How The Church Destroyed Religion

Few look at the history of our global societies.  Fewer look at the history of the church.   Reading and accepting the Bible without any knowledge of both societal and church history creates a sort of empty following.  It is similar to the times when Priests could only read the Bible in Latin because the lay people were not literate and had to blindly shuffle along.    Today we have a vast resource within the Internet and there is no excuse.

Having separated myself from what some might reference a cult church, my search into those histories brought about a multitude of questions.  But when I began to ask those questions I was told I was divisive and challenging authority.  Essentially I was banished and the members of the church were instructed to abandon me.

Why?

I am the same person now vs. then, so why would the Church suddenly find me to be not of the flock?  Why did I become a threat?

The largest nagging query was quite inadvertently conveyed to me when a friend asked me to accompany him to a Catholic Church and I hesitated being an evangelical.  His response was,  “what’s the problem, He’s the same God?”

And, of course, my friend was right.

In creating a babel of churches, in essence, the Church has destroyed religion.

Each sect or religion states that they are the only true religion and all other religions are false. Many even assert that because their nuance is the only correct translation only those who follow this nuance will be saved and go to Heaven.  Everyone else is bound for Hell.

Even though – He is the same God.

There are hundreds of translations of the Bible.  Each translation has been conveyed by mortal men.  They are called ‘Versions’.   And while each version claims to serve a  particular purpose, by definition a version is a person’s point of view.  And thus, religion was usurped by The Church as a point of view.

The Bible cannot be ‘a point of view’ it must be the Word.   But like Adam, mortal man believes he is greater than God and must insert his personal translation and liken it above all others.

Even that wasn’t enough. Words have been implanted into the Bible that didn’t even exist at the time of the writings.  The words created legalistic power in order for the Church to hold rule over Monarchs and thus all peasants.  For example:

Marriage. 

The word marriage was created sometime in 1100 AD.  And it was thus determined that the Pope must officiate all marriages in order for them to be legal.  Prior to that time, men and women had loose relationships that involved their father’s permission, a dowry, and sharing a house.  When the Bible was written, marriage by our standards didn’t even exist.  The binding of a man and woman was a commitment amidst a necessary Biblical calling to procreate.   God called on Adam and Eve to multiply and prosper.  There was no calling for them to love or marry.   Thousands of years later, Kings married to enhance their position and held formal celebrations to announce this union.  Peasants were required to attend in order to signify the union was politically good.

Over time, the Bible and Biblical teachings were altered to incorporate the new concept of marriage as created by the Catholic church.   Centuries later, a babel of evangelical churches began to develop all embracing these man-made concepts and precepts, while still holding to the premise that they, each of them, were the only true religion and all others were false.

These Babels fractured the Church as they sought to refine and redefine religion outside of its core truth.

Homosexuality:  

The term was coined in the late 1800’s and didn’t exist in the Bible until 1946.  A German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert, created the word while researching sexuality.

The original Greek words were arsenokoitai and malakos.   A more literal meaning of these words would describe a person participating in exploitative sex typically associated with money, and a man taking the social and sexual position of a woman, respectively.

During the many infamous journey’s of Paul, Pompeii citizens notoriously engaged in brothels, prostitution, and exploitive sex.  Some believe that the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the subsequent destruction of Pompeii was God’s vengeance on a corrupt city.

Sexuality was far different. Incest was common.  Homosexual behavior existed as an accepted norm. There simply wasn’t the attitude and judgment that prevails today.

The Roman Emperor Nero had five spouses, three women, one man and one boy before dying at the age of 30.   His death is referenced as ‘suicide’ although several accounts claim Nero went into hiding given his entire court had stated they were going to torture and execute him.

Paul was placed in house arrest and released two years later in 62AD.   His arrest was made as a result of being accused of dissension by Jews.  Paul was ‘divisive’ because he was challenging behaviors and ideas that were the norm.   While it is not factually known, it is believed that Paul’s second imprisonment and ultimate death occurred in 68AD, the same year Nero died.  But Nero had lost control of his realm at that point so the account that Nero had Paul beheaded is quite unlikely.

Other accounts state that Paul’s death occurred ‘sometime between 62 and 67AD’.    Obviously, the historical evidence does not exist or there would not be a five year possible span of time.  In other words, we don’t know.

History surrounding Nero and Paul has been rewritten.  Versions were created hundreds of years after the fact by men who had an – agenda. Paul’s execution has little historical context.   The first account that stated that Paul was beheaded by Nero was made by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea who lived between 275 and 339 AD, over 200 years after Paul died. Bishop Caesarea was a nontrinitarian whose beliefs today would be most closely aligned with Mormons and Jehovah Witness.

It is likely that Paul’s reference to arsenokoitai and malakoswere rebuttals against the given moral norm of the time which included;  prostitution, incest, bestiality and brothels.  While Paul further describes what is natural and unnatural according to God’s creation and command – that command was to multiply, and same sex relations does not accomplish that end.   The concern was not sexual immorality but more importantly the fact that procreation was at risk, which was God’s first command to Adam and Eve.   Man had become consumed with ‘passions’ instead of furthering the creed of growing the herd.

Leviticus is commonly referenced as the one Biblical context that prohibits a male from lying with another male.  It is said to be inspired by Moses who died in the 13thcentury BC. Written sometime between 500 and 350 BC, Leviticus is a compilation of many authors, none of whom are known.  It is believed to have been written by ‘the law of priests; as its laws relate to priests’.   It is a calling for absolute purity and holiness within the priesthood so as to establish a perfect bloodline.  The passage most often decried is;  “You shall not lie with a male, as with a woman; it is an abomination”.

But Leviticus has many other Laws:   Childbirth is considered ‘unclean’, menstruation is unclean, and a laundry list rambles on commanding a person to wear garments of a single weave, plant fields of a single seed, and instructs them to refrain from mating two different kinds of animals.   Any of the multitude of laws that are not adhered to require the immediate consequence of – death or being severed from the body of priests.    Yet, those penalties are not sanctified by The Church.   Instead, they are upheld in Islam.

So why is 18:22 the only passage the target of The Church despite every other passage being ignored?  Why has Leviticus been pronounced as applying to the common people when it was specifically written for priestly holiness?  Why do we take certain commands and say they are not applicable and others are?   Do members of the church wear garments made of one weave?  Does your garden have more than one seed?  Why is Leviticus even in the Bible if it is a memorandum to Priests?   Why is it even acknowledged at all when no one has any idea who wrote it?   And how is it that its laws and penalties are so closely aligned with Sharia Law?

Why has this one obscure passage, written by unknown men, to be applied specifically for Priests gained such weight and obsessive commentary as a societal immorality?

It is estimated that the population of the total Roman Empire declined drastically between 1 AD and 350 AD.  Wars were constant.   And without procreation there was concern that the Roman civilization might not survive.

Prostitutes routinely utilized methods of contraception and abortion.  In ancient Greece an herb, Silphium, was customarily used for these purposes.   Its use is recorded as far back as 700 BC.   Men had become consumed with their passion for other men, boys and prostitutes thereby jeopardizing their duty to have children.

So why did the Church ultimately focus their wrath on homosexuality in the 1950’s and their power over marriage in the 12thcentury?

It is believed that the best way to corral the sheep is through the creation of a common enemy.  The Church is no different than our political class.    Power, control, wealth, prosperity, these goals authored what was and is The Church and redefined religion.   In so doing, they have essentially corrupted ‘religion’, they have plagiarized, rewritten history, omit history, and wholly attempted to indoctrinate masses.   And in the Babel, Christ is lost, God is lost, and deception is the Holy meme.

I may Stand by Religion… But I cannot stand by The Church.

Catholic Church – Child Predators

The Catholic Church is embroiled in a pit of fire surrounding the ongoing, heinously sinful child sexual abuse that has permeated the Church for likely centuries.   This past weekend Pope Francis held a televised live broadcast in which the discussion of this rampant egregious deed was discussed.  And yet, the entire event came across more like an infomercial than a real self-evaluation repentant matter with constructive solutions.

1)   Survivors of abuse were ‘disallowed’ from entering the conference – it was a closed door event.

2)   Senior Cardinal Marx announced that files on abusers were destroyed.

3)   Pope Francis was aware of the atrocities and did virtually nothing to bring justice against his house of criminals.

How do these truthisms bring belief, faith, or hope that the Vatican is really serious about doing anything? Instead, it makes the entire conference look like a sham, a flim-flam media posture event.

Francis was installed as Pope, March 2013.  Over the last few decades there have been 2600 accusations against Priests in the US alone.  All of these allegations were transcribed, the offender was named, and a file created.   It would appear, the Church destroyed many files, meaning each successive Pope was aware of the allegation, and instead of bringing justice, they sought to destroy the evidence.  No evidence – no allegation – Priest cleared.

The conference was attended by just 200 participants…  mostly Bishops.    But in 2018, six Dioceses in Pennsylvania found these same Bishops were guilty of covering up evidence of Priests abusing upwards of 1,000 children.  So in essence, Pope Francis is putting these same morally convicted wolves in charge of guarding the chicken coup.  Obviously it has worked well in the past…

But even that knowledge doesn’t break the surface of corruption that was plagued the Church for ‘decades’, I would think it is more likely centuries.   In the late 2000’s, Pope Benedict XVI sanctioned Cardinal McCarrick of Washington DC for abuse allegations.  Two of the allegations remain ‘sealed’ from the public, others were destroyed.  And despite, the statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano that he instructed Pope Francis about the sanctions and allegations in 2013, Pope Francis turned a blind eye and repealed the sanctions.  Why?  If Pope Francis really wanted ‘justice for the children’ as he commanded the Bishops at the conference in Rome, why then did he repeal the sanctions of abuse on his own Archbishop?

But it is worse.  The Vatican and multiple Bishops received reports of McCarricks ‘transgressions’ for decades before anything was done at all.

The history of the abuse within the church was not even addressed by the media until the 1980’s, within the auspices of the Franklin Scandal, and the UK Jimmy Savile sensational story.  In both instances, pedophilia, abuse, was asserted against numerous high profile persons in the US and UK, including entertainment and sports figures, politicians, doctors, lawyers, and anyone with a lot of money to spend.

Like the Catholic Church pedophilia scandals, neither of these two scandals provided justice in any form whatsoever to the victims.  And in most instances, the victims were actually further victimized.  No one went to jail.  No one was sanctioned.   The stories were so high profile, so backed with $$$$ that to this day, one person was charged, Jimmy Savile.

To think that a conference of a handful of corrupt Bishops presided by a corrupt Pope would yield anything different, is like slapping Weinstein on the wrist and demanding that he write 500 times, “I will not ever do that again…”  With his fingers crossed behind his back.   “Pinky swear.”

Some media outlets tend to blame the Priesthood’s rule of chastity as their defense and justification.  And while their manhood might be difficult to subjugate, child abuse is not a normal evolution.   Pedophilia, is not a normal evolution.   A Priest, a Bishop enter the Church promising to uphold chastity as a part of their dedication.   If they don’t believe this is acceptable, there are numerous alternate religions that espouse Christianity that do not adhere to this particular conviction.  They have – a Choice.

One of Pope Francis most revered authoritarians was Romano Guardini, who wrote extensively of Christian Socialism.   Guardini embraced such philosopher’s as Nietzsche, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, who advocated Atheism.  Under his pre-Pope name, Jorge Maria Bergoglio, Pope Francis was not bereft of drudge and accusations, including his purported facilitation of the kidnapping of two Jesuit Priests during Argentina’s Dirty War.  These Priests were then subjected to horrific torture. Complaints were filed.  And despite one of the Priests coming forward and claiming the Bergoglio was indeed complicit, and not only reluctant to help, but allegedly involved, the case was – dismissed.

Why?

Money talks.

And so, this is the Pope. This is the Francis who claims that – now – suddenly – the children deserve justice.   This is the person, the man, the power vacuum that wields the whip of Catholic Doctrine and by default, core religiosity.  He sits behind the gated, walled, city of the Vatican that is guarded by the most elite soldiers in the world, equipped with infinite guns and ammo, to protect the men and their wealth who have confiscated their bounty over centuries in the form of art, real estate, stocks, and gold.  All the while telling the sheep what is real, what is truth, what is history, and what is – sin.

While living – the Dream.

Sexual abuse of children is a part of that dream.   It is a part of the history of valuing self above the law – even, the law of God.

The Fall of Family and the Rise of State Children

The disintegration, or fall of family, has been a focal point for over 2500 years. Plato believed that family was an obstacle to progress. As such, Plato believed that the raising of children and the welfare of women were best handled by the State. The abolition of family is a communist agenda shared in our current society by the extreme liberal socialist position. Beginning with the working woman of feminism and the destructive belief that caring for and raising children is beneath the value of a woman, to child care and nannies, this universal charge has altered our society in a very negative way as we hand our children over to be raised as State children.

It is a fact accepted by many scholars and sociologists that the fall of the black community began in the 1960’s with the shift away from traditional family values and the loss of ‘father’. But it didn’t stop there by any means. With the rise of materialism, women joined the labor force in order to have a ‘better life’. A life that meant foregoing family for many and created a secondary rift in the fall of family and family values.

It comes within the pretty package of the ‘me’ generation that values self over everything else. Coaxing women to continually pay more attention to self has morphed into a proliferation of narcissism greater than possibly any other time in history. And the media play it like a mantra.

Add a pinch of commercial consumption and a dash of shifting priorities of worth tied to money, and the witches concoction is a perfect Fall. For example: there is a contingent of individuals that believes that global warming is an out-of-balance phenomena that will wreak havoc on our earth and possibly destroy our very existence. Okay, let’s use the same statement in a different arena: We are a society out-of-balance and out of touch with reality and the havoc this lack of moral code, moral ethics and state run family will have on our continuance – is not positive.

The very fabric of our existence is at risk of crumbling and yet the focus is in the proverbial sand.

While the concept of a police state is not new, never before have we lived in a realm of shadows that is so intent on creating, molding, and structuring our demise. This world wide design is NOT for the greater good, it is being manifested for the elite good of a few who see this world as a stage for their benefit and the populace as marionettes whose only worth is what they can do to benefit – them.  Children are an obstacle – so give them to the State.

Social Services has been given the right to take our children to be raised by the State. The consequences are proven disastrous; without the stimulus of a family’s love, a child’s brain actually fails to thrive and evolve. Black spaces exist where there should be brain matter. This is the evolution of human beings that a State family endorses.

I remember reading fervently about child development before I had my first. I wanted to be perfect, I wanted my children to be perfect. I read of a study done in an African village in which the newborn is attached by papoose to the mother every hour of the day until they could walk. The child then followed his mother and siblings everywhere as they gathered the fruits. The father would teach basic fishing and hunting skills. And these children thrived and excelled exceptionally. It was found that these children showed advanced motor skills, emotional skills, and intelligence. But it all changed. When the child turned five, it was the ritual to separate the child from family and send them to another village to be raised by the community. It was found that these same children whose advancement compared to developed societies was significantly greater, stagnated. They remained a five year old intellectually and emotionally – forever.

Who does it better – State or Family?

When our media creates a false reality (Plato), and our government houses families in a state controlled institution (Plato) and eradicates purpose, vision and creation evolution (Plato), we are left in a state of moronic evolution where art, free thought, free will, industrial and technological evolution, and freedom are the cost. It is a slow, constant chipping away and the only way to stop it – is to see it. Until we accept the ugliness that is suppressing society, we can not change it.

Family has power. It is this power that is feared more than anything else!

When my youngest child was in elementary school I took issue with a teacher who believed that it was her responsibility to teach her morality to my child. You see, my son had accidentally left his homework in his locker. He asked to retrieve it and the teacher refused. Instead, she chose to give him an “F”. She claimed that she was teaching my fourth grade son a valuable lesson for when he became a model citizen in the business world. She stated that such permission would never be granted an employee in reality, therefore it should not be granted my 11 year old. Of course, the fact that this woman had never worked in the ‘real world of business’ was never considered an issue…

In order to protest this morality, I had to stand before a tribunal of six school officials. I argued my case. Not surprising, the six did not back down. The State system of morality and ethics is NOT what I want impregnated on my children!

With the forfeiture of family, we are now forfeiting our children. Instead of aligning our philosophy with Aristotle, the state has intervened with Plato.

Pay attention. The role of family is the very structure of society. Without it, society is nothing more than a herd of cattle – but maybe that’s the agenda…

Who is minding your children?

The War of The Atheists

The Supreme Court refuses to define what is ‘religion’. If there is no legal definition, then how can Atheists assert they are not a religious organization. And how can an atheist organization obtain charitable foundation status? According to the IRS, “private foundations generally support other public charities or other foundations with grants.” However, there is status within the context of ‘educational’. This would only be available if it is to ‘make the public aware’, the moment the actions become politically motivated then the status has been breeched.

Murky is as murky does: “Rev. Rul. 68–263, 1968–1 C.B. 256, holds that the publication of material which discredits particular institutions and individuals on the basis of unsupported opinions and incomplete information about their affiliations is not educational.”

A foundation’s attempts to discredit Christians, Christian beliefs and churches would seem to be a – breech.

A quick overview of some of the form 990’s filed by these organizations shows some discrepancies or oddities. For example, one organization had one employee whose annual compensation was roughly 40% of donations, their cost for accounting services was exceedingly high, and their ‘consultants’ cost was also worrisome. The statement of time spent per week working for the organization was 105 hours – that would equate to 15 hours per day 7 days per week.

Another foundation whose contributions totalled $3.88million in 2013 holds a “Cash Balance” in their asset section of well over $11million. I’d say they were not spending their charitable contributions very well if they have accumulated such a ‘profit’. Their revenue for 2013 was $3,878,938 and their spending was $2,163,375 leaving an annual profit margin of 44%! That’s a lot of profit for a non-profit!

Could these foundations be construed to be ‘educating’ for the purpose of lobbying for a particular political outcome? “Exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) is precluded for those organizations which are substantially engaged in attempting to influence legislation…”

Is ‘educating’ people to convert to atheism – proselytizing?

Proselytize: to recruit or convert to a new faith, belief or cause… When these foundations use the media to denounce religion and the church and provide the option to convert to atheism, they are now the proselytizer.

At what point does proselytizing become harassment? When is freedom of speech breeched? The legal definition of freedom of speech is: “to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.” So if a person wants to announce their belief, it is an expression. But when does this concern the separation of church and state? It doesn’t because it is superceded by the Constitution which declares,Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

Therefore, making a law that abridges this freedom of speech, such as invoking separation of church and state, is unlawful, and the First Amendment shall take priority.

And ad in a newspaper harshly condemns Catholicism. So does ‘expressing or sharing’ your faith qualify as proselytizing? Legally, no. Because then it would make every atheist potentially criminal for even stating they are atheist – which is their ’cause’ or ‘faith’.

This has become such an explosive issue of late that it bears discussion. The legal definition states: atheism is the belief that gods do not or can not exist. The problem is the use of the word ‘belief’. The definition of ‘belief’ is; confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Given that an atheist can not ‘prove’ the belief that there is no God, their faith is a belief.

For a time atheists were actively seeking status as a religion, however, when the ramifications of this became apparent, they backed off. As a religion, no material in school could refer to the non-existence of God, no theory of evolution could be taught, discrimination cases would be launched, and science would have to be revealed as a ‘theory’ of faith. The concept was dropped immediately.

Why do people become atheists? The resounding answer is because they feel that God is not keeping the world safe and pure, and therefore He must not exist. Of course, this statement defers to ‘free will’. God created Adam and Eve with free will. Within this freedom, they sinned. We still have free will, we are free to sin or not to. Our sins create an unsafe and impure world. God wants us to be pure, but He can’t force us, he cries when we sin, it brings great grief. Grief is born of Love.

When did atheism become so far flung in your face antagonistic, arrogant and smug? Because it didn’t used to be so. I had a friend who said she objected to reciting in school, “…one nation under God…”. Okay, then don’t say it. At issue is the notion that we cater to the one instead of to the eight. At issue is the fact that 12% of the US population identify themselves as ‘atheists’.

Personally, I take no issue in people who desire to identify as Atheist, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever they prefer. I take issue with the constant harassment and unethical attacks perpetrated against Christians so as to make us follow the doctrine of your nothingness. I take issue with the ridiculous idea that suing is the answer to all your problems. I take issue with the notion that you are so self consumed that it is all about you. It is hypocritical and bullying. Every blank, empty wall space that is not covered with religious identity is virtually the identity of Atheism.

At issue is the notion of tolerance and the absolute intolerance of atheists in their pursuit of emptiness for all.