock the second one down...and so it was kept up a whole evening...A. Greenburg had heard enough of the Russian army life from his father to be prepared for just such emergencies. The Sloviestnost had been repeated to him by his father so often that he knew it by heart...There are two classes of Russians that will figure during the ensuing pages, that it will be necessary to describe. The first was the Bosiak. This word is derived from the Russian word, "Bosoi," which means bare-foot, and was applied to this class of people for the reason that they walked the muddy, dusty streets of Rostov in their bare feet. They were drunkards, filthy, ignorant, brutal, lazy, dishonest; in short, they were the scum of the ignorant, illiterate Russian people. This class of people made a living by petty-larceny, begging, or picking the pockets of drunken Russians lying in the streets until picked up by the police...whatever money was obtained, legally or illegally, was promptly spent for vodka...These people had no homes; their only habitations were large wooden dry goods boxes...or they reposed in the gutters while drunk. With the approach of winter, the Bosiak, having no clothes, succeeded in getting into jail for a period of six months; he made a study, and knew just what the value of a stolen article should be, to be entitled to that sentence. He knew that in jail, food, clothing and shelter would be provided for him, and he could play cards to his hearts content with the other prisoners...while honest folks, fools, in his estimation, had to work hard during the cold winter to earn just what he was getting without work...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...Solomon was taken by surprise by Skuratov's proposition. "Your Noble Birth," said Solomon, "I thank you for your kindness, but I would rather not serve longer." "Why not?" inquired Shuratov..."Your Noble Birth," answered Solomon, "You forgot that I am a Jew, and that I cannot be promoted. It is against the law." "I forgot nothing!" exclaimed Skuratov. "This is just the reason I am offering thee a great opportunity. Thou art an intelligent man. Thou mayest become a Dvorianin, (a nobleman). Why dost thou not become a Christian? You Jews are an obstinate people; first, you have crucified Christ, and after nearly nineteen hundred years, the Christians are teaching, and preaching to you about our Savior, you still continue to deny Him. The Jewish religion is a cruel one. It teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But our holy religion, the Pravo Slavnaia, is teaching to love even our enemies; to be just and merciful; the Jews are but a handful; they are not civilized as we Christians are. The most civilized nations have accepted Jesus as their Savior, but your people refuse. You Jews were always an ignorant lot." Solomon listened to Captain Skuratov without interrupting him; in fact, he did not dare to say anything, because he still wore the uniform of a soldier. His discharge was on the table in front of Captain Skuratov, unsigned. Skuratov was still his captain; if Solomon's thoughts were expressed aloud, surely a court-martial would follow, and a severe punishment, perhaps years of imprisonment for Solomon would result. So he set his teeth tight and determined not to enter into any argument...Captain Skuratov exhausted all his supply of knowledge concerning the Jews, and when he had nothing else to say, he picked up Solomon's discharge, which was in book form, signed it, affixed the seal, and threw it on the floor at Solomon's feet. Solomon picked up his honorable discharge, faced about, and walked out of the office...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.'

The End
