TruthSeeker24's 3rd Millennium Tidbits

The Poor Peoples Campaign

2012-01-21T19:05:00.005-05:00

__________

Brian_G wrote:
Do you have any citation to justify your claim? I thought Reverend Martin Luther King never endorsed anyone.
His discipline and success tells me, he understood why some people make far more than others. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the 1%.

Speaking of his experience in Scandinavia at the time of his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, King writes:

This was, for most of us, our first trip to Scandinavia...We felt we had much to learn from Scandinavia's DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST tradition and from the manner in which they had overcome many of social and economic problems that still plagued for more powerful and affluent nations. In both Norway and Sweden, whose economies are literally dwarfed by the size of our affluence and the extent of our technology, they have no unemployment and no slums. Their men, women and children have long enjoyed FREE MEDICAL CARE and QUALITY EDUCATION. This contrast to the limited, halting steps taken by our rich nation deeply troubled me."

(See THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR, p. 259).

-Savant

__________

Brian_G wrote:
Do you have any citation to justify your claim? I thought Reverend Martin Luther King never endorsed anyone.
His discipline and success tells me, he understood why some people make far more than others. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the 1%.

Dr, King came from a MIDDLE CLASS black family, and was hardly part of the 1%. In fact, in THOSE DAYS it was nearly impossible for a Black person to belong to the 1%.
Dr. Martin Luther King NEVER supported any particular politician, but he did OPPOSE certain politicians like Barry Goldwater.
Take a look at Chapter 23 of THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR, pp. 247--248. King's comments on Goldwater and Republican conservatism is too lengthy to quote.

But King thought of Goldwater, and Goldwater's conservatism, as out of touch with reality(p.247). On matters of race King thought of Goldwater (an oppoent of civil rights act of 1964) what I thought of Ron Paul (before learning of his racist articles):
"While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand." (p247)
King noted at THAT TIME, while the trend was in its EARLY STAGES, the flocking of KKK and segregationist white supremacist Dixiecrats to the banner of Barry Goldwater.
We see the same economic philosophy in Republican party today, and we see much of the same racism, though CODED to suit the sensibilities of our post-1960s era. Juan Williams, a black conservative got a taste of that recently.
But just read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR for yourself.

By the way, there a a number of statements by King involving a critique of capitalism or sympathy for democratic socialism in various works.
I've finished a book on King's philosophical thought in relation to his activism. There are plenty of sources. Also, there are plenty of excellent secondary sources as well.

-Savant

______________

EkDesiLadki wrote:

I support occupy movement. Yet, I feel poverty and unemployment is not just the real problem in black community.
In US blacks are systematically discriminated and decimated by new drug laws after slavery and Jim crow. The statistics suggest that drug laws are just NEW Jim crows(in mask) because 90% of black men are jailed for non-violent crime like possessing small amount of drug for personal use. Also, only 5% of white for similar crimes are send to jail. Rest are just send to counseling whereas blacks are send to prison. Some even for 5 years.
Statistics also suggest that there are more blacks in jail compared to the number of slaves in the height of slavery. Once you get arrested irrespective of you getting convicted or not, your chances of landing in good employment, housing or any govt services is NEGLIGIBLE. This drug law or NEW Jim crow Laws have created a NEW system of labor who can be hired without paying minimum wage and benefits.
Anyone want REAL social change should protest against NEW Jim Crow. May be it's time for us to ask if we've real democracy FOR ALL ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

______________

Timothy wrote:
the former USSR , Cuba, North Korea=nations that used policies that violate human civil liberties. This doesn't refute the notion of legitimate social democratic principles of being key to enhance our standard of living at all. You can have the government to exist, civil liberties, and private & public services to exist at the same time in one country.
It's not about big or small government. It's about effecient government that is free from corporate control. Our government is controlled heavily by corporate influence. This is one reason why some parts of the US government has gone haywire.

Sounds like you--in contrast to Zaius--has actually done some HOMEWORK. Yes, Dr. King DENOUNCED the human rights violations in the Stalinist eastern block and China. But he also denounced the rapaciiousness and exploitation of capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism.
His admiration for democratic socialism is unmistably clear. Most scholars don't even seem to debate that fact any more--especially since the publication of previously private papers and letters.
King was cautious, however, in expressing his sympathies for democratic socialism. He knew he and the Movement would be redbaited as Communist in this paranoid and politically immature society which can't tell Sweden from the Soviet Union, or Erich Fromm from Joseph Stalin.
KIng didn't want to jeopardize the Movement, but he was clearly in favor of social democracy. On quite a few occasions he simply SAID SO.

-Savant

__________

bappie wrote:
What happened with Juan Williams? Not saying that blacks cannot be conservative, but it's hard to understand how they can align themselves with some of the people they know are racist and the horrible things they say about blacks in particular and minorities in general.
I remember my mother singing we've got hot water, we've got cold water, what the hell do we need with goldwater, lol.

Juan Williams, a black conservative, was posing questions to different Republican candidates a few days ago in South Carolina. He posed question to Nutty Gingrich about the insensitivity of his statements regarding Black people and the poor. Gingrich essentially lambasted Juan williams for even daring to question him in that matter, saying (in so many words) he owes no explantation for any offensive comments he made about Blacks.
A white female supporter later commended Gingrich for putting Juan Williams "in his place." Sounds familiar? Putting a Negro in his place? Both Gingrich's lambasting of Williams and the woman's commending him for putting Juan Williams "in his place" got LOUD APPLAUSE from that obviously very WHITE, RIGHT WING & RACIST crowd.
And some posters want me to believe that Dr. King would ally himself with THAT?

Would King also want to FIRE janitors and institute CHILD LABOR instead? Was that what Dr. KIng was advocating with his Poor Peoples Campaign?

-Savant

______________

Savant wrote:

Juan Williams, a black conservative, was posing questions to different Republican candidates a few days ago in South Carolina. He posed question to Nutty Gingrich about the insensitivity of his statements regarding Black people and the poor. Gingrich essentially lambasted Juan williams for even daring to question him in that matter, saying (in so many words) he owes no explantation for any offensive comments he made about Blacks.
A white female supporter later commended Gingrich for putting Juan Williams "in his place." Sounds familiar? Putting a Negro in his place? Both Gingrich's lambasting of Williams and the woman's commending him for putting Juan Williams "in his place" got LOUD APPLAUSE from that obviously very WHITE, RIGHT WING & RACIST crowd.
And some posters want me to believe that Dr. King would ally himself with THAT?
Would King also want to FIRE janitors and institute CHILD LABOR instead? Was that what Dr. KIng was advocating with his Poor Peoples Campaign?

Well, in my estimation, that's just what Juan Williams deserves. Will black conservative Republicans like him, Steele, Cain, Thomas, etc., ever learn or will they continue to allow themselves to be humiliated and treated like servants. Who could be so desperate to be accepted that they would expose themselves to that type of treatment and lack of respect in this day and age?

Frankly, I've seen the ugly behavior of these right-wing, repulsivecan hypocrites in action. These same sanctimonious demons hated Clinton for exactly what that dingy, nasty, sob did. The kicker is he was doing all this dirt while actively trying to get Clinton impeached for lying about sex with Lewinsky. Him and the despicable hypocrite, Henry Hyde. Then this low-life piece of garbage has the audacity to take the moderator to task for daring to ask him a question about his morals and character before a presidential debate. As if he's held to some type of different moral standard. Then he drops lower into the mud by bringing his daughters into the fray by stating how they contacted ABC begging them not to air the story and how everyone makes mistakes, blah, blah.

The hypocrites gave him another standing ovation, lol.What everyone got to see is the UGLY and HYPOCRITICAL face of America and the Republican party. One that can flip the script and change, excuse or accept disgusting behavior by one of their own. Gingrich is a scum bucket that is not even well liked by his own and that's why he was kicked out of the house by his own.

I laughed when he spoke of the elite (of which he desperately wants to be a part of) and stared over at Romney. I don't know if you noticed, but Romney smirked at the remark. The pimp, Gingrich is using the homewrecker's money to finance his campaigns and lifestyle and she is a part of the elite. If this is the best we can do for candidates for president, we're screwed, lol.

Hypocrites abound.

smh.

-bappie

_____________

216 Elite wrote:
The U.S. government’s COINTELPRO attack on the Black Power Movement of the 1960s assassinated African leaders, imprisoned activists and used agents to destroy organizations.
As part of this counterinsurgency effort the government flooded the African community with heroin brought in from Southeast Asia by the CIA. Later crack cocaine from South and Central America was added.
These drugs served a two-fold purpose. They devastated the African working class community and made organizing nearly impossible. At the same time the drugs destroyed long-standing African community economic stability while turning illegal drugs into nearly a trillion dollar annual industry, generating cash that flows through every bank in the U.S.
Again Jim Crow-like laws such as Three Strikes and discriminatory sentencing mandates were used to round up millions of people and imprison them on the basis of drugs.
Prison Profit Props Up Ailing U.S. Economy
Today more than 7.5 million people—nearly half of them African—are tied to the US prison system. As big as the current government stimulus package is, it is nothing compared to the massive government investments building new prisons in every state.
This proved to be the key economic stimulus for white America over the past 30 years. It was prisons and illegal drugs that saved the US economy during all of the previous economic downturns of the 1970s, 80s and 90s.
Prisons spawned jobs in multiple sectors, such as lawyers and prosecutors, guards, court and prison administration, computer programming, along with construction, housing development and retail malls that often transformed backwards rural towns into bustling metropolises.
Wall Street banks float the loans to cities and states that are used as municipal bonds to finance prison building. These loans are basically mortgages on prisons and rake in the money for the bankers.
Private prisons profit from African slave labor used by a wide range of corporations, essentially a modern form of Convict Leasing.
Additionally, private prisons are traded on Wall Street. Their stock goes up every time another law such as Three Strikes is passed, because these laws guarantee that prison beds will be filled for the long term and that there will be an ever-increasing prison population. Wall Street makes sure that prisons remain a good investment.
“Subprime” Predatory Lending Steals African Assets
In the mid-90s the Clinton administration began changing HUD policies to allow for the targeting of the African community for predatory subprime mortgages.
For the next 10 years, bankers and lenders profited royally from entrapping African families into deceptive mortgages. Africans making over $150,000 a year were more likely to get a “subprime” load than white people making less than $35,000 a year.
Subprime mortgages are adjustable rate loans that start out low and double after a couple of years.
The banks bundled the mortgages, sliced them up and used them as investment instruments, instead of cash. They made trillions of dollars by investing these mortgage-backed securities and then quickly reinvesting their profits multiple times.
As millions of people began to default on their high-interest mortgages, the banks’ investments went bad. This was the basis of the stock market crash in September of 2008.
But the bankers have been bailed out by taxpayers’ money to the tune of trillions of dollars. The banks have never had to publicly reveal their bad debts, the “toxic assets” from the invested subprime mortgages.
continue......

____________

Someone like gingrich can be successful in getting applause in most racist Southern states but he'll have trouble in others.

Also, people had trouble accepting Clinton's affair, this guy had mistress for 7 years. If he chosen as candidate Obama can relax.

"Newt Gingrich Loves Indian Killer Andrew Jackson."
There’s a saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, a historian, hasn’t forgotten the past; in fact, he’d like to repeat it. Particularly Andrew Jackson’s “kill thine enemy” approach.

Read more:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/201...

Savant wrote:

Both Gingrich's lambasting of Williams and the woman's commending him for putting Juan Williams "in his place" got LOUD APPLAUSE from that obviously very WHITE, RIGHT WING & RACIST crowd.
And some posters want me to believe that Dr. King would ally himself with THAT?
Would King also want to FIRE janitors and institute CHILD LABOR instead? Was that what Dr. KIng was advocating with his Poor Peoples Campaign?

___________

emncaity

238 Fans

05:31 AM on 01/12/2012

No, Mr. Paul, you were not "very clear." You're walking both sides of the fence, because your way of governing isn't going to be acceptable to anybody and sounds good only as a novelty alternative. Not one single advanced nation in the world does it. Your response indicates that you don't want to say "Yes, my goal is to get rid of all of that"; you want to hold to the ideological position that getting rid of it is necessary, but that sounds too harsh, so you want to reassure people that you're not the kind of person who would cut things like Head Start and Social Security without a substitute, but when given a national platform to speak--which you didn't have to pay for, by the way--you're not going to give even the broadest outline, let alone any real specifics. We're just supposed to trust that it'll happen.

Got it. Meanwhile, the truth is, you're only for a lower level of redistribution of income. That is, unless you want to pave your own roads and have huge inefficiencies and state-to-state inequalities like separate food-and-drug safety organizations, auto and consumer goods testing, etc.

_____________

emncaity

238 Fans

07:27 PM on 01/12/2012

"He's said numerous times that he would propose winding down SS by allowing younger workers to opt out of it."

Great. So why didn't he just say that on Scarborough's show, that simply? I mean, I think the idea is terrible and is characteristic of Paul's fatal flaw, pathological individualism over the community good, reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher's "there is no such thing as society." But at least he'd have given an answer.

The voters in individual states already decide this by voting for their own representatives and senators to federal office. If you want a loose federation of states each running every single part of its own show, and not a nation, you should go back and raise the Articles of Confederation again and see how they fly.

__________________

ProudToBeVeryLiberal

3156 Fans

08:20 PM on 01/11/2012

Libertarianism is pure utopia. A civilization can't work without regulations. Libertarianism would result in civil war.

__________

Michael Tuller

Retired News Librarian/Researcher

36 Fans

10:00 PM on 01/11/2012

Libertarianism is a bald face lie. It is corporations and fascists promising you that you will be able to run a prostitution business and sell heroin, which only certain others will be allowed to do, while they will be stealing your money, your freedom, your property and poisoning you and your family without fearing any consequences. Got kids? God help them! It is Social Darwinism, and it will ultimately result in fascism, revolution or worse. Get a clue. Your common sense has apparently already suffered a severe blow. You will not be at the top of that food chain. You will be a classic chump. They will chew you up and spit you out. And, you will still blame anything but your own misguided, so-called ideology.

___________

bluejoni2525

and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden

2464 Fans

07:17 PM on 01/11/2012

No EPA-- no food safety standards-- no safety standards--no safety net-- the march backwards with Ron Paul !!!! No thanks !!

____________

wolfdancer

Republicans -this is why we can't have nice things

1214 Fans

07:14 PM on 01/11/2012

It is primarily the base of the Republican party that hates Ron Paul. I mean they absolutely hate him. So, don't pin anti-Paul rhetoric on Democrats. Democrats don't get all that heated up by Ron Paul because they know he will never be President nor will he ever enact any of his ideas. To most Democrats he is harmless as a flea while Wall Street robber barons like Romney and religious zealots like Santorum & Perry are dangerous to this country just like George Bush and Dick Cheney were very dangerous. We have been paying for this mistake every day for the last 11 years.

Why is Ron Paul even in the Republican party? He actually has a lot of things in common with many liberal Democrats: legalizing marijuana, opposition to the Iraq war, opposition to the Afghanistan war, auditing of the Fed, repealing NAFTA and other trade treaties that have taken away American jobs, opposition to the Patriot Act, and others.

Start your 3rd party and run Ron Paul against Romney that way Obama can get reelected and you will serve notice on the Republican party that they can not discount libertarian views.

__________

ProudToBeVeryLiberal

3156 Fans

07:17 PM on 01/11/2012

A true man of the people who wants to get rid of all social services for the people.

Yeah, it makes sense...

{{eyeroll}}

Economic Information

2012-01-21T18:42:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyw6vTwO4_Q

Webster tarpley is absolutely correct. Ron Paul's economic program is just a copy of world bank/IMF austerity psychosis by Shock therapy and structural adjustment.

kkbose 2 weeks ago

_____________

Roy Merritt old car guy

Loves Nostalgia Dragsters

505 Fans

18 minutes ago ( 6:44 PM)

On a post a while ago I made mention that the Republicans were responsible for the National Debt for what it is and a Republican came on and gave some off the wall figures that disputed what I wrote. So here is the offical site that is United States Office of Budget Management year 2011 Historical Tables. Ronald Reagan began with the National Debt at 900 billion dollars, when he left office the National Debt was at 2.86 trillion dollars or a increase of 189%. GH Bush left Office with The Debt at 4.7 trillion dollars or a 55% increase. Bill Clinton Left Office with a Debt of 5.6 trillion dollars but had stopped the riser of the debt and actually brought it down by 9% in the last 2 years and gave GW Bush a surplus. The Office of the CBO said if we stayed on track the National DEbt would be zero in 10 years. GW BUsh Cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and when he left office he left President Obama a National DEbt of 11.9 trillion dollars or a 112% increase. Those are offical numbers and FOX NEWS or anybody else is a liar if they say otherwise. www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt_histo5.htm

_______________

HUFFPOST SUPER USER

Roy Merritt old car guy

Loves Nostalgia Dragsters

506 Fans

2 hours ago ( 4:58 PM)

Absolutely dead on article, I wish that it would be carried in every newspaper in the country. Why is it that the Republicans cry that Obama is raising the debt but they are responsible for the National Debt being where it is at. If you will go to the United States Budget Office web site and go to the Historical tables you will see when the National Debt which had been coming down since WWII began going up like a rocket, during the Reagan years. Supply Side Economics ran the National Debt up 189% during Reagan's years and 55% during GH Bush's years and up 24% during the first Clinton term but then started down and Clinton had two years of BALANCED BUDGETS plus a surplus. GW Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and started the whole thing over again. GW Bush ran the National Debt up 112% and gave an unbalanced budget to President Obama of 14.9% GDP of Revenue with a spending budget of 24.9% GDP. Obama has not be able to raise taxes because of the Republicans so we are still stuck with the 14.8% GDP on revenue. Until taxes are raised the National Debt will still be like Newt's Rockets to the moon.

_________________

emp122

99 Fans

1 hour ago ( 5:54 PM)

Ronald Reagan invented deficit spending. Before him, we were the greatest lender nation, after him, the biggest debtor nation. Other Republicans (I think Dick Cheney) said "deficits don't matter". I guess they matter when a Democrat is in office!

Think about this: If you have a hole in your roof, and you don't have the money to fix it, you have to borrow money to fix it. Or else, the hole in the roof will eventally cost you more money to fix. That is why Obama has to spend money, to fix the hole in the roof left by Conservative/Republican policies.

__________

Viper

Former repub, still repenting

2209 Fans

4 hours ago ( 3:18 PM)

Newts One Good Idea….

He once suggested that we look at what Germany with just a population of 82 million is doing, given it leads us in MFG/Exports and has high wages.

He then went silent!
Here is why, because Germany :
1. Has national industrialization plan like all other countries. Repubs AGAINST.
2. Has export Rebates of 19%,like all other countries. Repubs AGAINST.
3. Has cheaper National healthcare, not in cost of goods made. REPUBs Against.
4. Has stronger/larger Unions, 4 week min vacations, shorter work weeks, anti-outsourcing regs. Repubs AGAINST .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJp4479QaSI&feature=youtu.be
5. Has Unions on company Boards, interest free loans to MFGs. Repubs AGAINST.
6. Has 100% higher Min wages. Repubs AGAINST.
7. Spends 3 times as much on Infrastructure. Repubs AGAINST.
8. Spends very little on defense. Repubs Against.
9. Has more/stricter regulations centrally administered. Repubs AGAINST.
10. A leader in wind/solar energy. Repubs AGAINST.
11. A Leader in HighSpeed rail. Repubs Against.
12. Has earlier retirement age/higher benefits/4wk min vacations. REPUBS AGAINST.
13. Has centralized education, not thousands of local school boards fighting over evolution/Christian myths. For science/facts/history. REPUBS AGAINST.
14. Has paid for/affordable College. Repubs AGAINST.

Of course Repubs were for insurance mandates till 2009, Cap&trade acknowledging global warming, Deficit commission, P/R tax cuts...

_____________

The most annoying thing abot paulbots and Austrians is that they think everything that is not Austrian or Libertarian is Keynesian or socialist. Tarpley is in now way shape or form a Keynsian. He adheres to the American economic system of Freidrich List and is more of a Chartalist. Most Americans have no idea what those terms mean.

dfg93353 1 week ago

___________

Notes

2011-12-14T20:02:00.000-05:00

Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David because His legal genealogy proved He was one of David's descendants. His maternal genealogy through Mary also went back to David making Jesus entitled to the throne of David on His mother's side as well, but since the Jews refused to recognize Jesus as their Messiah, any messianic-descendant requirement is irrelevant.

xtrashed 7 months ago

@12yash34
In the Jewish culture lineage went from father to son. Although Joseph was actually Jesus' step-father and not His actual father, legally Joseph was Jesus' father.

xtrashed 7 months ago

@12yash34
The Dead Sea Scrolls are authentic. As to where the 5200 pieces of New Testament manuscript are, they are probably kept in museums or protected by archeoligists, there may be info as to where they are kept if you search for 'Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.'

xtrashed 7 months ago

Christ means Messiah. The later pagans may have mixed Christianity with Paganism aka Serpais to gain converts at first, this has no baring on the actual faith of Christianity, the later pagans did this mixing much later, after the Christian faith was already established.

xtrashed 7 months ago

You need to read some history books on the history of Christianity, as I have said, Christianity was in Africa while Europe was still pagan so Christianity was not Greco Romanised.

xtrashed 7 months ago

@12yash34
How was Jesus' family lineage cursed and therefore disqualified? Paul doesn't contradict Jesus, Paul and Jesus teach the same thing. Jesus: (John 5:21), Jesus: (Matt. 6:25), Paul: (Phil. 4:6). Jesus: (John 10:11), Paul (Eph. 5:2). Jesus (John 8:58) compare with Exodus 3:14, Paul: (Col. 2:9). See also, Phil. 2:5-8. Jesus: (Matt. 6:14), Paul (Eph. 4:32). Jesus: (John 14:6), Paul (1 Tim. 2:5). Jesus: (John 5:24). See also John 3:16-18; Luke 18:9-13, Paul (Rom. 5:1).

xtrashed 7 months ago

The gospels were written before 325AD. The Gospels were all written before 100AD, we have thousands of pieces of manuscript evidence that can be dated to past 325AD. Deut 18:20 does not say Jesus was a liar. Nether does Matt 9:1. Matt1:11-12 doesd not say Jesus was cursed, neither does Jer 23:22-30. Where does Paul lie? Scholars agree that although Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, the report of his death was written by others.

xtrashed 7 months ago

Do you mean by Gnostic, the apocraphya? These books were rejected because therewas question as to their authenticity, where they were written and by whom they were claimed. The Gospels contained in the NT were those who's "pedegree" was impeccable. Books of more dubious origin, even though they might contain elements of interest, were not included in the NT canon.

xtrashed 7 months ago

Scholars agree that although Moses was the author of the Pentateuch, the report of his death was written by others.
Pastors/Priests don't do such crimes any more than the general population.

xtrashed 7 months ago

Finally, there are many problems with the authenticity of this letter: An authority as liberal as Walter Bauer (who would have loved to have made hash of this letter for his case for a diverse Christianity) notes that this letter is actually quoted by Flavius Vopiscus (a historian writing in 300 AD!), who in turn is said to be quoting Phlegon, a freedman of Hadrian (and what do skeptics always tell us about using sources this far from the root?!?);

xtrashed 7 months ago

As I put earlier from research I have found, A long time ago, the pagans used to mix two gods into one, in order to gain converts. As a matter of fact, Serapis is apparently a mixture of two gods himself. So when Christianity started growing, the pagans probably mixed Serapis with Jesus.
The overall point is: Jesus Christ isn't a mixture of several gods, rather, several centuries after Christianity was established, people started merging their gods to Jesus.

xtrashed 7 months ago

How can Christianity be a religion of the Europeans when it did not originate in Europe. I follow evidence, not racist nonsense like you follow. If you know anything about the history of missionaries in Africa, is that when Christian missionaries tried to mission to the locals they didn't get very far, Christianity grew among Africans by Christianity having an incredible ability to adapt to African peoples traditions. Indiginious Christendom.

xtrashed 7 months ago

There is plenty of proof in archeology that has been found that has confirmed the reliability of the Bible, but you wont dare look will you case, because you know you will be proven wrong.
'Shut up' calling me names? Ad hominum attacks mean nothing.

xtrashed 7 months ago

Huh? Many theologians, scholars and archeologists defend the historicity of the gospels. We have thousands of pieces of manuscript evidence for the Gospels and the Old Testament, they are authentic writings, we have archeological evidence. Search 'biblical archeology in to google. If you DARE!

xtrashed 7 months ago

The Bible is historical, historians trust it to be historical, and we have archeology to back the Bible up. Search 'biblical archeology' on google which confirms the Bible is historically reliable. The Gospels were written before the council of Nicea in 325AD. Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of the Phillipians, Papias, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Quadratus of Athens, Celus and many others write about Christianity before the council of Nicea, so you are wrong.

xtrashed 7 months ago

There is such as thing as absolute truth, and not all religions are true. If you want info on Christianity go to real credible historians not people like the man in the start of this video who have got an agenda to promote. A lot of the conflicts in Africa have nothing to do with religion, but have to do with political opression, the taking of land, the lack of resources etc.

xtrashed 7 months ago

The Eucharist

2011-09-17T18:18:00.002-04:00

From http://web.archive.org/web/20060303113652/http://www.john14-6.org/catholicmass.htm

A CRITIQUE OF KARL KEATING'S

CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM:

THE ATTACK ON "ROMANISM" BY "BIBLE CHRISTIANS"

THE CHAPTER ON: "THE MASS"

Summary:

Mr. Keating attempts to defend the Roman Catholic mass against, essentially, the Scripture. This is an unenviable position to be in. Mr. Keating uses all kinds of illogical, non-sequitur, emotional arguments in his attempt to defend the un-Scriptural ritual and doctrine of the Roman Catholic mass. Mr. Keating's "strength" appears to be in making arguments based on intimidation (ad baculum), traditional authority (ad verecundeam), and of course abuse (ad hominem) toward these strange "Bible Christian" strawmen he creates.

Roman Catholic dogma states that the mass is necessary for salvation. The Bible says that salvation is a finished work wrought by Jesus Christ on the cross, and that all the merit's of the salvation Christ earned on the cross are available to the true believer by faith (John 6:29; Heb. 11). Furthermore, the Bible explicitly states that, "He [Jesus Christ], HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...". (Heb. 10:12).

In reference to His redemptive work, Jesus Himself said on the cross, "It is Finished" (John 19:30). What is finished is finished, what is done is done. The Roman Catholics say redemption is not finished, it is not done, and that they must re-create and partake in the mass in order to apply the work of Christ's redemption.

Mark 12:30, "You shall love the Lord your God with...all your mind..."

Hebrews 7:27, "...who (speaking of Jesus) does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF." ¹ [parenthesis & emphasis mine]

Hebrews 9:12, "...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place ONCE FOR ALL, having obtained eternal redemption." [emphasis mine]

Hebrews 9:28, "...so Christ also, having been OFFERED ONCE to bear the sins of many..." [emphasis mine]

Hebrews 10:10-12&14, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest (Jewish) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...For by ONE OFFERING He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." [parenthesis & emphasis mine]

INTRODUCTION:

Go to the Bible, read the verses surrounding the one's above to check context, and then ask yourself this question - what is the PLAIN MEANING of these verses regarding Jesus' sacrifice on the cross at Calvary?

Have the Bible at your side as you examine with me the Roman Catholic Mass, a key element in a religious system that claims it is Jesus' church, yet argues for continuing sacrifices of Christ, in order to "apply" God's grace so that its adherents might possibly go to heaven some day (contrast Romans 10:9-10 & 1 John 5:13).² Come with me now as we examine the defense of the Roman Catholic Mass by one of the Roman Catholic Churches leading apologists.

WORD DEFINITION:

Let's define some words before we go forward: ³

Sacrifice:	The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, esp. the ritual slaughter of an animal or person.
Perpetual:	1. Lasting for eternity: the perpetual fires of hell. 2. Lasting for an indefinitely long duration. 3. Instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration: a treaty of perpetual friendship. 4. Ceaselessly repeated or continuing without interruption: perpetual nagging.
Perpetuate:	To make perpetual.
Propitiation:	A conciliatory offering to a god.
Atone:	To make amends, as for a sin or fault.
Doctrine:	1. Something that is taught. 2. A principle or body of principals presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
Dogma:	1. A system of doctrines proclaimed true by a religious sect. 2. A principle, belief, or statement of idea or opinion, esp. one authoritatively considered to be absolute truth.
Truth:	1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. Fidelity to an original or standard. 3. Reality; actuality.
Mass:	1. a. In Roman Catholic and some Protestant churches, the celebration of the Eucharist.
Eucharist:	The actual and literal ("transubstantiated") Body of Christ. (Chapter 19 of "Catholicism and Fundamentalism:...")
Memorial:	1. Serving as a remembrance of a person or event; commemorative.
Commemorate:	1. To honor the memory of with a ceremony.
Metaphor:	A figure of speech in which a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates to an object it may designate only by implicit comparison or analogy.
Typology:	1. The study of types, as in a systematic classification. 2. A theory or doctrine of types, as in scriptural studies.
Ordinance:	1. An authoritative command or order. 2. A custom or practice established by long usage.
Sacramentalism:	1. The doctrine that observance of the sacraments is necessary for salvation and that such participation can confer grace.
Double Talk:	2. Ambiguous or evasive language.
Synonymous Terms:	Bible = Word of God = Scripture

DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL THEMES:

A. Keating's Foundation for his Defense of the Mass

Page 246, 1&2P: [the "P" represents Paragraph]

Vatican II, "...put the Catholic position [regarding the meaning of the Mass] succinctly:
At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic SACRIFICE of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to PERPETUATE THE SACRIFICE OF THE CROSS throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a MEMORIAL of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet IN WHICH CHRIST IS CONSUMED, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us." [emphasis mine]
B. Defining Terms

Defining terms is extremely important in examining Roman Catholic doctrine. As will be demonstrated in this critique of Keating's doctrinal apologetics, the terms, as clearly defined above, will be distorted and altered to fit roman dogma. When the Biblical and the normal, culturally agreed upon definition of a term is changed to fit someone's argument, beware. At that point, you are moving out of the arena of rational, logical and thereby meaningful thought, and into the realm of illogical, irrational or "mysterious" (as the Roman Catholics like to call it) musings. (Page 257, 2P)

C. Claims of Authority

As a person or a representative of a church that holds that the Bible is the inspired and revealed Word of God, as Roman Catholicism does, it would be logical to assume that most of the arguments put forth in defending a biblically derived doctrinal position, would be grounded first upon Scripture, and secondly on man's reasoning and tradition. Please notice throughout Keating's work, how little Scripture is used to defend the Roman Catholic's position. Notice the complete lack of Scripture in Vatican II's important doctrinal statement quoted above. Keating, in laying the foundation for the defense of the Mass by quoting Vatican II, also does not attempt to show how this statement is based on Scripture. Instead, he jumps to assuming that Vatican II's statement is an adequate substitute for the Bible verses describing the last supper, and he then attempts to defend his interpretation of the last supper verses. But wait a minute, what about explaining the doctrines given in the Vatican II statement, including "...sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet IN WHICH CHRIST IS CONSUMED, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us."? There is much theology in that sentence, yet he proceeds to attempt to only deal with "...Christ being consumed..." Throughout this chapter, Keating never clarifies, or even deals with, the theology presented in the Vatican II statement quoted above.

D. Logical Thought In Examining Scripturally Based Truth Claims

Good Biblical theology BOTH explains contemporary and historical events in the light of God's written revelation (His Word) and His natural revelation (the created realm) AND uses sound human reasoning that does not break the laws of logic. [Please note, miracles break the laws of NATURE, NOT the laws of LOGIC e.g. God always has a God Glorifying reason for performing a miracle]

Notice in the Vatican II statement, a contradiction that will show itself throughout Keating's defense of the Mass e.g. the Mass both "...perpetuate[s] the sacrifice of the Cross..." and is also "...a memorial...". Keating struggles with this contradiction throughout, and never satisfactorily handles it for a very good reason - because it is impossible to logically explain how two premises dealing with the same fact can both be true while contradicting each other! This breaks the most important law of logic e.g. the law on non-contradiction which says that, "no two contradictory statements can both we true at the same time and in the same sense." ⁴

The Vatican II statement is a very good example of both distorting the definition and meaning of terms and making contradictory statements. Understand the rest of this paragraph, and you will be a long way towards understanding the main issue in this article. The object of a sacrifice (in Christ's case, a living being) is real e.g. typically is physical/corporeal in nature and therefore subject to human action/manipulation; and the manipulation of the object of the sacrifice occurs in actual time or, "THE PRESENT" (in the case of a living sacrifice, it dies as a result of the manipulation or "sacrifice"). The object of a memorial, on the other hand and by definition, exists only in the mind as a memory of an event in THE PAST e.g. it is not physical in nature; and it exists in the past; that is why you must remember it because it doesn't exist in the present (in the case on an embalmed/preserved body of a dead person, you are remembering the whole person, body and spirit, not the dead flesh). Therefore, the same object cannot be both subject to a sacrifice (present) and a memorial (past). BY DEFINITION, YOU CANNOT, IN THE PRESENT, KILL OR OFFER THE OBJECT OF A SACRIFICE AND AT THE SAME TIME, REMEMBER THIS SAME EVENT AS IT OCCURRED IN THE PAST. This is logically impossible - we exist in time and time, by its very nature, is sequential and chronological. Whatever Roman Catholic's mean by the terms "sacrifice" and "memorial" certainly does not correspond to the Biblical culture's definitions (Gen. 22:2; Exod. 12:21, 27; Heb. 7:27), or our own current culture's understanding of these terms (see definition on page 2).

But the Roman Catholic's would like you to believe that you are perpetuating ("offering anew" - P248, 3P) a real, bloodless sacrifice of Christ (the Eucharist - Chapter 19), and at the same time, commemorating the actual sacrifice made by Christ on the cross at Calvary. Unfortunately, this is a foundational example of the Roman Catholic's doctrine of the Mass, but it is more accurately described as double talk e.g. saying one thing and attempting to defend two or more contradictory meanings. God gave us minds in order to seek Him by applying sound reasoning in reading His Revelation (the Bible).

Let me state, right at the start, that I do not claim to understand all the true mysteries of God. Two such examples would be fully comprehending His nature (Trinity), or precisely how his redemptive plan for mankind will play out through time (human will versus God's sovereignty). BUT I DO CONTEND, AS WILL BE DEMONSTRATED IN THIS CRITIQUE, THAT GOD HAS CLEARLY GIVEN MANKIND, IN HIS WORD, ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW ONE CAN BE SAVED (Romans 10:9-10) E.G. WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO RECEIVE ETERNAL SALVATION. A perfectly Loving God (1 John 4:8) and a perfectly Just God (Deut. 32:4) could do no less! An illustration will help clarify this:
There is a father who lives on an island with his son. His son must go to work on a boat to a neighboring island. One night God lets the father know that the next day, there will be a storm and his son’s boat will sink. The father loves his son. What would the father do: A) Hand his son, who insists on going, a life preserver and tell his son, "son you’re going to need this today, here, take it; or... B) Take a life preserver and tuck it behind some stuff in an obscure storage cabinet in the boat and pat his son on the back and say, "good luck today son".
Obviously a loving father would clearly and plainly hand his son the life preserver. So it is with our loving heavenly Father. He clearly tells us what we must do to be saved - simply repent and believe e.g. He hands us the life preserver and we must choose whether to accept it or not. Our loving heavenly Father does not hide salvation in the "obscure storage closet" of Roman Catholic mysticism with its complicated, irrational, and New Testament ignoring, sacramental system.

This critical distinction - between man’s not being able to fully comprehend God’s infinite nature and the precise timing of His redemptive plan for mankind VERSUS God making His simple way of salvation (repentance and belief) crystal clear to man (In His Written Word) so that the people He loves and creates in His image and likeness are able to fully comprehend God’s free offer of salvation and choose whether to receive it or not - is apparently difficult for Roman Catholics to understand. Let the reader be aware that it is also possible that the Roman Catholic clergy do understand this distinction yet purposely confuse the issue in order to defend their dogma and their church.

Keating, as a pre-eminent Roman Catholic apologist defending Roman Catholic doctrine, does not meet the preceding definition given in the first paragraph of this section, of someone teaching good Biblical theology. Let's see why.

CRITIQUE PROPER:

The format of this article is to reference Keating's actual words in his book "CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM: THE ATTACK ON "ROMANISM" BY "BIBLE CHRISTIANS". Thus, page numbers and paragraphs are referenced so as to minimize claims of mis-quoting or impreciseness. This article is best understood by having a copy of the chapter, "The Mass", from the above referenced book, and reading the chapter, and then following along with my references. This is not necessary, but will help the reader grasp the overall context in a much clearer fashion.

Page 247, 1P:

Mr. Keating gives us an example right up front, of plain bad interpretation. The Roman Catholic's make the fatal mistake of not being able to distinguish between metaphor and literal meaning based upon the context of the passage.

Keating quotes Luke 22:19 (I'll use Keating's bible translation's verses as quoted in his book), "Then he took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, given for you; do this for a COMMEMORATION of me". The first issue that comes to mind if this is to be interpreted in a rigidly literal way as the Roman Catholics insist, is, at the time Jesus said that, He was holding His body in his hands. How is this possible? In what literal sense could Jesus be holding His "body", as a separate object of matter, in His hands? Secondly, He did not yet make the sacrifice at Calvary, so in what literal sense was his body already "...given for you..."? Of course it was not literal, He was merely giving His disciples the symbolism in advance for the commemoration of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper.

More important is Keating's "interpretation". Keating's interpretive argument is flawed in that he bases a contextual issue on the meaning of individual words. Even he admits that "is" is sometimes figurative. Then in the second paragraph, he throws out a lot of Scripture references (NOT QUOTES - Why?) in defense of his interpretation. Finally, he bases his defense of the Mass (the Mass rests on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, for without the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, there would be no sacrifice - Chapter 19) on saying, "That the Greek words for body in John 6 is sarx, which can only mean physical flesh, and the word for "eat" translates as "gnaws" or "chews." Keating remarkably concludes, "this is not the language of a metaphor". This is not a rational conclusion. What about context? One can ONLY DETERMINE METAPHORICAL PASSAGES BY CONTEXT! If one based judging metaphorical language on the literal definition of words, then language would have no meaning. "My car is a lemon" would take on new meaning using Keating's method of determining metaphor!

For example, let's say I'm reading an article in the newspaper that says the following: "Today there was a devastating earthquake in Los Angeles. It is estimated that over $10 Billion of damage was done. Paramedics were the life blood of the stricken citizens". Now reading the context, understanding the culture, and knowing something about both paramedics and blood, no rationally thinking person would think that paramedics were actually "blood". They would understand that amid the literal account of the description of events, the author used metaphorical language to describe the importance of the paramedics. According to Keating's interpretive methodology, however, one would have to say that since the words "were the" mean exactly what they say, and the word " blood" is a word which can only mean literal blood, then the paramedics must actually have been blood.

Let's apply his interpretive technique on the following verses to demonstrate the fallacy of his interpretation. Jesus says in John 10:9, "I am the gate: whoever enters through me will be saved". Now according to Keating's exegesis, the Greek words for "I am" are ego eimi, which can only mean what they say, and the word for gate, thura, can only mean a physical gate like that of a sheep pen - therefore, Jesus is a wooden gate! How about John 8:12, "I am the light of the world"? Using Keating's interpretive methodology leads one to believe that Jesus was actually a bright light! This is a grave issue of misinterpretation of the worst kind.

2 P:

In the 2nd Paragraph, Keating uses the word "trope". An excellent word correctly used, but how many people reading the book will know what the word means (I did not until I looked it up) or take the time to look it up? Why use a relatively advanced vocabulary in a book aimed at "laymen", when a more easily understood word would do, such as "figurative" or "metaphorically"? Is he "showing off" or hiding something?

Now, let's deal with his unsubstantiated references of Scripture to see if God's Word really backs up what he is trying to defend.

1 Cor. 11:23-24, "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, be broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" Keating states that interpreting Luke 22:19 metaphorically, "...is precluded by Paul's discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 23-24...". The key question is, how is metaphorical interpretation "precluded" by 1 Cor. 11:23-24? Where is the exegetical analysis to back up this claim? How about ANY substantiation to that serious claim? NOTHING - he just states his opinion and does not substantiate it. Keating claims, "Paul's discussion of the Eucharist..." Where is the word "Eucharist" found in the Biblical text of 1 Cor. 11:23-24? I thought the Greek word sarx was used, which, according to Keating, can only mean literal flesh (remember "gate" and "light")? This interpretive approach used by Keating is called eisegesis, which means to read something into the text that is just not there.

Keating also weakly refers to the 6th chapter of the Gospel of John. He says there you will find, "..the Eucharist is promised." Where, what verse - why no verses? He claims, "...the whole tenor of John 6..." is about the promised Eucharist. Quite a presumptuous statement with not a shred of Biblical exegesis to support this extremely important claim.

3P:

Keating's defense of his interpretation is given in paragraph 3. No verses, just emotional and unsubstantiated claims. "The literal meaning cannot be avoided except through violence to the text - and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries". Sadly, we have already demonstrated who is doing violence to the text by looking at Keating's interpretation ("body", "gate" & "light"). "The writings of Paul and John reflect belief in a Presence that is Real" - WHAT WRITINGS? The unsubstantiated claims in this paragraph do not even warrant a rebuttal. Suffice it to say that the reason why Keating does not quote Scripture is because there is no Scripture to support his (Roman Catholic) theological musings regarding the Eucharist.

Let's examine John 6:10-65. I would ask that the reader examine these verses now, before proceeding.

A comprehensive, in-depth exegesis of this section of text would take more pages than I will allot for this purpose - so I will focus on the literal versus metaphorical issues in the text and how it relates to Keating’s unsubstantiated claims.

Verses 25 - 65 find their context, first, in Exodus 16, and then in the preceding verses e.g. 10 - 15, which describe the miraculous feeding of the over 5,000 people with BREAD and fish. I encourage the reader to study Exodus chapter 16 in order to get the complete picture of the literal basis on which the bread or manna topology and symbolism is used by Jesus in this chapter.

In verse 26, Jesus tells the crowd that they were looking for Him, not because they understood the spiritual sign confirming that He was the Messiah, but rather that they received physical satisfaction. In verse 27, Jesus tells the crowd not to work for food that spoils (physical food) but rather, a different type of food that leads to eternal life - a food that Jesus (the Son of Man), will give them. Notice Jesus is already building the metaphor of physical food versus spiritual food. In the latter part of verse 27, Jesus makes a bold claim to His deity by saying God the father has placed a seal of approval on Him, the self proclaimed Son of Man. Cross reference Matt. 4:4 to Jesus' language in verse 27, for additional historical and contextual insight.

Verses 28 & 29 ARE THE TRUE FOCAL POINT, "...THE WHOLE TENOR..." OF THE ENTIRE CHAPTER - in fact, verse 29 is the Gospel in a nut shell. Of course a Roman Catholic could not recognize this since Roman Catholics teach that they must perform good works/deeds in order to earn salvation (Chapter 13 & P254, 3P). It should also be noted THAT EATING IS A WORK/DEED - ANY PHYSICAL ACTION, INCLUDING SPEAKING AND READING, FALL'S UNDER THE DEFINITION OF WORK OR DEED. Verses 10-27 point towards verses 28-29, and verses 30-65 point back. Jesus, in verses 10-28 demonstrates & says that He is the Messiah, the Son of Man. In verses 28&29, he tells the people what must happen in order to please God - that they cannot earn His favor with deeds of the body (Isa. 64:5-6), but only through BELIEVING in His Son. In verses 30 - 65, Jesus elaborates on what it is to believe - He explains to the unbelieving crowd that they must rely on Him alone for eternal life, just as their forefathers relied on the manna in the wilderness for there physical life. That they must become intimate in a believing relationship with Him alone - and he uses the metaphorical language of consuming food to describe the intimacy accompanying true belief in Him. He also draws a parallel of His upcoming sacrifice and the sin offering of the OT (Lev. 4:1-6). Let's take a look.

In verses 30-31, the people challenge Him for a sign, ignoring and quickly forgetting the miracle the day before (Exod. 15:24; 16:2, 27-28 & Luke 16:31). In verse 31, they challenge Him to feed them physical food yet again, quoting Scripture for a fleshly, selfish purpose e.g. full stomachs (verse 26). In verses 32-33, Jesus tries to point them to the heavenly Father and away from Moses, and shows that He (Jesus) supersedes the prophets of old by eluding to Himself as the "true" spiritual bread from heaven. Notice Jesus is strongly making a transition, and focusing upon the bread metaphor - a natural transition from the preceding events and topics. He clearly defines himself, metaphorically, with manna.

Verse 34: The unbelieving hearts just cannot grasp the metaphor - they just will not see Jesus' claim to be the Messiah.

Verse 35: Tiring of their unbelief, Jesus goes further with the bread metaphor and states more clearly and boldly what He has been saying in the previous verses. He clearly is using metaphorical language here, for IF HE WERE TALKING LITERALLY AT THIS POINT, HE WOULD ACTUALLY BE BREAD E.G. GROUND AND BAKED GRAIN ("GATE" & "LIGHT")! Notice particularly, that at this point, He says only that, "He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty". But the people's unbelief continued...

Verse 36: Jesus rebukes their continued unbelief.

Verses 37 - 40: Jesus continues to witness to the world that He is the Son of God, intimately and uniquely related to His Father and that His Father's will is that, "...everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him (Jesus) shall have eternal life...". Notice, Jesus, speaking literally here, stepping out of the metaphor for a moment, does NOT say, "everyone who looks to the Son and eats him shall have eternal life".

Verse 41: The Jew's (unbelievers) elaborate on their unbelief by questioning Jesus' biological origins and rejecting or not understanding or knowing about His virgin birth.

Verse 43: Jesus again rebukes them for rejecting His Words.

Verses 44 - 47: Jesus claims deity, in that He will raise (resurrect) those who believe in Him; by quoting Isaiah 54:13 and thereby claiming to be God who teaches; everyone who listens to the Father (God) comes to Him; and that only He, Jesus, has seen the Father. The climax of these remarkable claims is verse 47 - "...he who believes [what I am now claiming] has eternal life". He is reiterating the foundational salvation verses given earlier e.g. verses 28&29. A clearer proclamation to be the Messiah, and of His Deity, is difficult to find in the NT. Clearly these verses are again literal since they are completely lacking in metaphorical language usage and context - these are direct literal claims by Christ.

Verse 48: Back to the metaphor that He has been using throughout this discourse - a restatement of verse 35.

Verses 49 - 50: Jesus clearly lays out the metaphor e.g. PHYSICAL VERSUS SPIRITUAL!

Verse 51: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven". Notice that He is the living bread - NOT ACTUAL BREAD ITSELF, FOR BREAD DOES NOT LIVE (unless, of course, it is the Roman Catholic Eucharist)! Now Jesus simply takes the next logical step of bringing the metaphor to its full expression as He had already eluded to in verses 27, 35 & 50. It was necessary to continue using the metaphor and bring it to its logical conclusion due to the peoples continued unbelief.

In the last sentence of verse 51, Jesus now ties the bread metaphor to His actual upcoming sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. To paraphrase, Jesus says, "I will give the bread that came down from heaven, me (my body and my physical life) as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of the world so that the world might be saved through me" (Rom. 4:25). "...my flesh..." is the sin sacrifice of his actual bodily death. God's justice had to be satisfied by Jesus' perfect bloody sacrifice on the cross so that the sin's of mankind could be forgiven. So He has elaborated on His metaphor by clearly EQUATING OR MAKING SYNONYMOUS "bread" (metaphorical) with "my flesh" (literal in prediction of his sacrifice on the cross). Again, "bread" is the metaphor representing spiritual reality versus "my flesh" representing physical reality and the upcoming historical fact of His sacrifice on the cross.

Verse 52: The Jews continue to misunderstand the metaphor, and can only see the earthly/fleshly side of Jesus' words (and they received Him not - John 1:11).

Verse 53: Jesus now responds with the full force of the metaphor given the peoples continued unbelief and rejection of Him and His Words. He says, "...unless you eat the flesh (spiritual, v. 51) of the Son of Man and drink his blood, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU." NOW, IF THIS WAS LITERAL AND NOT SPIRITUAL, THE PEOPLE HEARING THIS WOULD BE DEAD, RIGHT? Jesus said that if you did not eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Well, the following verses tell us that Jesus was not actually cannibalized and verse 60 tells us the people who heard this were in fact still alive! Therefore, they did not eat and drink Him, and yet were still physically alive. Therefore, the meaning of His word's were metaphorical pointing to spiritual truth!

Verses 54 - 55: Jesus reiterates and reinforces the spiritual realities stated in verse 53.

Verse 56: This is an excellent verse to see the main point of Jesus' use of this metaphor of eating and drinking - it has something to do with the truth in the contemporary saying of, "you are what you eat". The truth in this saying speaks to the actual physical absorption of the food you choose to eat, into your bloodstream, which will affect your physical health e.g. sets limits on you physical fitness and appearance. It speaks of physical (chemical and physiological) assimilation and Jesus implies that the relationship with Him must be just as close as is clearly seen in Jesus' words, "...remains in me, and I in Him". Unless you truly acknowledge Jesus' Words and deeds, and assimilate them into your mind and heart just as the food you choose to eat becomes part of you, you will fall short of receiving eternal life.

Verses 57 - 58: Jesus ties the metaphor together, and restates its parallel to Exodus chapter 16.

Verses 60: The people, being spiritually blind and missing His entire metaphor designed to tell them He is the Messiah, hear only the physical aspect of Jesus' words and react very negatively, as anyone thinking someone advocating cannibalism would.

Verse 61 - 62: Jesus continues to concentrate and teach the spiritual as He asks if becoming so intimate with Him offends them. In verse 62, He makes it clear His question is regarding the spiritual by rebuking them by essentially saying, "OK, you won't believe in me as the Son of God by repenting of your unbelief and desiring to worship me intimately, and you still don't understand about my upcoming bodily sacrifice on the cross for your sins - fine, how about if you see me ascend into heaven [as He predicts His ascension - Acts 1:9] - WILL YOU THEN BELIEVE?"

Verse 63: HERE JESUS CLEARLY STATES THAT "THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING", THEREBY REBUKING THEIR UNBELIEF AND WILLINGNESS TO SEE ONLY THE LITERAL [FLESH]; BUT THAT "THE WORDS I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT [OR SPIRITUAL] AND ARE LIFE". THIS CLEARLY REBUKES ANY ATTEMPT TO TAKE THE PREVIOUS METAPHORICAL WORDS LITERALLY. Again, to paraphrase, it is as if He is saying, "Let me explain it once again, I have been using metaphorical language that pertains to things of spiritual, not physical, matters - yet you still don't get it e.g. the truth behind the metaphor, and still don't believe!" Unfortunately and ironically, Keating, and Roman Catholics who hold to transubstantiation, could just as easily be a recipient of this same rebuke by Jesus.

Finally, WHAT DOES THIS PASSAGE IN THE 6TH CHAPTER OF JOHN HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAST SUPPER AS RECOUNTED IN THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS? There is no connection at all between the context of this passage, and the symbolic remembrance Christ instituted at the Lord’s Supper as described in Matt., Mark & Luke. The only similarity is a bread metaphor, which Keating wretches out of context to fit Roman Catholic dogma.

Just as a side note of commentary - in light of this Scripture, isn't it amazing what God put up with, and continues to put up with - surely His Grace is amazing!

4P:

"Sometimes fundamentalists say the use..." - Which fundamentalists? Where are the quotes and references to substantiate his derogatory claims? The rest of the paragraph is just slander and attempts to buttress an irrelevant (as he himself states) argument.

Page 248, 1P:

Who is Moffatt? Do you see his translation used in any churches you know of? How about in any "Christian" book stores? Again, Keating states that "Present-day fundamentalists do not rely on his version of the New Testament...", so who cares? Why bring up an irrelevant point other than the desire to unfairly discredit or slander your opponents?

2P:

Interesting, Keating quotes Vatican II on page 246 which clearly says, "...in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries...", and then quotes O'Brien who is more vague, mystical, contradictory and frankly, as Boettner says it, presents "...a jumble of medieval superstition". Let's take a closer look at O'Brien's description.

"The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different:..." OK, the manners are different, but a sacrifice is still offered! "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sense that IT OFFERS ANEW TO GOD THE VICTIM OF CALVARY..."[emphasis mine] OK, so O'Brien says that their is "no real death" in the first sentence, and then says the above e.g. that a sacrifice is perpetuated in that it offers anew the victim of Calvary. Can you reconcile these two statements? A great example of double talk and definition changing to suit your dogma. Unfortunately, he goes on, "...reenacts it symbolically and mystically [what precisely does "mystically" mean here?], and applies the fruit of Christ's death ... to individual human souls". Where is the scriptural support for this stuff? Where in the Bible does the phrase "the fruit of Christ's death" appear? After all, this is a very significant statement, in essence saying that the people who control this sacrificial reenactment are the distributors of the "fruit of Christ's death". Not only where is the Scripture, but where is human reason here? Could it be hiding behind an authoritarian religious system which desperately does not want people to understand what the Word of God clearly and simply teaches?

4P:

I don't know about you, but I'm glad Keith Green "would not have bought such an explanation", since it does not have Scriptural support, defies human reason AND YET LAYS CLAIM TO INVOLVEMENT WITH ONE'S SALVATION e.g. "...applies the fruits of Christ's death..."! This is literally un-scriptural non-sense - contrast Romans 10:9-10.

Page 249, 1&2P:

I see nothing wrong, Scripturally, with Green's quote - it is Scripturally accurate. And we have clearly seen that Roman Catholic's claim that a sacrifice continues, yet they change their language in defining just what is meant by "sacrifice". That's what happens when men create anti-scriptural dogma to defend their false religion. Remember, one cannot logically have the same event in time be both a "sacrifice" and a "memorial". There is no third logical alternative.

3P:

Green's quote again is good, with the exception of his reference to Heb. 6:6. However, I do notice that Keating does not include Heb. 6:6 within the quotation marks. I do not have Green's tract to verify this claim, but let's for the moment assume it is accurate. Then Keating is right in that Green takes Heb. 6:6 out of context, and this would be very unfortunate. Notice, however, two very important ancillary facts. First, that Keating cleverly [deceptively?] focuses only on Heb. 6:6, and does not even come close to dealing with the other Scripture referenced. Second, that Keating's interpretation of the first section of Hebrews chapter 6 is wrong!

"...the chapter deals with those who fall away from the Faith after baptism." Wrong! Read Hebrews 6:1-8. Paul says in verse 1, "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from DEAD WORKS and faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment."[emphasis mine] Paul is talking about those who leave the elementary teachings of the New Testament, and Paul lists several elementary teachings of which baptisms is only one. In terms of baptisms, plural, "The distinction between various baptisms is a necessary part of basic Christian doctrine (e.g., the baptism of Jewish proselytes, baptism by John the Baptizer, Christian baptism).⁵ Yes their is only one baptism established by Christ (Matt. 28:18-20 & Acts 2:38 - adults after repentance for only adults can repent) but that is not the issue in this passage - the issue is simply leaving the faith e.g. basic Christian doctrine. What is Keating talking about with his strange musings about second baptisms?

4P:

After identifying one incorrect reference (assuming it is an accurate quote of Green's tract), Keating proceeds to give an incorrect interpretation of Scripture (Heb. 6:1-6) and then states, "This verse simply does not say what Green thought it did. Nor do the others", in regard to the other references of Hebrews. Not a very substantiated, scholarly or even reasonable statement. He simply doesn't even deal with the other references at all. He simple plows forward, referring to...

Page 250, 1P:

...what Roman Catholics almost always refer to for authority, the "Church", saying, "The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again - his death is indeed once for all - but that does not contradict the doctrine of the Mass". Where is the quote from the Counsel of Trent or Vatican I or II to substantiate this claim that the Church says, "his death is indeed once for all"? That is a strong statement, why not quote the Church's writings to substantiate it? We'll the reason is that the Church does not state that, but rather states the opposite, as we have already amply verified ("...perpetuate[s] the sacrifice of the Cross..." & "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sense that IT OFFERS ANEW TO GOD THE VICTIM OF CALVARY..." & the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist). Remember the correct definition of sacrifice? Using the Biblical and commonly agreed upon definition of "sacrifice", and in light of the specific method of Christ's sacrifice, I'll let the reader make sense out of Keating's last sentence e.g. "A re-presenting of the original sacrifice does not necessitate a new Crucifixion". So again, Keating specializes in double-speak, definition changing and deception. He uses the Roman Catholic definition of sacrifice, which only the roman clergy understand, since it is unintelligible to the rational mind and varies upon the Roman Clergy’s whim.

Page 251, 1P:

Boettner's quote is accurate, Scripturally based and intelligible. 1 Cor. 11:27 simply means that whoever partakes in the Lord's supper - the solemn remembrance of what Christ did for us by dying on the cross and shedding His blood - in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of grave disrespect and disregard of Christ and His sacrifice for us - and will thereby bring shame and judgment upon himself by merely going through the motions for ritual's sake (Mark 7:6-7).

Keating attempts, unsuccessfully, to make something out of Boettner's leaving out a portion of the verse. He relies on his literal interpretation (which I have shown to be incorrect) that the Eucharist is actually Christ, because "...one can hardly revile baked flour or fermented grape juice". He goes on to say, "...the bread and wine become Christ himself" (their un-biblical and mysterious doctrine of transubstantiation), but of course when they "offer him anew to God" in the "perpetual sacrifice" of the Mass, they are not actually killing him, just perpetually sacrificing Him. Please explain that again? A rational interpretation is that by treating the solemn remembrance of Christ's sacrifice in an unworthy manner, one reviles the living, heaven dwelling Son of God and not the symbols of his sacrifice.

2P:

Let's go through this again, Keating just gets finished telling us that "...the bread and wine become Christ himself" (their un-biblical doctrine of transubstantiation and the Eucharist), and after the "priest" turns the bread and wine into "Christ himself" and gives Him to be eaten to the members of the Church, this is not a form of cannibalism? Cannibalism does seem like a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Could this be another case of double-speak? He completely avoids dealing with this truth, and instead turns to an unsubstantiated historical argument. I would have to review Stravinskas work, and the accuracy of Keating's presumptions about Tertullian & Minucius Felix, "give[ing] considerable attention to their second century writings to the charge of cannibalism..."; at this juncture, I'm skeptical. Again, where are the direct quotes of Tertullian & Minucius Felix? Assuming the accuracy of Keating's observations in this matter (a generous assumption) could it be that pagan cultures misunderstood the REMEMBRANCE of the Lord's Supper rather than Roman Catholic's literal view? As a believer, how much weight would you place on pagan observations of the true Church's activities and ordinances (1 Cor. 2:12)?

3P & Page 252, 1P:

Read Rumble and Carty's interpretation in light of the interpretation given earlier in this work. Rumble and Carty give a good example of how NOT to interpret Scripture. I'll let the reader compare.

2P:

Keating does not like the rational truth presented in the poem.

3P:

Keating's tenor is less than charitable. There is no Scriptural or rational explanation of transubstantiation - this doctrine eludes rational thought and yet claims to be the key to experiencing salvation. Keating then attempts to justify this strange and irrational doctrine.

Page 253, 1P:

...priest was quite right, of course..." It appears that only the Roman Catholic clergy understands the doctrine of transubstantiation. Serious scientific and philosophical problems exist with the doctrine. What types of bread can be transubstantiated? What if there are water molecules fused to the bread molecules -do they get transubstantiated? What about the microbes on the bread? Keating then attempts to justify transubstantiation and turns to the Old Testament to do so.

2P:

Gen. 14:18 says, "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed by God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." The text says Melchizedek brought out bread and wine (bread was primary food - wine was the only generally available formal drink besides water); it seems likely that he was being a gracious host. It seems reasonable to assume that the king of Sodom and his troops were hungry and thirsty after war.

Let's take a closer look at verse 18:

a) Melchizedek brings water and wine; b) He was a priest of God Most High; c) He blessed Abram.

Keating claims, "Melchizedek...offered sacrifice under the form of bread and wine". Isn't that reading a bit much into the text? Where is the word "sacrifice" mentioned or even eluded to in this text? Don't you think if the Holy Spirit would have wanted the word sacrifice recorded in this passage, He would have done so? The concept of sacrifice was already introduced a long time ago by God through Able (Gen. 4:5). Anything beyond what the text says (In this case the text is clearly literal history) is excessive topology invented to substantiate Roman Catholic notions.

Psalm 110: No "fundamentalist" I know denies Christ is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6 & 7:17) as is foretold in Psalm 110:4, but Keating implies that Christ is seen, "...offering a sacrifice in bread and wine", in this passage. Where is this in the text? Keating closes this paragraph with bringing reproach upon Christ and His "once and for all" sacrifice, by saying, "We then, must look to some sacrifice other than Calvary, since it was not under the form of bread and wine". This is a blasphemous statement that clearly states that Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary was insufficient, and that the Roman Catholic ritualistic Mass can complete the insufficient sacrifice of Christ at Calvary; "The Mass fits the bill" says Keating. Hebrews 7:27, "...who (speaking of Jesus) does not need daily, LIKE THOSE HIGH PRIESTS, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did ONCE FOR ALL WHEN HE OFFERED UP HIMSELF." [parenthesis & emphasis mine] Does the honest reader not see a contradiction here? Does the honest reader not see how this statement by Keating of the insufficiency of Christ's "once for all sacrifice" dishonors the Lord? By saying Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient clearly contradicts with Scripture and clearly fits with the Roman Catholic belief that a real sacrifice is actually taking place during the Mass, which contradicts their double-speak denials up to this point.

The fact is that Christ abolished a separate class of people called priests (Heb. 10:10-14) and has made all true believers "priests" (1 Pet. 2:5-9). These Scripture that state this fact throw a bit of a monkey wrench in Roman Catholicism’s priestly authoritative power structure. If we are all priests, like the inspired words of Peter claim, then why do we need these guys in all the pompous garb and regalia mumbling mysterious things at their alter so that they can give God's grace to us?

3P:

Zacchello is grasping for straws? "The conjunction 'and' in Greek often has the force of 'for', so here 'and he was a priest' means the same as 'for he was a priest'". The "...often..." does not make a closed and shut case. It appears that Mr. Keating believes the OT was originally written in Greek and not Hebrew. Let's give Keating the benefit of the doubt and assume the Roman Catholics are still using the Latin Vulgate, which is a Latin translation of the Old and New Testaments. However, if they are using the Vulgate, it certainly does not speak well of Roman Catholic "scholarship" since we have excellent Hebrew manuscripts to work with. Why would anyone who claims to be a scholar use secondary translations when you have the original language manuscripts available?

The transliterated Hebrew word for the conjunction in question is "hayah" which usually means "and". I urge the reader to do a word study in Genesis on "hayah" to substantiate this. The following broadly excepted Protestant translations state the verse in the following manner: RSV - "...wine; he was..."; KJV - "...wine: and he was..."; ASV - "...wine. And he was..."; NKJ - "...wine; he was..."; NAS - "...wine; now he was...". The other popularly available Roman Catholic bible translations state the verse this way: NJB - "...wine; he was..." & NAB - "...wine, and being a priest..." HOW COME KEATING DOESN'T DIRECTLY QUOTE THE VERSE FROM HIS ALLEGED TRANSLATION, IN WHICH HE CLAIMS THE WORD "FOR" IS USED INSTEAD OF "AND"? Could this be bald faced deception?

Keating goes on to say, "What is more, 'according to the order of Melchizedek' means 'in the manner of Melchizedek' ('order' not referring, of course, to the modern notion of a religious order, there being no such thing in Old Testament days)." First, Keating uses a portion of the NEW TESTAMENT, Hebrews 5:6,10, WITHOUT QUOTING IT AND THEN STATES THAT THE OLD TESTAMENT (REFERRING TO THE NEW TESTAMENT QUOTE!) HAD "NO SUCH THING..." AS "...THE MODERN NOTION OF A RELIGIOUS ORDER..." Keating is apparently confused between the New Testament and the Old Testament and this could account for his aversion to quoting scripture. However, the reader must consider that deliberate deception would also account for the absence of Scripture quotes. After all, the publisher, on the back cover of the book says, "special emphasis is given to the scriptural basis for Catholic doctrines and beliefs".

Second, the Greek word for "...order..." in Heb. 5:6,10 is transliterated "taxis" from which we get the word taxonomy, which of course is the system of the classification of plants and animals. Strong's NT Greek Dictionary states the definition of "taxis" as "a fixed succession of rank or character; official dignity".⁶ Given the Greek word used, Keating's "manner" argument is completely without merit. Keating's misusing Scripture, I would suggest, further detracts from what might be left of his argument.

"... so the bread and wine must have been what Melchizedek sacrificed". Now here is a true example of, as Keating alleges of fundamentalists, "grasping at straws". Since Melchizedek was a priest, he no doubt did sacrifice something at some time, to God (Lev. 4:27-31) - BUT THE TEXT IN QUESTION DOES NOT SAY "SACRIFICE" OR EVEN SUGGEST A SACRIFICE! The Hebrew word for sacrifice is transliterated as "zebach" and means, "...a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice".⁷ In the OT, it is always used in the context of the killing of an animal as an offering to God. Now there are other "offerings" that are bloodless, and the Hebrew word used to describe offerings in general is transliterated as "minchah" and is defined as "...to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary)".⁸ Notice Keating says that "...Melchizedek sacrificed" bread and wine. How does one sacrifice something that is not alive? Keating is confused between an offering to God and a sacrifice as an offering to God. In the OT, an animal sacrifice was always an offering to God (or pagan gods), but an offering was not always an animal sacrifice to God (Lev. 1:5 & 2:1). Poor insight into the difference between a sacrifice and an offering by a Roman Catholic who should know a great deal about religious sacrifices since their entire church is built upon the mass which "...perpetuate[s] the sacrifice of the Cross...".

Page 254, 1P:

In terms of Keating scoffing at the idea that Melchizedek was being a gracious host by offering food and drink, read Deut. 23:4 and Gen. 24:33. Offering food and drink to guests is the most common courtesy found in almost every culture, past and present.

2P:

Which "fundamentalist" is Mr. Keating referring to? Why no references to this serious charge? Again, an unsubstantiated claim not supported by a reference or quote. Even if he does dredge some statements up, who cares? The question is, WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY? Does the reader see a clear parallel of Genesis 14:18 with Christ's Words or actions at the Last Supper (don't forget context)? Correct, Mr. Keating, "Clearly, he (Jesus) was not talking about a one-time thing", He was referring to remembering His upcoming sacrifice at Calvary, NOT REMEMBERING THE SYMBOLISM OF THE LAST SUPPER! Hopefully Mr. Keating can accede that "remembering" can occur more than once.

3P:

Now we get to the crux of the matter, SALVATION, and we will see just how warped and heretical Roman Catholic's view of salvation is. First, which "fundamentalist" claims that "...all people were saved in that one momentous occasion."? Please show me a quote for this most critical allegation - NONE. I personally know of no universalist (the anti-scriptural notion that everyone is going to heaven) conservative evangelicals, prominent (writers, preachers) or otherwise. It is impossible to hold to the inerrancy, inspiration and infallibility (a hallmark of "fundamentalists") of Scripture and to also claim that "...all people were saved..." by Christ's sacrifice (see John 3:18 & Matt. 25:46).

The Bible teaches that Christ paid the penalty of our sins by His "once for all" atoning sacrifice for our sin (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:12, 28) and He now offer's salvation (eternal life) as a free gift (Rom. 6:23 & Rev. 22:17) to all who will repent from their sin (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38) and receive salvation by believing by faith (Rom. 10:9-10; John 6:29) in Christ as Savior and Lord and doing the works that Jesus commands (James 2:24) - not un-Scriptural religious rituals. This is biblical salvation - repent, believe and obey Jesus! Beautifully simple isn't it? A perfectly loving God would have it no other way. No priestly experts needed to administer a complicated system of religious rituals/sacraments.

Now let's take a look at Roman Catholic's salvation. First, again notice the complete lack of scripture reference or quoting even in dealing with so important an issue as salvation! The reader must ask himself why this is so. Keating quotes the gospel of Stravinskas regarding why the "Church" continues to offer the sacrifice of the Mass (here it is again in plain English), "Because the salvation promised AND EARNED is conditional;". Salvation always was promised by God, and it is conditional upon faith which exists after repentance and belief (changes in the heart), BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN INITIALLY RECEIVED BY MAN'S "GOOD WORKS" (Isa. 64:5-6; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:20-22; Titus 3:5; Matt. 19:26; John 6:29; et al). HERE KEATING CLEARLY STATES THAT SALVATION IS ENTERED INTO BY RELIGIOUS RITUALS. And how do we earn our salvation? "because it (salvation) is CONTINGENT UPON our acceptance of Jesus, our desire to be saved, AND OUR LIVING OF A LIFESTYLE WHICH DEMONSTRATES an understanding of what life in Christ means."[emphasis added]

Let's break apart what the Roman Catholics say we must do to earn our salvation e.g. is "contingent upon"...
a) "...acceptance of Jesus" - The Bible says "repentance" and "belief" as referenced above. What precisely does "acceptance" mean? Shouldn't we use the word's God uses in His Word in this most important area of understanding salvation?
b) "...our desire to be saved" - This could describe the "feeling" of repentance, but repentance is much more than emotions - it includes a willful turning away from sin (Luke 13:3; 2 Pet. 3:9). Again, shouldn't we use the Biblical term, "repentance" in this most important area of salvation?
c) "...our LIVING OF A LIFESTYLE which demonstrates an understanding of what life in Christ means." So, Mr. Keating, when will I be saved? I guess after I prove to God I'm good enough in my living. But Romans 10:9-10 says, "...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Where is earning salvation found in this concise statement of how one receives salvation? The Bible records that Jesus said to the thief on the cross next to Him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." How much good living did this thief do?
Keating again proves that mixing some vague truth a) & b) with an utter lie c) goes a long way in leading people astray - especially since the lie panders perfectly to the sinful, unbelieving and prideful human heart.

"Our remembrance and ritual re-enactment of the event make it happen again - for us." Again, some real sacrifice is happening with the actual "Presence of Christ" in the form of the bread. NO - "...once for all...".

4P:

Another distorted interpretation of God's Word. Read Malachi 1:10-11 and the surrounding verses to get the context. Keating says, "...after foretelling the rejection of the Jewish priesthood...". Do you see that clearly put forth in this particular text? I see God scolding the Jewish priests for bringing defective animals to be sacrifices (Lev. 22:20-25 & Deut. 15:21). Those offerings disobeyed the Word of God and thereby showed disrespect and contempt to the Lord Almighty. Keating goes on, "...Malachi predicted a new sacrifice would be offered in every place". The text from the roman version says, "...in every place there is a sacrifice...", but a clearer rendering of the middle portion of verse 11 in the NASB says, "...and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name...". Keating states, "Note that he speaks of one sacrifice, not many sacrifices, but one that is offered everywhere." WHERE DOES HE GET THAT? Even using the Roman Catholic translation, and looking at English grammar, the subject of the phrase, "sacrifice", is directly tied to the noun "place", which is modified by the adjective "every". Therefore, if we reverse the position of the subject and the noun for further clarification, it reads, that there will be a sacrifice in every place. There is no legitimate grammatical reason to state that there is one sacrifice offered in many places - this distinction simply does not exist.

The Hebrew word for what Keating is claiming translates, "sacrifice" in verse 11 is transliterated "qatar", which the NASB more accurately translates, "incense". According to Strong's this word "qatar" means, "to smoke, i.e. to turn into fragrance by fire...".⁹ Incense was used as an offering to God, but why use "sacrifice" instead of the more accurate "incense"? As you examine the point Keating is trying to invent, you see that "incense" would not fit into Roman Catholic Mass dogma.

Verse 11 of Malachi uses topological language to foretell the extent to which the Lord will be honored some day. Of course we know that there will not be any more sacrifices because Heb. 7, 9 & 10 as quoted previously tells us so, and God's Word does not contradict itself. For relevant examples of the broader metaphorical New Testament usage of "sacrifice" relating to the Old Testament types, see Rev. 5:8 & 8:3; Heb. 13:15-16; Rom. 12:1.

Keating goes on, based on his reasoning (which was shown to have a weak Scriptural foundation and to be false in its grammatical interpretation) to say, "The sacrifice of Calvary took place in one place only. We must look for A SACRIFICE APART FROM CALVARY, one that is given under the form of bread and wine". Is it not clear to the reader that Keating (and Roman Catholics) obviously states that Christ's one sacrifice was inadequate? That His "Real Presence" must be "offered anew" to "perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross" since Christ did not do an adequate job in the first place. Let me ask the reader, does this glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and does it correspond with Scripture? Hebrews 10:10-12&14, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL. And every priest (Jewish & NOW ROMAN CATHOLIC!) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins; but He, HAVING OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR ALL TIME, sat down at the right hand of God...For by ONE OFFERING He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." [parentheses & emphasis mine] The answer is a clear and vehement NO!

5P & Page 255, 1P:

In reference to pope innocent III, Keating says, "He merely insisted on a doctrine...He formalized...". Where are the references and quotes to substantiate these claims? I hope it is becoming obvious to the reader that Mr. Keating merely is resting on his perceived "authority" and worldly "credentials" among the faithful Roman Catholics, and has no claim to objective scholarship in this book. At this point, does the reader feel comfortable with Keating's quotes in this paragraph? Do you think that it is possible that Keating is quoting out of context (especially since he rarely provides the actual word's he bases his reference on) or misinterpreting what he is reading? His one quote where he provides the actual words of the reference he cites, has three points of interest. First, the correct New Testament term referring to church leadership "episcopate" is used, NOT PRIEST. Second, what does the word, "its" refer to? Keating left out the subject to which it refers. Why? It appears that Keating hopes the reader will substitute the word "Mass" which is in his previous reference and is not an actual quote from the reference but rather Keating's word!

Third, Clement's quote and the use of the word, "Sacrifices", could easily be interpreted correctly since the word sacrifice has a fuller meaning in the New Testament (Rev. 5:8 & 8:3; Heb. 13:15-16; Rom. 12:1). The term "Mass" does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. The whole paragraph says nothing of Scriptural value, but merely tries to lean on man's (Roman Catholic's in this case) tradition as being theologically significant (Mark 7:6-13).

2P:

Keating goes back to the same technique of distorting definitions. "Fundamentalists" do not claim that Christ is actually being killed again, and in fact know that He isn't - it is Roman Catholics who say He is since they "sacrifice" His "Real Presence" yet in the same breath deny it by distorting definitions! Nothing new here, the same stuff. Consider this, that Christ's physical dying had tremendous spiritual implications and that His physical dying and the spiritual realities that followed are related but not identical e.g. He physically died (Mark 15:37) AND His death atoned for the worlds sin's and made redemption available to all mankind (Rom. 3:24; John 3:16). Christ died (physically) and through His death (ONCE FOR ALL SACRIFICE) he made salvation available to all mankind (spiritual ramifications of His physical action). A good analogy is to think of a stone thrown into a pond. The physical stone breaks the surface of the water AND creates the effect of ripples concentrically moving away from the point where the stone entered the water. Analogous to this, Keating would refuse to deal with the ripples, and insist on acknowledging only the stone's entry when acknowledging the ripple would destroy his argument.

Notice, however, that Keating attempts to define sacrifice (in this instance) in only the physical terms e.g. "...what Catholics call a sacrifice seems in fact to have no relation to biblical sacrifices since it does not look the same; after all, no splotches of blood are to be found on Catholic alters." So Keating defines "sacrifice" in this instance only in terms of its physical nature, while earlier in the chapter he quotes O'Brien who says, "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the Cross in the sense it offers anew to God the Victim of Calvary and...AND APPLIES THE FRUIT'S OF CHRIST'S DEATH...to individual human souls". Which aspect (physical versus spiritual) will he claim next time to defend his Roman Catholic dogma? Now either Keating cannot make this distinction, or he will not make it where it defeats his position. Keating claims that fundamentalists are attacking the actual physical aspects of offering a sacrifice, "...after all, no splotches of blood are to be found on Catholic altars." - Well, who says there is? Apparently only Keating's imaginary "Bible Christians". Here, as he has previously, Keating creates a classic "Straw man".

Page 256, 1P:

Boettner's quote is fine, their is nothing wrong with it because he is referring to the spiritual elements and the fact that the New Testament says that without blood there is no remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). All Boettner is doing is trying to get Roman Catholic's to see that "...appl[ying] the fruit's of Christ's death..." with a bloodless sacrifice is Scripturally impossible. Why? Because God's Grace was released only through the bloody sacrifice of His Son centuries ago! (Rom. 3:25) Therefore, to claim to have the authority to dispense God's Grace (which is exactly what the Roman Catholic's claim in their doctrines of the Mass/Eucharist [Sacramentalism] as documented previously) directly contradicts Scripture (John 1:17; Acts 4:12) as well as brings reproach upon Christ since it directly implies that His sacrifice was insufficient.

2P:

Hebrews 9:28 says, "...so Christ also, having been OFFERED ONCE to bear the sins of many..." [emphasis mine] What is unclear about this verse? Keating's interpretation again leaves much to be desired and starts by stating that, "Boettner misreads' chapter 9 of Hebrews...". What specifically does Boettner misread? Why no specific refutation using Scripture or reason? Keating then boldly (blindly?) quotes Heb. 9:23-25 which contradict his position!. It's interesting that Keating didn't quote verse 12 ("...once for all..."), verse 22 ("...and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.") verse 26 ("...now ONCE at the consummation of the ages...") and verse 28 ("...having been offered once..."). He treads gingerly around truth that contradicts his position.

Keating's last sentence in this paragraph says, "Under the Christian dispensation, blood (Christ's) is shed once, but it is continually offered to the father."[bold mine] Where does Scripture say "Christ's blood... is continually offered to the Father? The text in the NASB in verse 23 says, "...but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." Could it be that Keating is again unable (unwilling?) to differentiate between the physical ("...blood [Christ's] is shed only once...") and the spiritual implications of the physical act? What is perfectly clear by other Scripture (Heb. et al) is that Christ's sacrifice, His consummation of the new covenant, was offered once for all, and He now makes salvation available to all who repent and believe. Therefore, this one verse must be referring to the word "sacrifices" in the same sense the word is used in Roman's 12:1, "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." The same Greek word for sacrifice, transliterated thusia, is used in both Heb. 9:23 and Romans 12:1. In both places, thusia (which means sacrifice e.g. the act or the object) is used metaphorically. The writer of Hebrews clearly contrasts earthly or physical things with heavenly things in this verse. Again, Keating's inability (perhaps) to discern between physical and spiritual lead him into another interpretive trap - of course not relying on sound interpretation by interpreting Scripture with Scripture, doesn't help him either.

3P:

Please read Heb. 13:8 in CONTEXT. The context is assuring believers who are struggling with sanctification, that God is Great and He will never let them down. The verse speaks of God's eternal NATURE, that He will never change, and as such, we will always have the same loving God to turn to for help. I ask the reader, what has this to do with sacrifices or the Mass? Keating yanks the verse out of context and incorrectly attempt to use it to justify Roman Catholic doctrine. Keating then attempts to apply 1 Cor. 11:26, but makes no attempt to deal with the fact that the word "...heralding" means what it says! In Keating's mind, I guess "heralding" is synonymous with "continually offered to the Father"! (please look up "heralding" in a dictionary) I'll ask again, how does "heralding" equate with a mystical re-sacrifice of Christ's actual body (roman doctrine of the Eucharist and the Mass)? "What Jesus did in the past..." - irrational gobbledygook versus a clear and rational remembrance.

Page 257, 1P:

"...dead past." is the author's own choice of derogatory terms, since he AGAIN doesn't reference or quote anyone.

"...priests conducting a sacrifice today and conclude that today's sacrifice must be distinct from Calvary's." Does that seem like an irrational conclusion to the reader given all that we have seen? Back to the same old reliance on distorting definitions and selective use. "Christ cannot be killed again", yet He is "sacrificed" and "consumed" ("Real Presence", actual body and blood [transubstantiation]).

2P:

No, Mr. Keating, we just don't want to be irrational roman mysticists who check our mind in at the door when analyzing truth claims that have eternal ramifications (Mark 12:30; Isa. 1:18). Perhaps we just have the "problem" of relying primarily on Scripture as the foundation for our reasoning. Question from a dumb fundamentalist - why does Keating always say that the "sacrifice" is "perpetual"? Why is not Christ's resurrection "perpetual"? (Sadly, Roman Catholic's do leave Christ dead on the cross) Why not any other event in His life, or any event in time for that matter? Well, if every event (or any individual event) in time is "perpetual", then I guess we're back where we started e.g. using rational thought to interpret events in time (Mark 12:30), since that is where God has us and our minds are not God's. Perhaps Mr. Keating claims to understand the concept of existing in eternity outside of time, in which case he would claim to have the mind of God.

At this point, I think it would be a good idea to quote Keating on the matter of "fair play" in arguing one's points. "...but we do insist on fair play. We do not want one participant to misrepresent what the other thinks or to make points by using cheap shots. Ridicule, misrepresentation, taking quotations out of context, bending the truth, leaving out important facts - these violate the rules of the game (of arguing). We feel cheated if one side tries to gain an unfair advantage. If all this is true when the participants meet face to face before an audience, it is even truer when the argument is conducted in writing, when all we have is one side's version tucked between the covers of a book. Nowhere, perhaps, are these rules of fair play violated with greater regularity than in the writings of fundamentalists who attack the Catholic religion."(Page 27, 1P) After reading this document, the paragraph which we're in now, and statements like the ones on page 252, 3P, I hope the reader sees this statement by Mr. Keating for what it is - sickening hypocrisy.

My view on debating doctrine is that I certainly grant Mr. Keating's right to present his opinions, and would fight for him to keep his freedom to present his views. I also don't know Mr. Keating personally, so my response is not an attack on his person per se (except in response to, and in order to correct, his own false and hurtful stereotypes as put forth in this paragraph and elsewhere), but rather an attack on his anti-scriptural views and opinions. My purpose is to defend what I believe to be "truth". I will also defend my brethren's Scripturally correct views as they attempt to honestly defend the True Gospel and truthfully show the Roman Catholic "religion" for what it is. This book by Mr. Keating clearly contains false viewpoints, as has been amply documented, and his bitter tone is most clearly summed up by phrases like, "falsely pious; pretentious, unmerited arrogance; and defensive frustration".

3P:

Keating uses an illustration that is irrational and one which I (or, I imagine, his presumptuous "They...") do not agree with. He presents three DIFFERENT, SEPARATE SACRIFICES occurring at "...about the same time". How could three priests and presumably three animals being sacrificed in three non-identical places be considered "a single sacrifice"? In what sense? At this point I don't feel any comment is necessary for this paragraph which concludes on the top of page 258, except to say that Keating patronizes even his own, obviously lesser enlightened, Catholic friends who simply find it hard to grasp irrational, contradictory truth claims. Force contradictory facts and illogical dogma on people, and they will "have problem[s]...in getting a right appreciation..." of anything!

Page 258, final paragraphs:

Keating closes in the only place one has left to hide when Scripture and logic contradict one's beliefs e.g. in the dark caves of mysticism, illogic and authoritarianism where only the "enlightened" "priesthood" of the roman "Church" can understand, explain and administer the "...fruits of Christ's death upon the Cross...". If nothing else is evident in reading Keating's apologetic, it should be obvious that he and the Roman Catholic system he tries to defend, is desperately trying to maintain CONTROL OVER "lay Catholic's". Why? Because, "...in many fundamentalist congregations a third, a half, or even a majority of the members once gave allegiance to Rome" [fortunately, true believers give allegiance to Christ and Christ alone, not "Protestantism" or ROMANISM]. (Page 14, 1P!) Praise the Lord! Jesus says, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32) God's Truth as put forth in His Word does have a way of persevering (Matt. 24:35), even amidst sinful humanity who craves man-made religious systems that attempt to excuse away the guilt of sin before an all Holy God through self-righteous works (Isa. 64:6)! The Truth of the Gospel will continue to win lost people out of the false religion of Roman Catholicism and to Him be the Glory. Amen.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND EXHORTATION:

I don't know about you, but I'm sure glad God is PERFECTLY LOVING AND JUST and thereby makes His salvation easily understood, and thereby available, to all people that desire to seek Him - REPENT (Luke 13:3) and BELIEVE (Romans 10:9-10). No lifetime of keeping sacraments in the hopes that your efforts will pay off in the end, but rather, a clear and easily understood choice which can be made at any moment in time e.g. repent and believe (Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10) AND YOU SHALL BE SAVED (1 John 5:13)! GOD DOES NOT HIDE SALVATION FROM MANKIND IN A MYSTERIOUS RITUAL BASED ON THE TRADITION OF MEN! (Mark 7:5-9, 13)

The purpose of this critique is twofold. First, to show the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass for what it is e.g. a Christ dishonoring, anti-Scriptural, and thereby heretical religious ritual (Gal. 1:6-9). Any true believer who participates in the Mass participates in a Christ dishonoring, anti-Scriptural, and thereby heretical and idolatrous pagan religious ritual which happens to have an anti-Scriptural "Christ" as one of its objects. Any true believer who passively observes others participating in the Mass and does not warn them, must take heed of Ezek. 3:18 and James 4:17. Essentially the Mass is the key element in a false, allegedly "Christian" religious system, whose actual, unstated purpose is to hold people captive to the system by claiming that salvation is partly found through this church controlled, mysterious ritual.

My second purpose is to show Mr. Keating's apologetic for what it is - a poor attempt at thinking, sound scholarship, honoring the Scripture, and glorifying Christ. I would hope that one would seriously consider whether they would want to subject themselves to the deceptive, misleading and false teachings of Karl Keating as have been documented in this work.

If you call yourself a Roman Catholic, I'll leave you with a biblical command of God in regard to the roman church - "Come out of her, my people, that you may not participate in her sins and that you may not receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." (Rev. 18:4-5)

May you be set free from a burdensome, works laden false religion to enjoy a true relationship with the Lord of Glory, the Living Savior Jesus Christ!

Footnotes:
^{1 All Scripture quoted in this critique, unless otherwise noted, will be taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
2 Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" (Ignatius, 1988), Page 248, 3rd paragraph (all page and paragraph references after this point will be in the body of the critique proper).
3 The American Heritage Dictionary, The Second College Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 1985.
4Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids Michigan 49516, 1990), 16.
5 Charles Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New International Version (Moody Press. 1986), Notes on Heb. 6:2.
6 Strong's Greek New Testament Words. 1993. Ellis Enterprises Inc.
7 Strong's Hebrew Old Testament Words. 1993. Ellis Enterprises Inc.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.}

The Bible and Apologetics

2011-07-03T18:49:00.001-04:00

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/jesusgd2.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha8.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm

http://answer-islam.org/Answering-Osamarebuttal.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/spirit1_r1.htm

http://answering-islam.org/God/echad.html

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_02.asp

http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes

____________

From http://web.archive.org/web/20090529151526/http://christkeep.com/articles/eucharist_exposed.html

Catholic Eucharist is Unbiblical
(www.catholic.com refuted)

“Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.” – Isaiah 44:15

Notice how Isaiah mimics the terminology of the Eucharist? Roman Catholics bake bread [eucharist] make it into a god, WORSHIP it, and even bow to it.

“Yet how he can contract a solid body within so little room, I think it is directly contrary to itself, for to be made so little, and yet not diminished: To be so straightly drawn together, and yet feel no pain; I think it is so contrary to the quality of a natural body, and so like to the little transubstantiate god in the Papists’ Mass, that I can never believe it.” – King James, Daemonologie

“John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Bible Modification Warning: The disciples said: “evermore give us this bread,” NOT “Give us this bread ALWAYS,” (they wanted to have the bread at that instant, and, wanted to have a constant supply) Christ didn’t give them any physical bread when they asked; Christ didn’t HAVE any bread at the time when he said these things in Capernaum.

Paul threw the bread into the sea after giving thanks

“And when he (Paul) had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat. Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat. And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls. And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea.” – Acts 27:35-38

They casted out the bread into the sea! Can you imagine how “blasphemous” that would be to Catholics if they did that to Eucharist wafers? (Of course they are just pieces of bread, nothing special).

They weren’t eating the bread for “salvation,” they were eating it for actual food! We are finite and are dependent on these “barriers.”

If the Catholic Church is based on “Apostolic succession” – then Paul would have had the ability to magically turn bread into Christ; it was just plain normal bread! The apostles couldn’t change a piece of bread into a rock if their life depended on it – let alone turning bread into an almighty, omnipotent and divine creator of the universe.

Note: they didn’t just eat bread, but also meat! This goes against the Catholic mass (you wouldn’t tell a priest after receiving the Eucharist: “can I have some meat with that?”).

“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” – Acts 2:42

“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,” – Acts 2:46

They broke bread loaves as a symbol (and for physical food, not for religious reasons). It was a sign of fellowship, a sign that Christ has died on the cross for our free salvation. And when they ate their bread – they were GLAD and rejoicing, you were lucky to get meals of bread in Jesus’ day, food was hard to come by.

Note: here we see them ALSO eating meat with their bread yet again. The Greek word for “meat” is “trophe,” and it appears in both Acts 27:36 and Acts 2:46. It’s also worthy to state that neither the Apostles nor the disciples stated that the “bread” was Christ, they just called it normal old bread – even throwing it into seas.

Meat that “perisheth”

Jesus wasn’t trying to “top” anything, he states that the people did seek him for the physical loaves, but Christ came to give them eternal life (which is obviously spiritual): “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.” – John 6:26-27

Christ was talking about the foreshadow of his death; the Father had sealed Christ’s appointed death, and thus he would give them eternal life by their faith (believers were also saved by faith in the Old Testament as well, but Christ was the one who removed the “curse of the law” where no physical sacrifices are required – which is proof enough that salvation is only spiritual: Old Testament sins were “queued” for Christ’s upcoming death).

We read that CHRIST HIMSELF will give us meat that endures for life eternal – thus signifying it is a gift we are to receive from faith. How can the Eucharist be physical if Christ talked about meat that didn’t perish? Eucharist wafers will perish; everything does on this earth except God’s word. Christ even told his disciples to “labour not” for meat that perishes! Can it be more obvious? Only the meat which Christ gives us (salvation) will endure for eternity.

God’s Word does not perish

The only thing that does not perish is God’s Word:

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” – Isaiah 40:8

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” – Matthew 24:35

God IS his Word:

“And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” – Revelation 19:13

Since God is his Word, and his Word does not perish – how could Christ be referring to a physical wafer that DOES perish? He couldn’t have been, for he was referring to himself – God does not perish and lives forever.

Christ never gave them any bread!

“Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” – John 6:34-35

When the disciples asked Christ “give us this bread;” he never handed them any Eucharist wafers, he said I AM the bread (referring to Exodus 3:14, God’s statement: “I AM who I AM”), and whoever BELIEVES on him shall “never thirst or hunger” (same as in John 4:13-14/4:31-34, but water and meat was used). Furthermore, Christ just told them they would “never hunger;” so no physical [finite] wafers could accomplish this.

To conclude this; Jesus was teaching in Capernaum – he never had any physical bread at the time! In fact, when the disciples were quickly squabbling wanting the bread, Christ passed it off and said HE WAS THE BREAD: referring to his spiritual being and not a piece of physical bread.

“These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.” – John 6:59

Christ was merely telling the congregation about believing on him. And the second purpose of this was to foreshadow Christ’s death – see God always has multiple purposes for one event.

Christ says his words (the sermon) were spirit

After Christ’s “breadless” sermon in Capernaum, Christ clarifies to his disciples (who thought he was being literal):

“Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you (the sermon), they are spirit, and they are life.” – John 6:60-63

Christ told his disciples (after they were murmuring like the Pharisees – both groups thought he was literal) that the flesh “profits nothing,” and the words spoken to them in Capernaum (about eating the flesh/bread) ARE SPIRIT!

This is irrefutable evidence against the “Eucharist” required for salvation – it’s not the Eucharist you need – it’s placing faith in Christ: it’s all spiritual, nothing physical required. If physical works were required, Christ wouldn’t have said “it is the SPIRIT that quickeneth” – and who gives the increase? God!

Anyone who tries to twist Christ’s words (the very words HE spoke) is hopeless – Christ said the flesh profits nothing and that his John 6 words were spirit.
But Catholic.com attempts to do just that...

“In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Why would Christ be telling his disciples to think “spiritually” when they were murmuring over what he said? That wouldn’t have answered their question over Christ’s sermon! In fact, that random “interpretation” that the catholics give is such a sore thumb it doesn’t even fit in context with John 6. They were murmuring about him saying he was a physical piece of bread – and you’ll see why this is important. Furthermore, the Greek word “pneuma” is used for “spirit,” meaning Christ was referring to his spiritual BEING (and that his flesh form profits nothing, only spirit is of value – the flesh dies and is useless, a finite dependant casing that houses our soul). Pneuma on its own cannot be used to describe a “thought” because it refers to a spirit.

Catholics bend backwards to twist John 6:60-63 - somehow trying to link it to Christ warning his disciples not to think carnally but spiritually. Christ said the “words” (referring to his sermon on Capernaum) were spiritual and not actually referring to his flesh.

You can even tell the disciples were murmuring over the SERMON:

“These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this (the sermon), said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” – John 6:59-60

Why the disciples forsook Christ

“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” – John 6:64-68

The disciples whom were with Christ walked away because they DIDN’T BELIEVE HE WAS THE CHRIST! Peter told Jesus that he has the WORDS (not bread) of eternal life. For the words (sermon) spoken at Capernaum was in spiritual terms, not literal. Soon as Christ dilates to them in John 6:63 that he wasn’t literal, they left! Notice they didn’t leave before when they thought Christ was literal.

Catholic.com has fabricated a response to this:

“This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Doctrinal reasons? They didn’t forsake him because he said he was a piece of bread - that was the reason they stayed: they thought he meant he was a piece of bread - they forsook Christ AFTER he explained (in John 6:60-63) what he meant with the bread analogy: because they did not BELIEVE he was the Christ; the Son of God.

Christ was implying that he was the Son of God the whole time, only AFTER when they understood did they turn away.

This makes sense since the Jews and Pharisees constantly persecuted Jesus saying he wasn’t the “Son of God.”

Christ assigned the twelve apostles to make the Jews believe that Jesus was the Son of God giving them eternal life:

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” – Matthew 10:5-6

Note: Paul was the only apostle sent to the “gentiles.” He was apostle #13; James was the replacement to Judas Iscariot.

Why didn’t Christ call back his disciples to “straighten things out?” He WAS doing that (hence assigning the twelve apostles in Matthew 10:5-6 to bring the lost Jews to Christ). The Bible plays a humorous joke – since now the GENTILES are the ones trying to straighten out the Jews (before in the Old Testament it was reversed); clearly catholic.com didn’t take this into account if they think Christ isn’t doing anything to correct people (2 Peter 3:9).

“But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” – John 6:64

Jesus knew from the BEGINNING who would follow him, and who wouldn’t. Jesus was constantly debating and arguing with the Pharisees (who laughed at him while on the cross); do you think he could change their minds? Of course not.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” – Matthew 23:37

Christ DID try to gather the lost Jews, he wanted them to come so badly, but they WOULD NOT! God gives us free choice; does Catholic.com expect the Jews and former disciples to come back to Christ like magic?

Early Church knew about John 6:63

“Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

The early Church did NOT take John chapter 6 literally. There may have been the oddball that misinterpreted scripture being carnal (such as Cyprian or Clement – just as such people exist today); however, all of the early church letters give an allegorical sense, not literal. Catholic.com is being very biased and obviously never took the care to backup or give different views. So let’s see a quick overview from the church “beginners” (I prefer not to use the term “fathers” because of Matthew 23:9):

Ignatius writes: “I have no delight in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread of God, WHICH IS the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, WHICH IS love incorruptible.” – Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, Chapter 7, 7:3

You’ll notice Ignatius says he doesn’t delight for FOOD of corruption (i.e. actual physical food). Rather the bread OF GOD, which is Christ dying on the cross for our sins that we may believe – the bread OF GOD (i.e. the bread of life) is not physical bread – it is an allusion for Christ. And Ignatius finishes off by saying Christ’s blood – WHICH IS LOVE! Not actual physical wine.

Polycarp writes that we are NOT saved by “works” (i.e. eating bread or dunking oneself in water), rather, simply by faith:

“though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.” – Polycarp 1:3

Polycarp was alluding to these verses (he mostly quotes Paul throughout his letter):

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” – Romans 4:5

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” – John 6:40

The Eucharist (or the last supper) is merely “commemorating” and remembering Christ’s death, Augustine affirms this: “Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament” - Augustine, Contra Faustus, XX

As for there being no “document” opposing a literal view – of course not! Roman Catholicism didn’t exist yet, so, the subject wasn’t a controversy. Everyone knew that the “bread of heaven” was an allusion to Christ

I have to wonder, why are Catholics so obsessed over external material? Christ took John 6 in spiritual terms – that just means MEN are liars (Romans 3:4) and that we should only trust what Christ says – Bible is sole authority for God wrote it. It is interesting to see the early writings of early believers – but not EVERYTHING they say is free from error; Polycarp (in my opinion) was the most developed in doctrine – for he accepted a gospel without works and ONLY faith for salvation.

Note: no “early Christians” were involved with Rome since it was persecuting them (killing all of God’s people). Even the moniker “ROMAN Catholic” gives it away. Flee Rome! Ignatius writes about being led to Rome: “Pray for the church which is in Syria, whence I am led a prisoner to Rome -- I who am the very last of the faithful there; according as I was counted worthy to be found unto the honour of God. Fare ye well in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our common hope.” – Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians, Chapter 21, 21:2

Why then is the Vatican in ROME? Revelation 17/18?

Spiritual not physical

“Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Frankly I don’t reject the LITERAL and PLAIN message of John 6 – Jesus clarifies himself with LITERAL terms saying the flesh profits nothing and that his words were of spiritual meaning.

“Conveying” salvation (or spirituality – which is rather contradictory, can’t convey spirit physically) with physical means defies everything the Bible stands for.

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” – Romans 8:2

“So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” – Romans 8:8-9

You CANNOT please God with physical things (material objects/idols) of the flesh.

“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” – John 4:23

We worship God in SPIRIT – not with material objects.

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;” - Acts 17:24-25

I’d say the Eucharist is a “temple” made by the hands of men (it is, after all, supposed to “house” Jesus); Christ does not dwell in our idols/temples made with hands – Catholics make us think so.

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” – Matthew 16:17

Again, nothing revealed to Peter was of “flesh and blood” – it is all spiritual.

Christ said to brake bread in remembrance of him – not for salvation. Catholic.com would make us think non-Catholics ever do these events (I do occasionally do – however NOT for salvation but to remember I am saved by faith – it’s a reminder). I often eat unleavened bread for Passover (Matzos as it is now called, but it is increasingly harder to find) – something Catholics wouldn’t know about, in fact, they claim “Easter” is Passover – that (again) is a pagan practice from Babylon, the painting of eggs comes straight from Babylon – SURPRISE with a Dagon hat on top!

These events are for symbolism, Christ wants it fresh in our minds; sadly, the symbolism of “saved by faith” is no longer there, in fact, CHRIST isn’t even there!

They literally replaced him with a cookie... They replaced him with Peter... They replaced him with Mary... They replaced him with “saints”... They replaced him priests... Literally everything the Catholic system is reliant upon IGNORES Christ, no longer is God the mediator, no longer is God the Rock of the Church, no longer do you even PRAY to him, but rather deceased beings.

This is HORRIBLE! Woe be to those that cut off Christ’s head to replace it with something else. Would be to God that all Catholics directed [spiritual] worship DIRECTLY to Christ. They don’t mean to blaspheme God (if they really knew what they were doing), but we are also accountable for striving towards the truth and reading the TRUE meaning and doctrines behind the Bible.

Ask God – 1 John 1:9 is there when you need it.

The Pharisees/Jews did err

At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

The whole time the congregation Christ preached to thought he was speaking literally. This is an artificial environment for an argument.

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” – John 6:52

The Jews stated this because they thought he was referring to physical flesh – this is correct, but Jesus repeated himself (like he did to Nicodemus in John 3) to refer to his spiritual self (of course they STILL didn’t get it, which is why Christ clarified in John 6:60-63, and then the whole congregation abandoned Christ when they understood his figurative meaning – referring himself to the Son of God: except the 12 apostles who remained faithful and believed).

When Jesus told Nicodemus “you must be born again” he thought you had to be PHSYICALLY born again from the womb – not born with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said many things to the Jews that they took literally (when Christ meant spiritually): “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” – John 2:20-22

Would the Catholics tell me that Christ was actually referring to the temple because the Jews took him literally? I hope not!

The last thing you want to do is trust the judgment of the Pharisees, and this is what the Catholics are doing, they tell their readers that the Pharisees were right! Well, the Pharisees mimic the very face of Catholicism today – the Pharisees had traditions (going back for years)/rituals/works salvation/long robes and clothing/fancy palaces etc – it is without doubt in my mind that Catholics trust what the Pharisees say and endorse it to top it off.

Problem of the finite wafer

“One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

God stated quite clearly in Acts 17:24-25 that anything we “build” with our hands cannot house Christ. An omnipotent infinite God turning himself into a finite wafer (but the wafer still remains a wafer of course): how degenerating and illogical.

We eat food because we are finite; finity depends on barriers for maintenance – how could eating a cracker (finite) grant us salvation which is infinite and everlasting?

It can’t – Catholics place finite “barriers” (which limit us to mortality and are the OPPOSITE of salvation frankly) and expect these barriers to grant “salvation for an infinity.” However, this can only be given by GOD: for he is infinite, created everything, and has no barriers of his own.

The very notion of using “barriers” for salvation just doesn’t make sense. If we have to obtain salvation “via barrier” – then that would make salvation itself A barrier; because it wouldn’t be free (by faith), and it turns God into a monster – creating an unreliable median for salvation.

What if someone on their death bed wants to be saved? Do they have to call a priest with a bunch of crackers, a giant water bowl, and give them “last rites” to be saved?

This is unreliable and unrealistic – God is not a dictator!

HOWEVER, if people want to be judged upon their works – God will do so, and they shall burn in hell for not accepting a very simple free gift (Matthew 7:21-23), but ignorant and going to establish their OWN righteousness out of finite means thinking it accounts for infinity.

“This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” – John 6:58

Why was Christ different from the bread that “came down from heaven?” Because he was the LAMB OF GOD who died on the cross. Jesus was not talking about crackers; otherwise it would be the same as the food “that came down from heaven:” physical FINITE food that perishes.

“He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” – John 6:56

Christ (as he clarified) was talking about him dwelling in us as spirit:

“But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” – Romans 8:11

How do we get Christ’s spirit?

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” – Romans 4:3

By FAITH! Not by eating crackers that perish, that are finite, and that defy John 6:60-63.

Note: Christ was in the form of a human for a brief time (reduced by barriers such as needing food for sustenance, although when in the wilderness he was able to live without food – so Christ still had powers that we do not have); but he will NOT die again. He only gave his life ONCE.

Problem of the non-instantaneous wafer

“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” – John 1:29

Christ is the “lamb of God” – he took away the sins of the world (and no, Christ isn’t actually a lamb – just want to clarify that for Catholics).

How could he instantly give his life for the world (after he died on the cross) when Catholics must have a priest to stuff him in a wafer then physically consume him? The Bible clearly teaches that Christ gave his life for the world and anyone who believes (which is accepting the spiritual water of life, the bread of life, and the blood of life that fills YOU ONCE! Yet Catholics fill themselves over and over again) shall have salvation for an infinity. It doesn’t fit, nor does it make sense (and it shouldn’t) – you must take EVERY word/verse of John 6 in context, not reading one verse and basing your judgment on that.

God died instantly for the whole world (not to be “transformed” into a wafer), and whoever believes on him is forever saved.

See: One verse judgment

1 Corinthians 11 - explained

“Some proponents of the Eucharist argue that 1 Corinthians 11 supports transubstantiation. They refer to verse 29 that states - "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." A thorough read of 1 Corinthians 11, reveals that the Corinthians were not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not discerning the Lord's body meant not discerning in the bread and wine the symbols of Christ's body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently, as if it were a common feast.

It is evident that this was the leading offense of the Corinthians. Those who were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, were getting drunk and selfishly eating before others in the body of Christ. Paul states this as the problem in verses 20 and 21. There is no indication in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians that Paul believed in or taught transubstantiation.

What is very provocative, in verses 26 and 28 of chapter 11, is that Paul refers to the blessed bread as mere bread after it had been blessed. Paul states in verse 26 - "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

Additionally, if Jesus is really physically present in the Eucharist, why would Paul state that we are to celebrate the Lord's Supper "till He comes"? This would only make sense if the Lord's Supper is in memory of the finished work of Calvary. And that is exactly what Jesus ordained when He said "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19). Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Of course, Jesus did not become a literal lamb when He died for the sins of the world, anymore than a wafer turns into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus during Communion.”

Source: http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Eucharist.html

Samaritan woman and the water of life

“...holy-water (whereby the Devil mocks the Papists)...” – King James, Daemonologie

Christ analogized himself (like he did with the blood and flesh) with water to the Samaritan woman, and the startling thing is Christ said the PHYSICAL WATER would lead people getting thirsty again!

“Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water (the physical well) shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him (Christ imputing his righteousness on you) shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” - John 4:13-14

Notice the striking similarity to Christ saying whoever drinks of THIS water (Christ) shall never thirst again? Christ said the same thing, whoever eats of this bread shall never hunger, and whoever drinks of this blood shall never thirst.

If the Eucharist (which isn’t a loaf of bread that the original Christians used; stone ovens were used to bake loaves), how come the “water of life” isn’t included with the sacraments? Well it “MUST” be required since Christ deliberately told us to drink the water of life! See the fallacies behind the twisting of figurative phrases? Catholicism bumps into a wall whichever way they go (much like freemasonry with the “oaths”).

Wall bumpers:

*If they [Catholics] say Christ told us to literally drink his “blood” (which doesn’t actually turn into blood, it stays as wine; that alone is enough proof), Christ also tells us to “drink” the water of life – so they bump into a wall by doing one and not the other.

*Christ already clarified in John 6:60-63 that he was referring that sermon in Capernaum as spiritual and was simply figurative.

Christ says the PHYSICAL water, blood, and flesh would lead people being thirsty again because they are not spiritual. Christ IS the water, blood, and bread of life, hence people who accept him by faith never thirst or hunger – spiritually: Christ gives us a constant dose of spirituality and revival, nothing petty physical objects can bring – in fact, the gift of infinite salvation is so HUGE and breathtaking that not all the gold in the world can buy it!

“But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.” – Acts 8:20

“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” – 1 Peter 1:18-19

We are NOT redeemed with corruptible (finite) material objects – it is impossible no matter how much you disagree, or no matter how many arguments you try to give; the Bible states it clearly!

Meat that ye know not of

“In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.” – John 4:31-34

The meat of Christ (which Christ replied; I have meat that ye not know of) was to do the will of the Father. Again, Christ used the term “meat” figuratively, just as he did with the well water (and it all refers to spiritual events). And what is the WILL of the father?

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” – John 6:40

Again Catholics hit the wall of “saved by faith” – Father sends his uniquely born Son to redeem us BY FAITH.

Some ways Catholics avoid these [obvious] walls is to:

#1 Be under a “papal” authority that claims to have the answers (and anyone not under this “authority” is interpreting the bible THEIR way – even if they simply restate what the Bible says, so Catholics then reject statements coming from “heretics,” even if they ARE correct – ouch!).

#2 Feed people hoaxed translations of Bibles (even then the translations are clear enough), and twist the words (or even go so far as to twist the original Greek/Hebrew)

#3 Have people study under an “official” Catholic agent (Catholic prelate) that brainwashes the student and not allowing freedom of study or questioning (much like schools that teach evolution – it’s not surprising the Jesuits created evolutionary tactics).

#4 NOT READ THE BIBLE AT ALL! “Listen to the priest – and everything will be okay.”

The Disciples at first thought the leaven of the Pharisees WAS physical and not figurative

“On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

“And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?” – John 16:5-10

It was the DISCIPLES who thought they had to bring physical bread (they REASONED among themselves, saying “IT WAS BECAUSE WE HAVE TAKEN NO BREAD”) but then Christ gives them a rhetorical question (very witty); “why reason ye among yourselves, because YE HAVE BROUGHT NO BREAD?”

Then it is clarified that Christ meant the doctrine of the Pharisees. Indeed it was the disciples who thought Christ meant physical bread:

“How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they (the disciples) how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” - John 16:11-12

Then at the end of the verse, it clarifies Christ was warning of them of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees (not the physical leaven from them), because he who doesn’t have God’s doctrine does not have God (because you are not studying correct doctrine and are LAZY – i.e. not in God’s system).

I believe Catholic.com is trying to use this as an excuse to prove Christ “backs up” his claims, well he DID! Right in John 6:60-63! God always does, he doesn’t enforce illogical statements. Furthermore, God actually never “clarified” when he called himself the “Lamb of God” - we just know from “common sense” that God isn’t a lamb, but was sacrificed AS a lamb.

“And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!” – John 1:36

Why didn’t John explain that the “Lamb of God” was figurative? Because we have common sense (God was graceful to giving us it for a reason), so we know that the “Lamb of God” is Christ and doesn’t mean an “actual” lamb.

So even if God didn’t clarify that he was referring to “spiritual” means with John 6:60-63, it should still arrive to us with “common sense.”

God WAS correcting his disciples.

“And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.” – Mark 8:15

The very leaven Christ warned us about has ended up in the Vatican – the ROMAN Catholics teach everything of Herod and the Pharisees, they bake their doctrines with Pharisee leaven. Birds of a feather flock together (and bake their doctrines with the same dough).

Catholics always thirsting and hungering for more

Christ said (in all the verses) that they would not hunger or thirst again. If this notion was indeed of physical bread, water, and wine, why do the Catholics need a constant supply of crackers and wine? (They forgot the water however, unless they plan on drinking the holy water from the bowls near the entrance).

So what did Christ truly mean?

“Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” – John 6:34-35

If you COME to Christ, you will never hunger, if you BELIEVE on Christ, you will never thirst. No magical wafers involved.

Christ is one body with God

“And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” – Ephesians 2:16

If transubstantiation is true, Christ’s body would be in many different fragments, which completely contradicts this verse.

The “greater emphasis” lie

“He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis”

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

The Catholic author keeps stressing how Christ “emphasized” eating the (spiritual) blood, flesh and water of life. In John 3 Christ is emphasizing extremely well that you must be BORN AGAIN!

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” – John 3:3

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” – John 3:5

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” – John 3:36

Why the double-standard Catholic.com?

The word “water” in John 3:5 means “to be physically born,” (it is clarified in the next verse (John 3:6) with “flesh” and “spirit).

Why no studying?

“Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

The Catholics are creating an artificial environment here (to mislead the reader as usual);

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” – 2 Timothy 2:15

Catholics WILL be ashamed for their odious, sudden, and bashful statements that never have referencing. Jesus often had to keep repeating things which the “listeners” did not understand;

#1 Christ corrected the disciples when they mistook the leaven of the Pharisees for physical leaven: John 16:5-12

#2 Christ corrected the crowd that came to him for MORE physical bread (the loaves and fish that he split for them), but when he meant salvation by them believing in him: John 6:26-27

#3 Christ corrected his disciples in John 6:60-63 when his disciples mistook him for actually being a piece of bread (which they then forsook him after understanding what “the bread of life” really meant).

#4 Christ kept repeating (and trying to make Nicodemus understand) that “born again” was a spiritual birth and not that of the womb in John 3.

#5 Christ reaffirmed to Peter (in Matthew 16:17) that not blood or flesh revealed anything, but the FATHER (spiritual) which is in heaven.

Why no correction? The Bible itself is based upon [our] errors and God correcting us! That is what the BIBLE itself IS FOR!

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” – 2 Timothy 3:16

How about: “why no STUDYING?” The Catholics have the answers at their fingertips! Literally! The Vaticanus makes short work of Catholic doctrines (that’s probably why they locked it up for a few hundred years, so no one would read it – that’s what I call hiding the truth under a rock).

Imposter Loaf

Jesus when he was with his disciples used a LOAF of Bread – he broke from that single loaf and passed pieces to his disciples. Obviously the bread would have produced lots of crumbs (God told the Jews in the Old Testament to clean all the crumbs from the bread to symbolize their multitude of sins; this would have been during Passover).

The Catholics believe each crumb becomes Jesus so they stopped using the traditional loaves; which is rather anti-biblical taking away the true symbolism behind the Last Supper (obviously this would have had to been imposed way after Christ and the disciples since the traditional Jews and Christians always used loaves – especially the Jews since they hold onto strict traditions – I know because I’ve been to a few synagogues; very nice people – pray that they find Christ).

Note: It is strange how much the Catholic Church boasts for keeping “traditions” when they exclude the loaf and change it into a wafer. THAT is a huge modification from “early Christianity.”

Christ DIED ONCE!

The Catholic Catechism states:

“As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.”

“Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on."” [emphasis added]

“The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it "re-presents" (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross.”

This is a blatant contradiction to the Bible:

“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” – Hebrews 10:11-12

“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” – Hebrews 10:18

“For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” – Romans 6:10

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” – 1 Peter 3:18

Cannibalism is sinful

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” – Genesis 9:4

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” – Acts 15:19-20

“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” – Acts 21:25

If the wafer actually turned into flesh and blood (which it doesn’t, it is just a dead cracker) God would be going against his own laws. Of course the cracker never turns into flesh and blood – it stays the same because it is merely figurative in itself (which is an irony if Catholics really believe Christ was referring to physical flesh).

Catholics every day *believe* something happens to the wafer (as the priest does his hocus pocus) when it still STAYS THE SAME! The same pasty-dry wafer day-after-day that could be feeding poor children in Africa rather being gobbled by greedy priests with their golden cups, plates and monstrances.

Eating the “blood” is simply sinful and may cause health problems; it doesn’t mean you’ll go to hell (salvation isn’t by works, nor can you lose it), HOWEVER, it means (if the wine really was blood) Catholics would be sinning every time they take a sip! Sinful sipping!

He did brake the bread

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;” – Matthew 26:27-26

“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” – Luke 22:19

“And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.” – Luke 24:30

“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.” – Mark 14:22

Christ broke the bread from the big loaf: Jesus said to break the bread! Why? Because the one loaf symbolized the Church he built (upon himself), and each fragment of the bread symbolized the believers of the Church.

So the way Christ performed the “Last Supper” was by breaking from one universal loaf and handing pieces from that loaf to each believer; not handing wafers... Using a wafer instead of a loaf of bread is like using leavened bread on Passover!

Blood of the New Testament?

“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” – Matthew 26:28

“And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.” – Mark 14:24

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” – Luke 22:20

“After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance (not salvation) of me.” – 1 Corinthians 11:25

Soon as Christ shed “his blood,” he has become our mediator since we are in the era of the New Testament (some people are still stuck in the Old Testament it seems):

“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” – Hebrews 9:15

Christ paid for our sins with his death, what a wonderful saviour... I am saddened that people reject his free gift – he had to suffer innumerable amounts of pain: then has people REJECT his suffering and try to earn their OWN way into heaven? God isn’t happy; his wrath shall wax hot on those who reject him.

More poor arguments from Catholic.com

“But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

John 6:60-63 ratifies that everything Christ said about him being a piece of bread were “spiritual” – i.e. referring to HIS spirit, and not that of a piece of rotting moldy finite bread!

“Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.” [emphasis added]

Source: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Of course the Eucharist is the “core” Catholic doctrine, it reverses a key element on what the Bible says: “Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” – Hebrews 10:18

No more offering for sins (which is the KEY of the New Testament) – only faith in Christ (he was the ultimate sacrifice – the creator of the universe feeling all of the pain for every single sin); but the Catholic religion has to reverse that for it is headed by none other than Satan. Satan swaps and reverses the Bible (Satan’s sick twisted spin on Matthew 7:1-2).

See: Analysis of Satan & Demons

Satanists try to “hurt” God by torturing Eucharist wafers

“According to The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, the Black Mass is “the central rite of some traditional forms of Satanism.” It is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. During the Black Mass, a Host (consecrated bread) “is defiled in various ways.”

Source: http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Book/Chap-04.html

Satanists during a “black mass” do various torture techniques to “consecrated” Eucharist wafers thinking they are hurting the almighty, omnipotent Jesus Christ.

If the “Eucharist” isn’t a fairytale (which it is), that means Christ is constantly feeling pain by Satanists torturing Eucharists (and apparently by the Apostle Paul who threw the “blessed” bread in the sea). So his suffering on the cross wasn’t enough? He has to suffer MORE?

Rubbish and BLASPHEMY! No one can hurt God – it is impossible, Satan tries to hurt US since he cannot hurt God.

King David tops it off!

“O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.” – Psalm 34:8

King David here is using a figurative term to describe God – I can say as a reborn believer that Christ DOES taste good to my soul, I feel comforted, I feel at peace, I know I am safe and secure in the arms of my saviour.

Problems with the Eucharist:

[1] - The Eucharist is a finite physical piece of bread (it sustains our finite and mortal being), salvation is infinite; how can one obtain salvation with a finite BARRIER? Salvation is supposed to remove all barriers, in fact, it HAS no barriers!

[2] - Christ said you would never thirst or hunger again but Catholics are still thirsting and hungering.

[3] - The “water of life” is excluded from the sacraments and mimics what Christ said about the BLOOD and flesh; so they have a double-standard with their doctrines.

[4] - In Capernaum where Jesus preached, he never gave them any physical bread (he said I AM that bread; referring to his spiritual being); and in John 6:60-63 he tells his disciples that his words were SPIRITUAL and not literal. So we see that Christ never doled out any physical loaves because they were not needed for his analogy.

[5] - Christ told his disciples (when they were frightened about not bringing physical bread) that they were to avoid the leaven (doctrines) of the Pharisees, however, Christ didn’t even CARE that they forgot to bring the bread!

[6] - Christ said do this in REMEMBRANCE of me, i.e. an affectionate celebration of what the Lord did for us. To say celebrating the last supper for salvation would be to say Christmas or the Passover would be required for salvation as well.

[7] – John chapter 6 never had anything to do with the “Last Supper.” It was a sermon, not a cooking class (Catholics can whine all they want, but John 6:60-63 and there not even BEING any bread is proof enough).

[8] – Christ said he shall not dwell in temples/idols made by men’s hands; thus he couldn’t dwell in a wafer!

[9] – Paul threw bread into the sea – if it was “Christ’s body” I doubt he’d do such a thing.

[10] – Disciples of Paul broke bread in gladness and rejoiced, also eating meat with their bread – it was nothing but a symbol of rejoicing – knowing Christ died for us (a reminder, and giving God thanks for everything he has done and given us – let alone CREATING us).

[11] – Bible says consuming blood is sinful.

[12] – Christ is in ONE body with the Father – he can’t be split up into different little bodies inside wafers.

[13] – Christ only died ONCE!

[14] – Christ would be constantly feeling pain from Eucharists being tortured, bitten, crushed, etc.

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans

More News

2011-06-16T18:54:00.009-04:00

http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/london-2012-the-olympic-torch-relay-and-prometheus/

http://www.scribd.com/tTruthSeeker24/documents

http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/09/dan-brown-patsy-or-just-willing-pawn.html

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/selected-responses-to-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism-hoax

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/liberal-fascism-u-s-fascists-engaged-in-a-well-coordinated-hoover-institute-engineered-movement-to-reframe-liberalism-as-fascism-in-the-public-mind

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/frank-carlucci-and-the-murder-of-patrice-lumumba

_______

crammasters4 weeks agoin reply to BakkByPopularDemand

I agree -- here's 3 quotes by a great BM most of the folks on this thread SAY they respect:

“No, there is plenty wrong with N8groes. They have no society. They’re robots, automatons. No minds of their own. I hate to say that about us, but it’s the truth.
They are a black body with a white brain. Like the monster Frankenstein.

The top part is your bourgeois N8gro. He’s your integrator. He’s not interested in his poor black brothers. He’s usually so deep in debt from trying to copy the white man’s social habits that he doesn’t have time to worry about nothing else. They buy the most expensive clothes and cars and eat the cheapest food. They act more like the white man than the white man does himself.”

“There was two kinds of slaves ... the house N8gro and the field N8gro. The house N8groes – they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good ‘cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master
more than the master loved himself.

If the master’s house caught on fire, the house N8gro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house N8gro would say, “What’s the matter, boss, we sick?”

He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. In those days he was called a ‘house n8gger.” And...we’ve still got some house n8ggers running around here.”

“Now, you integration-minded N8groes are trying to force yourselves on your former slave master, trying to make him accept you in his drawing room; you want to hang out with his women rather than the women of your own kind....

Because only a man who is ashamed of what he is will marry out of his race. There has to be something wrong when a man or woman leaves his own people and marries somebody of another kind. Men who are proud of being black marry black women;
women who are proud of being black marry black men.

This is particularly true when you realize that these N8groes who go for integration and intermarriage are linking up with the very people who lynched their fathers, raped their mothers, and put their kid sisters in the kitchen to scrub floors.”

-- Malcolm X being interviewed by Louis Lomax (1963)

_________

Are you aware that after emancipation many blacks who were already free men at the time, owned their own land, but laws where passed to stop us owning any land, what little the blacks had was taken away from them as it was now illegal for them to own anything!

Many black areas were popping up throughout America where blacks were becoming economically stable, and the black money circulated black communities for months, do you know what happened to these areas?... Many were destroyed by white racist mobs, companies that were doing ok were "bought" out and moved from within the community, this forced many working black men to face redundancies.

Blacks were once, organising themselves into a "nationalist movement" which promoted black businesses, self reliance and also self governance of their own communities, do you know what happened to the movement?... The CIA/FBI destroyed it and labeled it a threat... They then flooded those areas with drugs to keep them from making any organised demands.

Many of our black leaders who could direct our communities were neutralised (locked-up, discredited or some killed off) by FBI/CIA agents who saw them as a threat, all this is documented!

Most attempts by blacks to build their own economy is usually destroyed very quickly before it gains any momentum, remember "Black wall street"?...

-The Revolutionist

___________________

hear what you are saying, but remember, white Governments will do, and have done, "EVERYTHING" in their power to stop you from being a self reliant community, so if you are not proud of your people because of economics then white supremacy has killed your spirit!... You are not economically strong in America because "black social mobility" is not welcome there... Don't let that stop you from being proud of your peoples achievements so far!

"Economical prowess" does not make a people great, it makes them wealthy, there is a difference. What makes people great is how they handle adversities, how they pull through, their fight, and spirit not being crushed by their trials and tribulations (strength of character and resilience), "economical power" doesn't last forever, it comes and goes, as with the fall of "Rome" and "Egypt" being good examples...

This is how whites measure success, as far as they are concerned they are the "economical powers" of the world which makes them great, however, unfortunately for them, they had to kill Millions and Millions of people, steal Billions of acres of land, enslave and butcher Millions and Millions of people, become the largest polluters of Earth, they even kill animals for fun, plus, they use many dirty tricks and international "poli-trics" to keep themselves rich...

Would you say the above race sounds great?... Don't judge your success against theirs, they murdered and stole to have their success and will have to pay for it at some point, Karma is a bit*h and none of us can escape it...

Resorting to murder and theft to achieve greatness, is actually the biggest failure of all.
Our race has overcome much more than they ever could, this makes us a strong people!... Economical prowess will come in it's own time!

Errrrr, it looks like the western financial situation, coupled with a declining white birth rate is imploding in on themselves, the black community is doing far better than it was 100 years ago, and nobody with a brain can honestly deny this.

Also: birthdays, religious celebrations, D-day, thanks-giving, halloween, Bonfire night, independence day and many Million other celebrations are linked to the remembrance of the past, why am I not allowed to look into my past and deal with issues that are "CLEARLY" unresolved?...

If the past is affecting your present, there is no way to get away from it... I have heard many white people telling blacks that we should not look into the past, and should move on, then they turn around and remind us that our fore-parents were slaves at every opportunity possible...LOL.

So we blacks must forget our past, but whites are allowed to remember it and use it as a racist whip for us for eternity!...No thanks, my past is as important as my present and future, just like yours is to you that you celebrate and remember every year!

-The Revolutionist

_____________

LOL...I've got to post this again....see these lackey negroes and white supremacists would rather drown the thread with manipulation in order to hide this....lol

"The truth of the matter of all this, is that now amerikkka has doomed itself based on its racist system, and with the purposeful attack on the african and latino communities with this sub-prime mortgage mess, they've seen their economy backfire and continue to spiral out of control! LOL....

This is why bush and obama have to keep bailing out these companies everywhere, and why it continues to not work really, lol....its too late, this was their last trick, and it backfired on them, now every institution needs a bailout of the very money they can induce out of the low class/middle class tax payer, and then has them Printing more money, than they should, and push them to the stimulus theory....lol....you can't stimulate a dying system, unless you leech off the very people you've been leeching off in order to save it....LOL!

This in itself causes the very social fabric to capitulate as well.....now the debt has gone up to 1 trillion last week....and you think that yellow man over there in China whome amerikkka has tried to oppress, bully and isolate with the same system that is dying, will continue to save your azzes!!"

And again guess where the origination of your destruction started.....ahhhh yes.....

Your greedy ambitions of profiting off the african community!

Talk about karma!!

hahahahaha!!

BAPF!!

-216 Elite

_______

Sometimes the tool ocmes to have a life and force of its own, not unlike the force of alienated labor Marx examines in his early philosophical works.
Modern racism almost certainly would not have come into existence without the new demands for cheap labor under early capitalism. We need not go into the often researched genealogy of racism. But once it exists it takes on a certain life and power of its own.
This is why a notion of racism as mere prejudice, or even just racial hostility turns out to be superficiaL.
In some capitalist societies, racism becomes part of the stratification of society itself.There is racial stratification which is intimately linked with class stratification.
It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that both racial and class inequalities in wealth are happening AT THE SAME TIME.
What's of interest when we look at the AA community is that INTERNAL CLASS division of wealth is increasing as it is in the whole world. And yet, RACIAL wealth gap is increasing between Black and white America.(Some say that this resembles the increasing wealth gap between southern and northern hemisphere nations--while each nonetheless suffer INTERNAL growing class gap)
In South Africa, some revolutionaries even spoke of this system and process of stratification as "racial capitalism."
I don't know that racism is accompanies capitalism. But where racism was very early part of the FOUNDATION of the society, as it clearly was here and in South AFrica, the class seems to itself be largely racialized. Race is not simply reducible to class as some orthdox Marxists believe, nor is class reducible to race or racism as some confused narrow nationalist believe.
If you're relegated to the lowest orders of society you will be poor, and suffer all the ills of poverty. That's true of anybody regardless of race. But the lowest classes are disporportionately Black and Brown, and this is no mere coincidence (nor due to intellectual inferiority as racists like Bozino believes)
Racial inequalities were institutionalized in the class system itself beginning in the 1600s, and is now so deeply entrenched that even civil rights victories (essential as they were and are) could not simply eradicate it. Moreover, the inequality doesn't require any longer de jure segregation and other forms of legalized apartheid. It probably doesn't even require personal racial prejudices and hatreds, though these do help perpetuate the system.
Simply allowing the system to function as it normally does is enough.
The question of how to overcome this race/class divide sufficiently to build solidarity among all the dispossessed has been the big issue--at times almost a mystery--which progressive people from every walk of life have had to face.
This is what Dr. King and Cesar Chavez were trying to figure out. This is what the Black Panther Party was trying to figure out.
This is what we still must figure out, at least make some progress in achieving, lest the fascist impose their own solution--'final solution"?.....This must not be!!! Death to racism ane very form of exploitation and oppression!

-Savant

____________

crammasters5 months ago

@ ALL

for those who think "things have changed" for black folks google
--
Neo-slavery in the American South
---
I can't post the link or this post will never show up
--
here's an excerpt:
--

Though called by other names, poor Blacks are kept in bondage today in the United States.

Nearly 150 years after Emancipation, trapped by extreme poverty, isolation, fear and shame, some Blacks remain victims of neo-slavery in rural areas of the South, locked into work in fields, factories and assorted industries.

While not bought and sold at auction block, these poor Blacks are forced to work, live in shacks, often have no indoor plumbing and are often trapped in peonage, tied to land where they owe owners debts that are never repaid, according to an activist and researcher. Some Blacks are even forced to pay rent to White landowners for dilapidated housing but are fearful of identifying landlords and owners.

“Slavery never ended and that's the point, it never ended. It just disguised itself in other forms,” says Antoinette Harrell, who is based in Louisiana and has documented the plight of people she describes as modern slaves in America.
---
now this article was written in 2010, NOT 1910, so it seems that either it's one of two things:
--
1) either we do NOT KNOW what is happening to other black folk in this country, or
--
2) we do not care what happens to other black folk as long as it's not happening to us
--
what i do know is we better wake up, and see what fate is in store for MORE of us, as the economy tanks, jobs disappear, and black poverty continues to rise, and I GUARANTEE YOU, all the IR sex is the world is NOT going to save a single black a___...

___________________

crammasters5 months ago

@ LoMasBella

why do you mention your husband is white? Aren't you white? If you are non-white you still look white enough to "pass" and i'm sure your baby looks white, so why wouldn't white folk smile at your baby? I don't get your point....
--
without addressing every point you made, please enlighten me and tell me what black people -- as a group -- have ever done to you?
--
i'm not talking about a black person who gave you a dirty look or called you a name, that stuff happens to EVERYBODY,
--
I'm talking about a black person who stopped you from getting a job, a home, a loan, a good education, or justice at the hand of the law, or harmed you by falsely arresting you, racially profiled you, followed you around a store, etc.

Dry Bones

2011-05-31T08:26:00.001-04:00

http://www.truthnet.org/Ezekiel/8-Ezekiel-37/Ezekiel-Chapter-37.htm

Religious Information

2011-05-27T19:38:00.002-04:00

http://pure-truth1.blogspot.com/2009/05/c-is-for-conscienceless.html

Steve Lefemine on the Civil War

2011-05-22T17:22:00.001-04:00

150th Anniversary of War Between Americans, 1861-1865:
God's Righteous Judgment upon both North and South for National Sin
of Unbiblical American Slavery - over 600,000 Americans died - Part 21(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
North Carolina Secession Convention unanimously passed Ordinance of Secession - May 20, 1861; Kentucky declares its neutrality
in the War Between The States - May 20, 1861; Missouri declares its neutrality in the War Between The States - May 21, 1861;Confederate States of America (CSA) Congress votes to move its capital from Montgomery to Richmond - May 21, 1861; Virginia Voter Referendum Ratifies Secession May 23, 1861.

Part 21(a) - North Carolina Secession Convention, meeting in Raleigh, voted unanimously to pass Ordinance of Secession - May 20, 1861
Part 21(b) - Governor of Kentucky declares its neutrality in the War Between The States (War Between Americans) - May 20, 1861
Part 21(c) - Missouri declares its neutrality in the War Between The States (War Between Americans) - May 21, 1861
Part 21(d) - Confederate States of America (CSA) Congress votes to move its capital from Montgomery to Richmond - May 21, 1861
Part 21(e) - Virginia Voter Referendum Ratifies (132,201 to 37,451) Secession vote of April 17 Secession Convention - May 23, 1861
___________________________________________________
Resources: 1) North Carolina in the American Civil War - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_in_the_Civil_War
2) North Carolina Ordinance Of Secession - www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
3) Ordinance of Secession of North Carolina - http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/NC/index.html
4) Civil War Timeline / Chronology for May 1861 - http://blueandgraytrail.com/year/186105
5) Confederate Order of Secession - http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession
6) One Hundred Fifty Years Ago Today - War Between the States Sesquicentennial Calendar - http://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/ - May 20, 1861
_____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

Ordinance of Secessionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession
State Passed Referendum VoteS. Carolina December 20, 1860. [1]
Mississippi January 9, 1861.[2]
Florida January 10, 1861.[3]
Alabama January 11, 1861.[4]
Georgia January 19, 1861.[5]
Louisiana January 26, 1861.[6]
Texas February 1, 1861.[7] February 23 46,153 - 14,747
Virginia April 17, 1861.[8] May 23 132,201 - 37,451
Arkansas May 6, 1861.[9]
Tennessee May 6, 1861.[10] June 8 104,471 - 47,183
N. Carolina May 20, 1861.[11]
Missouri October 31, 1861.[12]
Kentucky November 20, 1861.[13]

Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas also issued separate declarations of causes,
in which they explained their reasons for secession.
American Civil War
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
Texts of the Ordinances - http://web.archive.org/web/20040404171724/members.aol.com/jfepperson/ordnces.html
Texts of declarations of causes - http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Florida's Ordinance of Secession Text and original document from the State Archives of Florida.
South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession Text and original document from the South Carolina Department of Archives and History.

_____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

Part 21(a) - North Carolina Secession Convention, meeting in Raleigh, voted unanimously to pass Ordinance of Secession
- May 20, 1861

North Carolina Ordinance Of Secessionwww.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
[ emphasis added ]

North Carolina
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact
of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."

We, the people of the State of North Carolina in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained,
That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States
was ratified and adopted, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said
Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

We do further declare and ordain, That the union now subsisting between the State of North Carolina and the other States,
under the title of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of North Carolina is in full possession
and exercise of all those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

Done in convention at the city of Raleigh, this the 20th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year
of the independence of said State.
_______________________________________________

North Carolina in the American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_in_the_Civil_War" ... North Carolina did not secede until May 20, 1861, after the fall of Fort Sumter and the secession of the Upper South's bellwether, Virginia.
North Carolina was the last state to secede from the Union, leaving thirteen days after Tennessee ."

Ordinance of Secession of North Carolina http://www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/NC/index.html(Unanimously adopted in the State Capitol at Raleigh on 20 May 1861.)
Includes list of North Carolina Secession Convention officers and delegates

Civil War Timeline / Chronology for May 1861http://blueandgraytrail.com/year/186105 May 20, 1861 Delegates to the North Carolina Secession Convention vote to withdraw from the Union
Confederate Order of Secession
North Carolina Ordinance of Secession

Confederate Order of Secessionhttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession May 20, 1861 Delegates to the North Carolina Secession Convention vote to withdraw from the Union
North Carolina
North Carolina Ordinance of Secession

NC State Capitol in 1861
http://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/ [ May 20, 2011 ]

One Hundred Fifty Years Ago Today - War Between the States Sesquicentennial Calendarhttp://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/North Carolina secedes - May 20, 1861
- In Raleigh, North Carolina, delegates to a State Secession Convention convene at 11AM in the southern wing of the State Capitol
on the anniversary of the 1775 Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. The Lincoln regime has already committed an act of war
against the state by blockading its coast. Little was left to discuss. Debate ends at 6 o'clock p.m. when the convention adopts an
Ordinance of Secession by unanimous vote, becoming the eleventh state to leave the Union.

Seven Score and Ten - The Civil War Sesquicentennial Day by Dayhttp://gathkinsons.net/sesqui/?p=
May 20, 1861: North Carolina secedes – but doesn’t revolt
____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Part 21(b) - Kentucky declares its neutrality in the War Between The States (War Between Americans) - May 20, 1861
May 17, 1861: Kentucky won’t secedehttp://gathkinsons.net/sesqui/"The border state of Kentucky was vital to the Union, and the election of delegates to its convention went well for the Union’s interests."

UNION TRIUMPH IN KENTUCKY.Published: May 18, 1861
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/05/18/news/union-triumph-in-kentucky.html?scp=12&sq=may+18%2C+1861&st=p
"The official vote in eighty-nine counties for the Union Delegates to the Border State Convention is 98,561. Eighteen counties are yet to be heard from.
The aggregate Presidential vote in November was 146,216."
"The House also passed resolutions that Kentucky should maintain a strict neutrality during the present contest, and approving of Gov. MAGOFFIN's refusal,
under existing circumstances, to furnish troops to the Federal Government."

Civil War Timeline / Chronology for May 1861http://blueandgraytrail.com/year/186105 May 20, 1861 Kentucky declares its neutrality in the War Between The States
Confederate Order of Secession

Confederate Order of Secessionhttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession May 20, 1861 Kentucky declares its neutrality in the War Between The States

Kentucky in the American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_Civil_War
"Kentucky, being a border state, was among the chief places where the " Brother against brother" scenario was prevalent. Kentucky was officially neutral
at the beginning of the war, but after a failed attempt by Confederate General Leonidas Polk to take the state of Kentucky for the Confederacy, the legislature
petitioned the Union for assistance, and thereafter became solidly under union control."

One Hundred Fifty Years Ago Today - War Between the States Sesquicentennial Calendarhttp://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/May 20, 1861
- Governor Magoffin proclaims the neutrality of Kentucky in the coming War.

KENTUCKY NEUTRALITY IN 1861http://www.jstor.org/pss/1886256 ________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________

Part 21(c) - Missouri declares its neutrality in the War Between The States (War Between Americans) - May 21, 1861
Confederate Order of Secessionhttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession May 21, 1861 Missouri declares its neutrality in the Civil War
Confederate Order of Secession

Missouri in the American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_in_the_American_Civil_War
"By 1860, Missouri's initial southern settlers had been supplanted with a more diversified non-slave holding population, including many northerners,
German and Irish immigrants. With war seeming inevitable, Missouri thought it could stay out of the conflict by remaining in the Union, but staying neutral
not giving men or supplies to either side and pledging to fight troops from either side who entered the state. The policy was first put forth in 1860 by outgoing
Governor Robert Marcellus Stewart, who had Northern leanings. It was reaffirmed by incoming Governor Claiborne Jackson, who had Southern leanings.
A Constitutional Convention to discuss secession was convened with Sterling Price presiding. The delegates voted to stay in the Union and supported
the neutrality position."

Price-Harney Truce in St. Louis [ Missouri ]http://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/
[ emphasis added ]

"In St. Louis, Missouri, US Brigadier General William S. Harney and Major General Sterling Price of the new Missouri State Guard
meet and sign the Price-Harney Truce putting the Federal military in charge of St. Louis, and leaving state forces to control the rest
of Missouri. In return, Missouri will declare neutrality in the War. Missouri unionists consider the agreement a capitulation to
Governor Claiborne F. Jackson and the secessionists."

Seven Score and Ten - The Civil War Sesquicentennial Day by Dayhttp://gathkinsons.net/sesqui/
May 21, 1861: The Price-Harney Truce

_________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Part 21(d) - Confederate States of America (CSA) Congress votes to move its capital from Montgomery to Richmond
- May 21, 1861
Confederate Order of Secessionhttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession May 21, 1861 Confederate Congress votes to move its capital from Montgomery to Richmond
Richmond, Virginia

Virginia Capitol to host Confederate Congress
http://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/

Capital moves to Richmondhttp://wbts-calendar.blogspot.com/
"Following a May 11 vote by states 5-3 to move the capital to Richmond, Virginia, Confederate Congress today votes
to move the Confederacy’s capital to Richmond, Virginia, and President Jefferson Davis signs an act ordering payment
into the cash-strapped Confederate treasury of all monies owed to Northern creditors. The second Congressional session
adjourns in Montgomery, Alabama, to reconvene in Richmond."

"At Hampton Roads, Virginia, across from Union-controlled Fortress Monroe, the USS Monticello in its efforts to blockade
the Chesapeake Bay, again fires two shots at the Sewall’s Point battery but draws off when Georgia troops manning the
battery returns fire with a Georgia flag flying and under command of Captain Peyton H. Colquitt."

"Meanwhile at Washington, D.C., 11,000 Union troops cross the Potomac River to invade Virginia Soil with a goal to seize Alexandria, Virginia."

___________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Part 21(e) - Virginia Voter Referendum Ratifies (132,201 to 37,451) Secession vote of April 17 Secession Convention - May 23, 1861
Confederate Order of Secessionhttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession May 23, 1861 Virginia ratifies the Secessionist Convention referendum by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451
Confederate Order of Secession
Virginia Secession Convention

Virginia in the American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_Civil_War
[ hyperlink footnote deleted ]
[ emphasis added ]
"The Commonwealth of Virginia was a prominent part of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. The convention called to act for the
state during the secession crisis opened on February 13, 1861, after seven seceding states had formed the Confederacy on [ CCL: February 8]. Unionist delegates
dominated the convention and defeated a motion to secede on April 4. The convention deliberated for several months, but on April 15 President Abraham Lincoln
called for troops from all states still in the Union in response to the Confederate capture of Fort Sumter. On April 17, the Virginia convention voted to secede.
With the entry of Virginia into the Confederacy, a decision was made in May to move the Confederate capital from Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond,
in part because the defense of Virginia's capital was deemed strategically vital to the Confederacy's survival regardless of its political status. Virginians ratified
the articles of secession on May 23. The following day, the Union army moved into northern Virginia and captured Alexandria without a fight."

________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Civil War Timeline / Chronology for May 1861http://blueandgraytrail.com/year/186105

Civil War Timeline / Chronology for 1861http://blueandgraytrail.com/year/1861
American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
THE CIVIL WAR: States Which Secededhttp://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Civil_War_Secessions.pdf
Ordinances of Secessionhttp://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm

_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Battle of Fort Sumterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter#Surrender
[ emphasis added ] "The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the first military action of the American Civil War. Following the surrender, Northerners rallied behind
Lincoln's call for all of the states to send troops to recapture the forts and preserve the Union. With the scale of the rebellion apparently small so far,
Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers for 90 days. This call triggered the secession of four additional states to join the Confederacy."

Tennessee in the American Civil Warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_in_the_American_Civil_WarReaction to the attack on Fort Sumter
With the attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, followed by President Abraham Lincoln’s (February 12, 1809-April 14, 1865) call for 75,000 volunteers
to put the seceded states back into line, public sentiment turned dramatically against the Union.

Historian Daniel Crofts thus reports:

Unionists of all descriptions, both those who became Confederates and those who did not, considered the proclamation calling for seventy-five

thousand troops "disastrous." Having consulted personally with Lincoln in March, Congressman Horace Maynard, the unconditional Unionist and
future Republican from East Tennessee, felt assured that the administration would pursue a peaceful policy. Soon after April 15, a dismayed
Maynard reported that "the President's extraordinary proclamation" had unleashed "a tornado of excitement that seems likely to sweep us all away."
Men who had "heretofore been cool, firm and Union loving" had become "perfectly wild" and were "aroused to a frenzy of passion." For what purpose,
they asked, could such an army be wanted "but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states." The growing war spirit in the North further
convinced southerners that they would have to "fight for our hearthstones and the security of home."

Governor Isham Harris began military mobilization, submitted an ordinance of secession to the General Assembly, and made direct overtures to the Confederate government.

____________________________________________________
At the time of the Confederate firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the Confederate States of America (CSA) consisted of seven slave States:
South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. Eight slave States had not joined the CSA by April 12, 1861:
Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Lincoln's call for militia from all the States caused
four more slave States to secede: Virginia (April 17 / May 23 referendum, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), Tennessee (May 6 / June 8 referendum, 1861), and North Carolina (May 20, 1861). Thus the final composition of the Confederate States of America consisted of "only eleven of the fifteen states in which
slavery was lawful." [America Past and Present ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession
www.csawardept.com/documents/secession/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_in_the_American_Civil_War
www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
United States History, by Ruth Gavian & William Hamm, Revised by Frank Freidel, 1965, pp. 371, 372.
America Past and Present, Volume One to 1877, by Divine, Breen, Fredrickson, Williams, 1987, pp. 421, 422.
__________________________________________________

The Confederate States of America

http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/maps/map1_large.html
Stats:
__________________________________

Union Statistics:2.9 million men served
1.5 million enlisted - 3 years duration

630,000 casualties
360,000 killed in action or died of disease

__________________________________

Confederate Statistics:1.2 million men served
800,000 enslited – 3 years duration

340,000 casualties
250,000 killed in action or died of disease

_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Battle of Fort Sumterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
[ emphasis added; hyperlink superscript footnotes deleted below, available online ]
The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started
the American Civil War.

continued...

Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln's immediate call for 75,000 volunteers
to suppress the rebellion caused an additional four states to secede and join the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun.
continued...

Aftermath

The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the first military action of the American Civil War. Following the surrender, Northerners rallied behind
Lincoln's call for all of the states to send troops to recapture the forts and preserve the Union. With the scale of the rebellion apparently small so far,
Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers for 90 days. This call triggered the secession of four additional states to join the Confederacy. The
ensuing war lasted four years, effectively ending in April 1865, with the surrender of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

continued...

_________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

The American Nation, A History of the United States, by John Garraty with Robert McCaughey, 1991, p. 416.
[ emphasis added ]
"The attack [ CCL: by Confederate batteries on Fort Sumter ] precipitated an outburst of patriotic indignation in the North. Lincoln issued a call for
75,000 volunteers, and this caused Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee to secede. After years of crisis and compromises, the nation
chose to settle the great quarrel between the sections by force of arms."

"Southerners considered Lincoln's call for troops an act of naked aggression. When the first Union regiment tried to pass through Baltimore in
mid-April, it was attacked by a mob. The prosouthern chief of police telegraphed the Maryland state's attorney general: "Streets red with blood. Send ...
for the riflemen to come, without delay. Fresh hordes will be down on us to-morrow." The chief and the mayor of Baltimore then ordered the railroad bridges
connecting Baltimore with the northern states destroyed. Order was not restored until Union troops occupied key points in the city."

"The southerners were seeking to exercise what a later generation would call the right of self-determination. How, they asked, could the North square
its professed belief in democracy with its refusal to permit the southern states to leave the Union when a majority of their citizens wished to do so ?"

[ CCL Note: Perhaps if President Lincoln had welcomed the separation of 11 slave-holding Southern States of the Confederate States of America (CSA),
instead of calling for troops to stop them, the remaining States of the United States of America could have come closer to accomplishing
what the nation's founding father's failed over 70 years earlier to do: bring an end to unbiblical slavery in America. However it was not to be so,
the War Between Americans, 1861-1865 was God's Righteous Judgment upon both North and South for National Sin of Unbiblical American Slavery. ]

"Lincoln took the position that secession was a rejection of democracy. If the South could refuse to abide by the result of an election in which it had
freely participated, then everything that monarchists and other conservatives had said about the instability of republican governments would be proved true.
"The central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy," he said. The United States must "demonstrate to the world" that "when ballots have been
fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections."

[ CCL Note: The July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence asserted political separation is essentially as an unalienable right: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another
and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/index.htm
What was needed then in 1860, and what remains a need today, is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution not only recognizing the principle of unalienable
political separation expressed in the Declaration of Independence, but establishing the practical mechanism for this to be accomplished. Had such an
amendment and mechanism been in place in 1860, perhaps the War Between Americans involving all the States could have been averted. (?). Again,
what is needed today, now, is a constitutional amendment establishing the mechanism for any one of the current 50 States to be able to SEPARATE
from the Federal Union. ]

"This was the proper ground to take, both morally and politically." [ CCL: disagree - President Lincoln could have instead welcomed the separation of the CSA. ]
"A war against slavery would not have been supported by a majority of northerners. Slavery was the root cause of secession but not of the North's determination
to resist secession, which resulted from the people's commitment to the Union. [ CCL: true, well said. ] Although abolition was to be one of the major results
of the Civil War, the war was fought for nationalistic reasons, not to destroy slavery.

[ CCL Note: In the minds of the human actors, at the beginning of the war, yes. However, God's purpose was different, as President Abraham Lincoln came to begin
to realize later. The Emancipation Proclamation was announced September 22, 1862, and then issued effective January 1, 1863. Lincoln's words indicate
he got saved and became a born-again Christian at the time of the dedication of the National Cemetery at the Gettysburg Battlefield (Nov. 1863) "when I ...
saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there, consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus." (The Big Betrayal, p. 56.) ]

"Lincoln made this plain when he wrote [ CCL: August 22, 1862 ] in response to an August 19, 1862 editorial by [ CCL: New York Tribune abolitionist ] Horace Greeley
urging complete emancipation: "I would save the Union .... If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing
all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. He added, however, "I intend no modification
of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free." "
_________________________________________________________________

CCL Note: President Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, believing blacks were entitled to the enjoyment of the same basic Creator-endowed, unalienable rights
listed in the Declaration of Independence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as whites, however he did not believe blacks were due political and social
equality with whites. Lincoln took the position as President that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed, but he (as did the newly formed "third party"
in 1854, the modern Republican Party) sought to prevent the expansion of slavery westward into the U.S. territories. Lincoln then was not an abolitionist,
but was against slavery's expansion. He had wanted to "regulate" slavery, limiting it to where it already existed. However God had other plans. God's intent
was that this abominable practice be brought to an end. President Lincoln's deeper understanding of God's purpose in ENDING UNBIBLICAL AMERICAN SLAVERY in the "terrible war" that God gave to "both North and South" is seen in the words of Lincoln's March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address, given just over a month
before General Lee's surrender at Appomattox, VA on April 9, 1865, and before Lincoln's own death on April 15, 1865 after being shot by Confederate and
Roman Catholic (and tool of Pope Pius IX and the Jesuits - The Big Betrayal, p. 59 ), John Wilkes Booth, on April 14, 1865.

Resources: 1) "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates", Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858 in The Annals of America, Volume 9, 1858-1865, The Crisis of the Union, pp. 11, 12.

2) President Ronald Reagan re-established full diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1984, for the first time in 117 years, since 1867,
after Roman Catholic / Jesuit involvement in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in April 1865:
- Two years after President Lincoln's assassination, the United States Congress broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican/Pope:
"Beginning in [ 1867 ],... Congress ... prohibited the financing of any diplomatic post to the Papal authority."

- Timeline 1984 - "Jan 10, The United States and the Vatican established full diplomatic relations for the first time in 117 years."

- New World Order advocate President George H.W. Bush (YouTube - 0:33, Views - 344,668) said New World Order was helped
during President Reagan's time in office. (YouTube - 1:26, Views - 35,585)

- George H.W. Bush was a CFR -member, a CFR director, and a member of the Trilateral Commission
BEFORE he was picked by " Vatican-friendly" Ronald Reagan to be his vice presidential running mate in 1980:

3) See also "50 Years in the "Church" of Rome," by former Roman Catholic priest, Charles Chiniquy, Table of Contents, Chapters 51, 53, 54
("Rome the implacable enemy of the United States") 55 & 56. ]

"Then said Jesus ... ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."John 8:32, KJV
_______________________________________________________

CCL Note:
The comparison with the modern issue in America of child-murder-by-"abortion" is profound. There are those pro-lifers who wish to establish
the legal "Personhood" of the unborn to END the wicked practice now, and there are those who are supportive of incremental, child-murder/"abortion"
"regulation" legislation. Regulating slavery did not work, and neither has the last 20 years or so of regulating child-murder-by-"abortion".
God's requirement for murder is JUSTICE, not "regulation.
The answer to END, not just "regulate" America's greatest moral crime in 2011, is to PASS PERSONHOOD NOW ! ]

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

America Past and Present, Volume One to 1877, by Divine, Breen, Fredrickson, Williams, 1987, pp. 421, 422.
[ emphasis added ]
"On April 15, Lincoln proclaimed that an insurrection existed in the Deep South and called upon the militia of the loyal states to provide seventy-five thousand
troops for short-term service to put it down. Two days later, a sitting Virginia convention, which had earlier rejected secession, reversed itself and voted to join the
Confederacy. Within the next five weeks, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina followed suit. These slave states of the upper South had been
unwilling to secede just because Lincoln was elected, but when he called upon them to provide troops to "coerce" other southern states, they had to choose sides.
Believing that secession was a constitutional right, they were quick to cut their ties with a government that opted for the use of force to maintain the Union and
called on them to join in that effort."
"In the North, the firing on Sumter evoked strong feelings of patriotism and dedication to the Union." ...continued... "By firing on the flag, the Confederacy united
the North. Everyone assumed that the war would be short and not very bloody. It remained to be seen whether Unionist fervor could be sustained through a long and
costly struggle."
"The entire Confederacy, which now moved its capital from Montgomery to Richmond, Virginia, contained only eleven of the fifteen states in which
slavery was lawful. In the border slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri, secession was thwarted by a combination of local Unionism
and federal intervention."
continued...

"Hence the Civil War was not, strictly speaking, a struggle between slave and free states." ... continued ... "Although concern about the future of slavery had driven
the Deep South to secede in the first place, the actual lineup of states and supporters meant that the two sides would define the war less as a struggle over slavery
than as a contest to determine whether the Union was indivisible."

_____________________________________________________________________

United States History: Heritage of Freedom, in Christian Perspective, by Lowman, Thompson, Grussendorf, 1996, p. 289, 290.
(A Beka Book, A Christian textbook ministry of Pensacola Christian College, Pensacola, Florida)
[ selected emphasis added ]
Reaction to Conflict The North rises to preserve the Union."President Lincoln had maintained that the Constitution of the United States was a permanent, binding contract and that therefore the states could not secede
from the Union. News of the siege of Fort Sumter rallied the North behind him. The people of the North, regardless of political affiliation, rose to support the Union."
...continued ...

"From the beginning of the conflict, Lincoln was careful not to breed unnecessary hostility between North and South. Rather than declaring war on the Southern
states, he simply handled the situation as an insurrection of certain radical groups. On April 15, he called for 75,000 volunteer militiamen for three months' service to
put down "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." His request was met with enthusiastic response."
The South rises to preserve states' rights. "Many Southerners believed that the U.S. Constitution was a compact entered into voluntarily by the individual states. They concluded that since the states had
voluntarily entered the Union, they could voluntarily leave the Union. The Southern states said they were fighting not to preserve the institution of slavery but to
preserve states' rights."
More border states secede.
"Lincoln's call for invasion forces led to the secession of four border states from the Union. Virginia seceded almost immediately, bringing the Confederacy
dangerously close to Washington. [ CCL: By the beginning of June ], Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina had seceded as well. However, many citizens
in these states continued to hold strong Union sentiments. The sentiment in northwestern Virginia was so strong that several counties separated from the state.
In 1863, these counties were admitted to the Union as the state of West Virginia."
"The remaining four border states - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware - waited to see what course the conflict would take. They preferred to
remain within the Union, but if the conflict became a war to destroy slavery, they would probably secede. President Lincoln handled the situation tactfully, and
these four states remained loyal to the Union throughout the war. However, sentiment in these states was sharply divided. Many men from the border states
fought for the Union, but many also joined the Confederacy. In many cases, brother took up arms against brother."

_____________________________________________________________________

United States History, by Ruth Gavian & William Hamm, Revised by Frank Freidel, 1965, pp. 370-372.
[ selected emphasis added ]
Both sides call for volunteers.
"On April 14, 1861, when the news from Charleston flashed through the North, the people seemed to forget all their differences in a cry for revenge.
The next day Lincoln issued a call for volunteers to put down what he called the "insurrection." Men responded quickly and in greater numbers than
the President asked. Jefferson Davis also called for volunteers, and thousands rushed to the Confederate colors. The "irrepressible conflict" had come."

Four more states leave the Union.
"Up to this time eight slave states in the upper South had not seceded. In each of them two parties were struggling for control - the secessionists
and the Unionists. Once it became clear that Lincoln would use force against the seceded states, the four middle slave states - Arkansas, Tennessee,
North Carolina, and Virginia - joined the Confederacy."
"Virginia's action deprived the Union of the services of the ablest commander in the country - Robert E. Lee. Lincoln had already offered him command
of the Union army. Lee hated slavery and had freed his own slaves. He loved the Union, which he had served for thirty-two years. Still he felt that he
could not fight against his own state, his relatives and his neighbors. With deep regret he resigned his commission in the United States Army and accepted
one in the Confederate army. He became a tower of strength to the Confederacy."

West Virginia is formed.
"A bitter division of opinion developed in Virginia, and the western counties refused to follow the rest of the state. They held a convention at Wheeling,
declared that they represented the wishes of the people of Virginia, and voted to stay in the Union. At a later convention they organized the state of
West Virginia, which was admitted to the Union in 1863. Lincoln approved this action as a war measure, although the Constitution forbids the division
of a state without its consent."

Four slave states remain in the Union.
"In Missouri the Unionists and secessionists fought a civil war of their own, but the state did not secede. The governor of Kentucky declared that his state
would take no part in the war - that is, it would remain "neutral." Lincoln's tact kept Kentucky in the Union, and tens of thousands of her citizens enlisted in
the Union army. However, several thousand other Kentuckians served in the Confederate army."
"In Maryland the secessionist party was strong. If Maryland seceded, Washington would be surrounded and might become the Confederate capital. However,
United States military authorities occupied Baltimore and Annapolis, where they arrested secessionist leaders. The secession movement collapsed. Maryland
was saved for the Union. The fourth slave state to stay in the Union was Delaware. This state's legislature voted unanimously to reject secession."

On both sides loyalties are divided. "Neither side had the united support of its people. The Confederate army, as well as the Union army, included volunteers and officers from every state, both
North and South. Sometimes a single family had members fighting on opposite sides. This kind of family tragedy was frequent in the border states."
continued ...

__________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

States Which Secededhttp://ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/features/faq/seceded.cfm
Convention of Seceding Stateshttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Convention_of_Seceding_States
Timeline of Secessionwww.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/south_secede/timeline_secession.cfm
The Confederate States of America - Overview of the Confederacy www.civilwarhome.com/confederacyoverview.htm
Confederate Constitutions And Viewpointswww.csawardept.com/documents/Constitutions/CSA/index.html
Confederate Order of Secessionhttp://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Confederate_Order_of_Secession
Confederate States of Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
[ emphasis added ]
Confederate States Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution
_____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

A SUMMARY OF THE STATES THAT SECEDED FROM THE UNIONwww.tngenweb.org/campbell/hist-bogan/secessedStates.html"On November 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth President of the United States. His election to the presidency
was the final blow to the South and led directly to the break up of the Union. Five months after his election, the North and South
were engrossed in a bloody civil war. This was the culmination over thirty years of debate about the slavery and extension
of slavery into new territories."________________________________________________________________________________

The American Civil War Homepage http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html#letters
Declaration of Causes (of Secession) of Seceding States - GA, MISS, SC, TXhttp://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Category:Political Speeches & Documentshttp://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Category:Political_Speeches_%26_Documents

Category:Confederate States of America documentshttp://civilwarwiki.net/wiki/Category:Confederate_States_of_America_documents

The Secession Movement 1860-1861
by Dwight Lowell Dumond http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/_Topics/history/_Texts/DUMSEC/Bibliography*.html Bibliography
Primary Sources

Confederate States of America : Documents http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

The Online Library of Liberty
PART ONE: The Civil War http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2282&chapter=216178&layout=html&Itemid=27

The Civil War and the Expansion of Slaveryhttp://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/dbq/11014.html

Document Links

A. Calhoun on the Compromise of 1850
B. Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Freesoiler
C. Bleeding Kansas
D. Republican Party Platform of 1856
E. A House Divided
F. National Democratic Party Platform of 1860
G. Union Must and Shall Be Preserved
H. Crittenden's Proposed Amendment
I. Response to the Crittenden Amendment
J. Mississippi's Declaration of Secession

The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader
The "Great Truth" about the "Lost Cause"Edited by James W. Loewen
and Edward H. Sebesta
www.upress.state.ms.us/books/1338Resounding documentary proof that the original reasoning behind secession and subsequent myth-making
was in defense of slavery and white supremacy

_________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

Secession
of the Confederate States of America (CSA)

Secession Begins:
December 20, 1860
South Carolina

Secession Complete:
June 8, 1861
Tennessee

Secession Documents::

Related Documents:

_______________________________________________________________________

http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/searchlm.php?function=find&exhibit=crisis&browse=crisis
______________________________________________________________________________

Confrontation to Conflict: South Carolina's Path to the Civil war
An Exhibit of State Documents Marking South Carolina's Journey from Nullification to Secessionwww.palmettohistorysc.org/
Friday, December 17, 2010
"On the convention’s first day, delegates unanimously resolved that South Carolina should secede from the Union.
Fearing a smallpox epidemic in Columbia, the delegates travelled to Charleston, where they reconvened and drafted
the Ordinance of Secession. The document repealed the United States Constitution and declared “that the Union now
subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name ‘The United States of America,’ is hereby dissolved.”
On December 20 delegates signed the document before thousands of exultant spectators. Four days later the delegates
agreed to provide an explanation for their actions and adopted a Declaration of the Immediate Causes, which
blamed secession on northern states for violating the fourth article of the Constitution and refusing to return runaway slaves."
"When South Carolinians had argued for secession during previous sectional crises, other southern states had urged caution.
So in December 1860 and January 1861 South Carolina sent envoys to southern states to once again urge secession. This time,
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed South Carolina’s lead. On February 4, 1861,
the recently seceded states formed the Confederate States of America, and on April 12, 1861, Confederate forces in Charleston Harbor
fired on the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter. President Lincoln called for volunteers to put down the rebellion, which led Virginia, Arkansas,
North Carolina, and Tennessee to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy."

________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

Category: Short-lived stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Short-lived_statesCountries (recognized or not) that controlled territory but existed for generally less than ten years.

Category: Confederate States of Americahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Confederate_States_of_America
The Confederate States of America (CSA, also known as the Confederacy) was the confederacy formed by the southern states that seceded
from the United States during the period of the American Civil War. The 11 states of the Confederacy were Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.

The main article for this category is Confederate States of America.
See also: Category:Foreign relations during the American Civil War

_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Repentance for the sins of our forefathers is Biblical.

In keeping with Nehemiah, chapter 1; Nehemiah, chapter 9; and Daniel, chapter 9; we all as Americans, if we have not done so already,
should repent for the sin of our forefathers, North and South, in not putting an END to the abomination of Unbiblical American Slavery before1860.
( Slavery as an institution among the union of States should have been stopped in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA ! )

The failure of our forefathers, North and South, to END Slavery (and not just "Regulate" Slavery by limiting it to only the Southern States) led to
the horrific loss of over 600,000 American lives in the ensuing War Between Americans (1861-1865).
As Americans, we should all repent, because these men were the forefathers of our country. Repentance for the sins of our forefathers is Biblical.

May God give us in our own day, especially Christians (2 Chronicles 7:14, Matthew 5:13-16, KJV), the VISION (Proverb 29:18, KJV) to "see" that
the greatest moral crime of our day, the murder of children in the wombs of their mothers, must END if America is not to be destroyed, by God.
[ Leviticus 20:3; Matthew 22:37-39; Proverbs 24:10-12; Psalm 82:3,4; Isaiah 1:15-17,23; Luke 10:29-37; Matthew 25:31-46, KJV ]
[ Jeremiah 26:15; Deuteronomy 19:10; Deuteronomy 21:1,2,7-9; Matthew 27:24,25, KJV ]

Righteousness cannot be done in a land of forgetfulness.(see Psalm 88:12, KJV).
Steve Lefemine

_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

George Mason 1787 Constitutional Convention quote:
George Mason ('Father of the Bill of Rights'), Virginia delegate, August 22, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention:

"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country.
As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain
of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities."
The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madisonwww.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0822.htm

www.adena.com/adena/usa/rv/rv009.htm
www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/Mason%20George/quotes/contents.html
www.christianheritagemins.org/articles/Founding%20Fathers'%20Anti-slavery%20Addresses%20and%20Legislation.htm

Spoken prophetically in 1787, the national sin of American Slavery brought National Calamity, at the Hand of God,
in the 1861-1865 War Between Americans (War Between the States, Civil War), killing over 600,000 Americans.
And so it is today, the national sin of Child-Murder/Sacrifice-by-"Abortion" is bringing judgment and calamity upon America now,
and unless repented of, especially by Christians (for the sins of both commission and omission, including failing to do all that is possible
to ESTABLISH JUSTICE and END the killing), will bring National Calamity and destruction of today's America, at the Hand of God.
Establish Personhood now !
Steve Lefemine

"As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless
they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]." - United States Founding Father, "Father of the Bill of Rights", Constitutional Convention Delegate, George Mason,
"Elliot's Debates", Vol. III, pp. 452-454, June 15, 1788
www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/Mason%20George/quotes/contents.html
_______________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
AMERICA IN 2011 - A NATION ONCE AGAIN UNDER DIVINE JUDGMENT

- Especially for murdering 3,000+ pre-born children per day,
when establishing " Personhood" could end the slaughter in a week.
2 Chronicles 7:14 - God's remedy for America to be healed is for we who are CHRISTIANS to REPENT !
"If My people [Christians], which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray,
and seek My Face, and turn from their wicked ways [sins of commission and omission]; then
will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land [America, or any nation]."
Our only hope is REPENTANCE before God for our national sin, especially our national Bloodguilt.

Establishing " Personhood" for pre-born human beings, at fertilization, with no exceptions, would Establish Justice,
and demonstrate to the One, True, Holy, and Almighty God, that we are sincere in our desire to bring America's 38+ year
Child-Murder-by-"Abortion" Holocaust to an end.

Most of all, child-sacrifice/murder-by-"abortion" is an offense to God Himself. Mankind is created in His image (Gen. 1:26,27).
God says, to commit child-sacrifice to Molech, is "to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My Holy Name." Leviticus 20:3

If child-murder-by-"abortion" were to end today in America, there would still remain the need to REPENT
for all the innocent blood which has already been shed (over 52 Million murdered by surgical "abortion" alone,
not counting the likely multiple times that number destroyed chemically by dual action contraceptive/abortifacient
"birth control" pills, Depo-Provera, etc., ad nauseam).

Numbers 35:33; Jeremiah chapter 19; Psalm 106:37-44; 2 Kings 24:1-4 (KJV) - the shedding of innocent blood
(e.g., child-murder/sacrifice-by-"abortion") incurs the righteous judgment of God upon a nation.

There is corporate bloodguilt upon the land, and upon we who dwell in America, for the 52+ Million
pre-born human beings slaughtered in their mothers' wombs by surgical abortion, and for perhaps
multiple times that amount destroyed by chemical "abortion" (including " Birth Control" pills, which
act both contraceptively and abortifaciently).

Genesis 4:10; Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 19:10; Deuteronomy 21:1,2,7-9; Proverb 6:16,17;
Jeremiah 26:15; Jeremiah 32:35,36; Ezekiel 35:6; Hosea 4:2; Matthew 27:24,25 (KJV).
For those who need to come out of denial (all of us to one degree or another) about the gruesome nature of child-murder-by-"abortion"
- view the video of the commission of an actual child-murder-by-"abortion" at: www.AbortionNo.org
- or look at pictures at: www.abortionno.org/index.php/abortion_pictures/
[ CCL Note: The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) is unfortunately also an ecumenical organization,
yoking with followers of the false religion of Rome. ]

"America Repent" (music video)Contemporary Christian Artist: Tim Juillet
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLlOdkO9jak
Video (4:34)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvu6hHLSpzk
Video (4:33)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,...
seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6, KJV

_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
From: www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net, "Events" page:

FIFTH ANNUAL "REPENTANCE FOR BLOODGUILT" OUTDOOR WORSHIP SERVICE IN COLUMBIA, SC
(since January 2003)
Sunday, January 21, 2007, South Steps, SC State House, Columbia, South Carolina
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/REP07-05.doc

Just as the national sin of American slavery brought God's judgment of war upon both the North and the South in 1861,
so is the national sin of child-murder-by-"abortion" bringing wars, terrorism, domestic violence, illegal immigration (foreign invasion),
economic hardship (and potential economic catastrophe), national deficits, national debt, tyrannical rulers (Psalm 106:37-44, KJV), etc.,
as divine judgments upon our rebellious, wicked nation today (Psalm 9:17, Proverb 14:34, KJV).

It is God alone Who can bring peace, safety, and security to a land (Leviticus 26:5,6, KJV), and ... Foreign invasion and War
divine consequences upon a nation, any nation, for the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., 2 Kings 24:1-4, KJV)...

When child-murder-by-"abortion" ends one day in America (when Christian pro-lifers stop following the false leadership (Isa. 3:12, Isa. 9:16, KJV) of the National Right to Life Committee, originally founded under the auspices of the American Roman Catholic Bishops [ appointed by the Pope ],
in incessantly finding new ways to incrementally "regulate" child-murder, instead of applying God's requirement for Biblical JUSTICE to END abortion),
there will still remain the need for the Nation, the States, the Churches, Families, and Individuals, throughout America, to Repent, because
if child-murder-by-"abortion" were to end TODAY (March 31, 2011), there would still be a need to REPENT for the 52 Million+ already murdered (and this does not count the likely multiple tens of millions aborted chemically by "Birth Control" pills, Depo-Provera, etc., ad nauseam.

GOD'S REQUIREMENT FOR MURDER IS JUSTICE, NOT INCREMENTAL REGULATION !!!
Similarly, regarding slavery, there remains the need for the Nation, the States, the Churches, Families, and individuals of both the North and South, to Repent,
where it has not been done already, for the national sin of slavery, which was not ENDED until 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
after Americans fought our most costly war (over 600,000 dead), against each other !!! The 13th Amendment stopped the perpetration of the sin
and crime of unbiblical American slavery, but that's not the same as repenting, saying we as a nation are sorry, for what had already been done
during 250 years (from colonial Jamestown, VA until 1865) of "unrequited toil," as Lincoln said in his March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address.

Even the ecumenical Southern Baptist Convention repented in its 1995 national convention in Atlanta, GA, for slavery and racism.
[ May leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention also repent of their ecumenical " culture war" efforts with followers of the false religion of Roman Catholicism. ]

Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Conventionwww.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899June 1995

And even leaders of the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, women - priests - ordaining, apostate Episcopal Church USA apologized
"for their ancestors' slave ownership" in a "solemn repentance service" in Philadelphia, PA in October 2008.
[ May the apostate Episcopal Church USA also repent of being pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, and of ordaining women priests. ]

In February 2007, the Virginia state legislature also apologized:

Virginia state lawmakers pass slavery apologywww.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-24-virginia-slavery_x.htm

____________________________________________________________________

Child-murder-by-"abortion" is a national sin.
9-11 was a national calamity.
More and greater divine judgment is coming upon America, unless we repent of the national sin of "abortion". If we will not repent of the national sin of "abortion", then the America of today will be destroyed, just as God destroyedthe kingdom of Judah, with successive waves of foreign invasion in 605 BC, 597 BC, and 586 BC (2 Kings, chapters 24 and 25).
We've already been attacked on September 11, 2001. Consider the undeclared / unconstitutional wars, calamities, and
other dangers America has suffered since 9-11: War in Afghanistan (2001 to today), War in Iraq (2003 to today), Katrina (2005),
ongoing Illegal Immigration (Foreign) Invasion, Economic "Great Recession" (?), and now, War in Libya (2011).
What will it be next, America ? What will it be next, Church ?

Repentance finally, or further and greater divine judgment ?

Abraham Lincoln, President, March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address:www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
[ excerpts, emphasis added ]

"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the
Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and
powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence
of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills
to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to
those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine
attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently
do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it
continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall
be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still
it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." "

In spite of his failings, Lincoln was right in his March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address,when he said God gave "this terrible war" to BOTH North and South for the offense of slavery.

And today, God is bringing (increasing) divine judgment on America in the year 2010,
for our ongoing, unrepented, national sin of child-murder/sacrifice-by-"abortion".

As America considers the twin major national security issues of:
1) Millions of illegal aliens having already entered our country, and
2) The terrible consequences of the undeclared, and therefore unconstitutional, and therefore illegal;
as well as unjustified (no 9-11 connection, no WMD's), and therefore unnecessary (not a "just" war),
and therefore immoral War in Iraq, REMEMBER:
It is God alone Who can bring peace, safety, and security to a land (Leviticus 26:5,6, KJV),
and ... Foreign invasion and War are divine consequences upon a nation, any nation, for the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., 2 Kings 24:1-4, KJV)...

Child-sacrifice is an offense to God.
God says child-sacrifice defiles His sanctuary, and profanes His Holy Name.
Leviticus 20:3, KJV
What is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in America doing to Establish Justice to END this offense to our Creator ?! Establish Personhood now !

As has been said, it's now either Christ, or Chaos (and then Tyranny)...

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
2 Corinthians 3:17, KJB
Repent, Church ! Repent, America ! __________________________________________________________________________________

No King but King Jesus! (Yeshua Messiah)Declarations and Evidences of Christian Faith in America’s Colonial Charters, State Constitutions,
and other Historical Documents during over 375 Years of American History: 1606 to 1982
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/NoKingbutKingJesus.doc

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: ..." Proverb 29:18, KJV

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,...
seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." Hosea 4:6, KJV

Christ is Ruler of the Nations !
Psalm 2; Psalm 24:1; Psalm 47:7,8; Psalm 50:12; 1 Timothy 6:15, KJV

"For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations."
Psalm 22:28, KJV

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; ..."
Psalm 33:12a, KJV

"... I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah)

Hallelu-Yah !

Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
PO Box 50358, Columbia, SC 29250
USA
(803) 794-6273
Columbia Christians for Life
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeactofSC.net
www.LefemineForLife.net

US Army active duty, 1977-1982, CPT, FA
US Army Reserves, 1982-1993, MAJ, FA
USMA 1977

May 21, 2011
________________________________________________________

To unsubscribe, send "Unsubscribe" to:
Columbia Christians for Life CCL@spiritcom.net
________________________________________________________

Steve Lefemine on Abraham Lincoln

2011-04-02T13:52:00.000-04:00

March 30, 1863: President Abraham Lincoln designates and sets apart
National Day of Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer for April 30, 1863

Proclamation 97 - Appointing a Day of National Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer
March 30, 1863http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69891#axzz1IEEkA4EC
[ excerpts ]

"Whereas the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, ..."

"Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow,
yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history,
that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord;"

"And, insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the
awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation
as a whole people?"

"It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

"Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do by this my proclamation designate and set apart Thursday,
the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer."

________________________________

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/proclamations.php?year=1863&Submit=DISPLAY http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=69891#axzz1IEEkA4EC

Proclamation 97 - Appointing a Day of National Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer
March 30, 1863

By the President of the United States of AmericaA Proclamation

Whereas the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations,
has by a resolution requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation; and

Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow,
yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history,
that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord;

And, insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the
awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation
as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in
numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied
and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and
virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the
God that made us.

It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do by this my proclamation designate and set apart Thursday,
the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting, and prayer. And I do hereby request all the people to abstain on that day from their ordinary secular pursuits,
and to unite at their several places of public worship and their respective homes in keeping the day holy to the Lord and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties
proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the divine teachings that the united cry of the nation will be heard on high and
answered with blessings no less than the pardon of our national sins and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to its former happy condition of unity and peace.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 30th day of March, A. D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State .

______________________________________________________

Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA.
Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=69891.

© 1999-2011 - Gerhard Peters - The American Presidency Project

______________________________________________________________

From Columbia Christians for Life:

Righteousness cannot be done in a land of forgetfulness.(see Psalm 88:12, KJV).
Steve Lefemine
CCL
March 31, 2011

_____________________________________

George Mason 1787 Constitutional Convention quote:

George Mason ('Father of the Bill of Rights'), Virginia delegate, August 22, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention:

"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgement of heaven upon a country.
As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain
of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities."

The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madisonwww.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0822.htm

www.adena.com/adena/usa/rv/rv009.htm
www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/Mason%20George/quotes/contents.html www.christianheritagemins.org/articles/Founding%20Fathers'%20Anti-slavery%20Addresses%20and%20Legislation .htm

Spoken prophetically in 1787, the national sin of American Slavery brought National Calamity, at the Hand of God,
in the 1861-1865 War Between Americans (War Between the States, Civil War), killing over 600,000 Americans.
And so it is today, the national sin of Child-Murder/Sacrifice-by-"Abortion" is bringing judgment and calamity upon America now,
and unless repented of, especially by Christians (for the sins of both commission and omission, including failing to do all that is possible
to ESTABLISH JUSTICE and END the killing), will bring National Calamity and destruction of today's America, at the Hand of God.

Establish Personhood now !
Steve Lefemine

"As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless
they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]."
- United States Founding Father, "Father of the Bill of Rights", Constitutional Convention Delegate, George Mason,
"Elliot's Debates", Vol. III, pp. 452-454, June 15, 1788 www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/Mason%20George/quotes/contents.html

______________________________________________________________

AMERICA IN 2011 - A NATION ONCE AGAIN UNDER DIVINE JUDGMENT

- Especially for murdering 3,000+ pre-born children per day,
when establishing " Personhood" could end the slaughter in a week.

2 Chronicles 7:14 - God's remedy for America to be healed is for we who are CHRISTIANS to REPENT !

"If My people [Christians], which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray,
and seek My Face, and turn from their wicked ways [sins of commission and omission]; then
will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land [America, or any nation]."
Our only hope is REPENTANCE before God for our national sin, especially our national Bloodguilt.
Establishing " Personhood" for pre-born human beings, at fertilization, with no exceptions, would Establish Justice,
and demonstrate to the One, True, Holy, and Almighty God, that we are sincere in our desire to bring America's 38+ year
Child-Murder-by-"Abortion" Holocaust to an end.

Most of all, child-sacrifice/murder-by-"abortion" is an offense to God Himself. Mankind is created in His image (Gen. 1:26,27).
God says, to commit child-sacrifice to Molech, is "to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My Holy Name." Leviticus 20:3

If child-murder-by-"abortion" were to end today in America, there would still remain the need to REPENT
for all the innocent blood which has already been shed (over 52 Million murdered by surgical "abortion" alone,
not counting the likely multiple times that number destroyed chemically by dual action contraceptive/abortifacient
"birth control" pills, Depo-Provera, etc., ad nauseam).
Numbers 35:33; Jeremiah chapter 19; Psalm 106:37-44; 2 Kings 24:1-4 (KJV) - the shedding of innocent blood
(e.g., child-murder/sacrifice-by-"abortion") incurs the righteous judgment of God upon a nation.

There is corporate bloodguilt upon the land, and upon we who dwell in America, for the 52+ Million
pre-born human beings slaughtered in their mothers' wombs by surgical abortion, and for perhaps
multiple times that amount destroyed by chemical "abortion" (including " Birth Control" pills, which
act both contraceptively and abortifaciently).

Genesis 4:10; Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 19:10; Deuteronomy 21:1,2,7-9; Proverb 6:16,17;
Jeremiah 26:15; Jeremiah 32:35,36; Ezekiel 35:6; Hosea 4:2; Matthew 27:24,25 (KJV).

For those who need to come out of denial (all of us to one degree or another) about the gruesome nature of child-murder-by-"abortion"
- view the video of the commission of an actual child-murder-by-"abortion" at: www.AbortionNo.org
- or look at pictures at: www.abortionno.org/index.php/abortion_pictures/
[ CCL Note: The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) is unfortunately also an ecumenical organization,
                        yoking with followers of the false religion of Rome. ]

"America Repent" (music video)Contemporary Christian Artist: Tim Juillet
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLlOdkO9jak
Video (4:34)   www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvu6hHLSpzk
Video (4:33)

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,...
seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."   Hosea 4:6, KJV

________________________

From: www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net, "Events" page:
FIFTH ANNUAL "REPENTANCE FOR BLOODGUILT" OUTDOOR WORSHIP SERVICE IN COLUMBIA, SC
(since January 2003)
Sunday, January 21, 2007, South Steps, SC State House, Columbia, South Carolinahttp://christianlifeandliberty.net/REP07-05.doc

Just as the national sin of American slavery brought God's judgment of war upon both the North and the South in 1861,
so is the national sin of child-murder-by-"abortion" bringing wars, terrorism, domestic violence, illegal immigration (foreign invasion),
economic hardship (and potential economic catastrophe), national deficits, national debt, tyrannical rulers (Psalm 106:37-44, KJV), etc.,
as divine judgments upon our rebellious, wicked nation today (Psalm 9:17, Proverb 14:34, KJV).

It is God alone Who can bring peace, safety, and security to a land (Leviticus 26:5,6, KJV), and ... Foreign invasion and War
divine consequences upon a nation, any nation, for the shedding of innocent blood (e.g., 2 Kings 24:1-4, KJV)...

When child-murder-by-"abortion" ends one day in America (when Christian pro-lifers stop following the false leadership (Isa. 3:12, Isa. 9:16, KJV) of the National Right to Life Committee, originally founded under the auspices of the American Roman Catholic Bishops [ appointed by the Pope ],
in incessantly finding new ways to incrementally "regulate" child-murder, instead of applying God's requirement for Biblical JUSTICE to END abortion),
there will still remain the need for the Nation, the States, the Churches, Families, and Individuals, throughout America, to Repent, because
if child-murder-by-"abortion" were to end TODAY (March 31, 2011), there would still be a need to REPENT for the 52 Million+ already murdered(and this does not count the likely multiple tens of millions aborted chemically by "Birth Control" pills, Depo-Provera, etc., ad nauseam.
GOD'S REQUIREMENT FOR MURDER IS JUSTICE, NOT INCREMENTAL REGULATION !!!
Similarly, regarding slavery, there remains the need for the Nation, the States, the Churches, Families, and individuals of both the North and South, to Repent,
where it has not been done already, for the national sin of slavery, which was not ENDED until 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
after Americans fought our most costly war (over 600,000 dead), against each other !!! The 13th Amendment stopped the perpetration of the sin
and crime of unbiblical American slavery, but that's not the same as repenting, saying we as a nation are sorry, for what had already been done
during 250 years (from colonial Jamestown, VA until 1865) of "unrequited toil," as Lincoln said in his March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address.

Even the ecumenical Southern Baptist Convention repented in its 1995 national convention in Atlanta, GA, for slavery and racism.
[ May leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention also repent of their ecumenical "culture war" efforts with followers of the false religion of Roman Catholicism. ]
Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Conventionwww.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=899
June 1995

And even leaders of the pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, women - priests - ordaining, apostate Episcopalapologized
"for their ancestors' slave ownership" in a "solemn repentance service" in Philadelphia, PA in October 2008.
[ May the apostate Episcopal Church USA also repent of being pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, and of ordaining women priests. ]

In February 2007, the Virginia state legislature also apologized:

Virginia state lawmakers pass slavery apology www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-24-virginia-slavery_x.htm

_________________________________________

Child-murder-by-"abortion" is a national sin.

9-11 was a national calamity.

More and greater divine judgment is coming upon America, unless we repent of the national sin of "abortion". If we will not repent of the national sin of "abortion", then the America of today will be destroyed, just as God destroyedthe kingdom of Judah, with successive waves of foreign invasion in 605 BC, 597 BC, and 586 BC (2 Kings, chapters 24 and 25).
We've already been attacked on September 11, 2001. Consider the undeclared / unconstitutional wars, calamities, and
other dangers America has suffered since 9-11: War in Afghanistan (2001 to today), War in Iraq (2003 to today), Katrina (2005),
ongoing Illegal Immigration (Foreign) Invasion, Economic "Great Recession" (?).
What will it be next, America ? What will it be next, Church ?

Repentance finally, or further and greater divine judgment ?

Abraham Lincoln, President, March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address:www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
[ excerpts, emphasis added ]

"One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the
Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and
powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence
of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills
to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to
those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine
attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently
do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it
continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall
be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still
it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." "

In spite of all his failings, Lincoln was right in his March 4, 1865 Second Inaugural Address,when he said God gave "this terrible war" to BOTH North and South for the offense of slavery.

And today, God is bringing (increasing) divine judgment on America in the year 2010,
for our ongoing, unrepented, national sin of child-murder/sacrifice-by-"abortion".

Child-sacrifice is an offense to God.

God says child-sacrifice defiles His sanctuary, and profanes His Holy Name.

Leviticus 20:3, KJV

What is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in America doing to Establish Justice to END this offense to our Creator ?!        Establish Personhood now !

As has been said, it's now either Christ, or Chaos (and then Tyranny)...

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17, KJB
,Repent, Church !       Repent, America !
__________________________________

No King but King Jesus! (Yeshua Messiah)Declarations and Evidences of Christian Faith in America’s Colonial Charters, State Constitutions,
and other Historical Documents during over 375 Years of American History: 1606 to 1982www.christianlifeandliberty.net/NoKingbutKingJesus.doc

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: ..."   Proverb 29:18, KJV

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,...
seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."   Hosea 4:6, KJV

Christ is Ruler of the Nations !
Psalm 2; Psalm 24:1; Psalm 47:7,8; Psalm 50:12; 1 Timothy 6:15, KJV

"For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations."
Psalm 22:28, KJV

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; ..."
Psalm 33:12a, KJV

"... I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
     Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah)

Hallelu-Yah !

Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
PO Box 50358, Columbia, SC 29250
USA
(803) 794-6273
Columbia Christians for Life www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeactofSC.net
www.LefemineForLife.net

US Army active duty, 1977-1982, CPT, FA
US Army Reserves, 1982-1993, MAJ, FA
USMA 1977

March 31, 2011

________________________________________________________

To unsubscribe, send "Unsubscribe" to:
Columbia Christians for Life CCL@spiritcom.net
________________________________________________________

Church USA

The American Presidency Project

Neo-Liberalism Exposed

2011-03-11T01:36:00.006-05:00

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23620

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23630

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23637

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/ron_paul.html

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/the-nazi-origins-of-the-space-shuttle

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23637

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/03/lifting-veil-obama-and-failure-capitalist-democracy

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23639

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23585

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23621

_________

JOHNS ON TOP OF IT wrote:
The NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION: MUST COME FROM WITHIN! Each and every politically aware individual needs to let their VOICES be heard. It is an absolute and complete travesty that we see taking place right before our eyes.
I go away two weeks ago, return and the gas prices have gone up nearly a 1/2 dollar. What does this mean? Higher food, energy, clothing, and all essentials for life are SKY ROCKETING in PRICE. And for what reason? Pure and simple...GREED!!!
There are no OIL SHORTAGES, no BUSTED OIL or NATURAL GAS LINES, no HURRYCANE KRINAS to BLAME. It’s all about (GREED) the O-MIGHTY DOLLAR.
People UNIVERSALLY need to take a day off from driving. At least once a week consider (a day) not driving taking public transportation. Trust me? These will add up in the long run.
NONVIOLENT REVOLUTION works: REMEMBER the Selma, Alabama bus boycott? That was a NONVIOLENT REVOLUTIONARY act taking place by all of the people acting in unison.

And now it seems that Madison, Wisconsin is rediscovering the nonviolent resistance tactics of Selma and Birmingham.
We now have a NONVIOLENT LABOR MOVEMENT spreading in the North, just as our Civil Rights Movement spread through the South during the 1960s.
It is now a CLASS MOVEMENT--working people being black, white, latin, Asian,male,female or what have you.
It is a MULTIRACIAL movement of the dispossessed and exploited fighting for economic justice and basic democratic rights like collective bargaining.
It is remarkable when we recall that Dr. King's last campaign in Memphis was a fight for ECONOMIC as well as racial justice, a fight for the rights of impoverished Black sanitation workers to decent working conditions, benefits, salaries and the right to collective bargaining which the white supremacist corporate power structure sought to deny.
King once said that economic injustice was the twin of racial injustice; and that one possible outcome of a successful civil rights movement was that the racial divide may be at least breached (even if not eliminated) sufficiently for a COMMON STRUGGLE of the dispossesed to become possible. His last INTENDED campaign was the Poor Peoples Campaign, which a bullet prevented him from leading on April 4, 1968.
He intended to lead a NONVIOLENT REVOLUTIONARY campaign to Washington, DC to fight for social justice, and an ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS. He planned to unite poor and their allies--black, white, latino, labor, progressive religious communities, progressive intellectuals and student--on a massive campaign to end the evils of exploitation, racism and militarism.
Perhaps the rising, nonviolent labor movement is an indication that the time is right for the resumption of that nonviolent revolution which King and others wanted to achieve in 1968.
We can prevail against fascist Republicans like Scott Brown despite the cowardly temporizing and vacillating of weak kneed Democrats (obviously, I don't mean those 14 courageous Dems in WI who are standing with the working people).
In previous posts I expressed my desire to see "Freedom for the people of Egypt. Down with the dictatorship. Prison or exile for the dictators."
Now I say "Justice and democratic rights for the American people. Justice for American workers. Oust the despots who seek to crush the workers. Long live freedom!"
We need a nonviolent revolution of MILLIONS of Americans of all races, colors and creeds to fight for economic democracy and civil liberties.
Down with plotocracy! Justice for all.

-Savant

______________________

ChocolateQueen001 wrote:
What happened in Wisconsin is pure bullsh*t against the constitutional rights and voice of the people. What Walker did wasn’t brilliant. He just confirmed that Republicans are the best at dirty politics, pathological lying and backroom sleaze.
2012 is going to be bluer than blue.

It was a coup d'etat by a fascist governor and his looney rightwing senate. They lost the debate, with at least 61% of Americans on the side of the striking workers, and even some Republicans in Wisconsin now regretting they voted for that moron.
Scott Brown resorted to a desperate maneuver that may cost the Republicans dearly in 2012.
Working people are rising up all over America. If the Right keeps screwing people over, those revolutions in the Middle East may look like a picnic compared to what's coming here.
These reactionaries have essentially negated the democratic rights of the American people. They've done something that would be roundly denounced everywhere if it happened in a country with which the USA had adversarial relations.
It is high time that the Right was politically neutralized along with the plutocracy which perpetuates it.
A blade in the throat of oppression!

-Savant

________________________

I will give some talks to community groups, black and white.

I will read writings of Dr. King.

I may have mentioned before that I teach Philosophy.

Dr. King, as I tell my students, is largely responsible for that.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. studied Philosophy and Theology at Boston University. That's how he became "Doctor" King.

I first read his famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" when I was 17.
I was deeply moved both by the literary ELOQUENCE of King's prose and the COGENCY of his philosophically trained reason.

I wanted to be like him (and also Malcolm X)--eloquent, socially conscious and intellectually sharp.
I read (often with great difficulty) a good number of the writers and thinkers whom Dr. King mentions (without the slightest pedantry) in his letter: Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Martin Buber, Socrates (or rather Plato who depicts Socrates) the Biblical books of Amos, Isaiah, Paul Tillich and others.

Unbeknownst to myself, I was already transforming myself into a progressive intellectual while still and adolescent. King introduced me to Philosophy, and modeled the practice of both rhetorical power and penetrating analysis.

I owe Dr. King and his movement a lot.
I will include some of his writing, especially the Letter (maybe his speech against the Vietnam War) in my philosophy classes this upcoming semester.

I try to honor the legacy by PASSING IT ON, as my elders (including 1960s Movement veterans) have passed it on to me.

-Savant

___________

The Jacksons and Hutchinsons were associated with Clan Donald which for centuries owned that potion of Ireland as well as most of Western Scotland under the Kingship of the Isles, later refered to as the Lordship of the Isles . Remember the Scots were little more than Goths who migrated from Ireland to Scotland to begin with about a thousand years ago. A mix of Goth, Pict, Irish and VIking make up the average highlander. "son" in Jackson is Norse, not Gaelic.

Uzzite5 months ago

The Religion of Pike

2011-03-02T23:08:00.000-05:00

From http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20040719173602/http://web004.webspace4you.ch/~swisswebworks-com/tribworks/gold/index.html?research/pike_quotes.html&2

The Religion of Albert Pike
(in his own words)

Research by Usury, Inc.

July 2003

Welcome to the religion of Cabala, Masonry, the Illuminati.
The religion of the President of the United States of America,
and of America's most famous pastors!

All quotes from Albert Pike's book:
"Morals & Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry"
(late 19th century)
with comments by Usury, Inc.

Quotes by Pike on God being Satan, and Lucifer being god, in no particular order:

p.102 - "The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God."

This is the core of Masonry and new age, called "equilibrium"; meaning that God has two parts, including the light of Lucifer, and the evil of the God of the Bible, the black and white, good and evil, yin and yang, male and female, dark and light, both supposedly necessarily part of the same God. This doctrine conveniently eliminates sin, making a mockery of both the absolute holiness and purity of God, and eliminates the evil of man and his filth and arrogance and separation from God through sin. Note: reversing words and speech is a core characteristic of witchcraft and the Illuminati.

p.103 - "A Spirit that loves wisdom and contemplates the Truth close at hand, is forced to disguise it, to induce the multitudes to accept it… Fictions are necessary to the people, and the Truth becomes deadly to those who are not strong enough to contemplate it in all its brilliance… In fact, what can there be in common between the vile multitude and sublime wisdom? The truth must be kept secret, and the masses need a teaching proportioned to their imperfect reason."
p.819 - The symbols of the wise always become the idols of the ignorant multitude. What the Chiefs of the Order really believed and taught, is indicated to the Adepts by the hints contained in the high Degrees of Free-Masonry, and by the symbols which only the Adepts understand. The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry… It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain…

Here we find Pike advocating deception and fraud by approving of the policy of Masonry is to lie to the masses of low-level Masons possessing the "Blue Degrees" (up to "Master Mason"), thereby admitting that Freemasonry is the worst of cults and cannot survive the light of day or the test of purity and truth. It is necessary to hide the awful truth of Masonry from the public and lower level masons (32° and less), for if the truth were made known, the evil of Masonry would chase away nearly everyone. Secrecy and lying are, of course, the opposite of what the Bible teaches, namely, that God is pure light, exposing the evil in man, who then cries out for release from selfishness, sin and deception, and receiving the righteousness and purity of Jesus. Jesus said the truth shall set men free. Christianity is the opposite of Masonry, exposing the deceitful and wicked heart of man with the purity and holiness of a perfect God. It is the only religion in history without shadows, the only religion which does not bend to accomadate a conniving humanity, the only religion build on the refreshing living water of a God who replaces the twisted ladder of lies with the purety and simplicity of Truth, and which replaces the chains and wounds of the Brotherhood with healing freedom, and replaces the demonic bondage of satanic sex with the intimacy and healthy relationship only possible with unconditional love.

p.103 - The first Druids were the true children of the Magi, and their initiation came from Egypt and Chaldæa, that is to say, from the pure sources of the primitive Kabalah. They adored the Trinity under the names of Isis or Hesus, the Supreme Harmony; of Belen or Bel, which in Assyrian means Lord, a name corresponding to that of Adonai; and of Camul or Camaël, a name that in the Kabalah personifies the Divine Justice. (p. 104) Below this triangle of light they supposed a divine reflection, also composed of three personified rays: first, Teutates or Teuth, the same as the Thoth of the Egyptians; the Word, or the Intelligence formulated; then Force and Beauty, whose names varied like their emblems. Finally, they completed the sacred Septenary by a mysterious image that represented the progress of the dogma and its future realizations. This was a young girl veiled, holding a child in her arms; and they dedicated this image to "The Virgin who will become a mother; -- Virgini parituræ."

Here Pike praises the Druids as children of the Magi, which Pike believes were holders of the keys of the pure ancient mysteries, since lost to man (which the Bible calls the Mystery of Iniquity, or of Evil). and he praises the Druid trinity of famous anti-Christ demons: Isis, Bel, and Camul. He then further admires Thoth, Intelligence, and Force / Beauty, and above all - the false virgin, which is also Isis. The virgin holding a child is the Queen of heaven (see next paragraph by Pike) and is found in all demonic religions of the ancient Mystery of Iniquity - today among Masons, Knights, Catholics, Orthodox, Hindus, and Illuminati; and earlier among the satanic Jews (Cabala), Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Phoenicians.

p. 104 - Hertha or Wertha, the young Isis of Gaul, Queen of Heaven, the Virgin who was to bear a child, held the spindle of the Fates, filled with wool half white and half black; because she presides over all forms and all symbols, and weaves the garment of the Ideas.

Isis is Venus of the Romans, condemned by God in the Bible as the Queen of Heaven, also known among the pagan Roman Church as Lucifer, as older encyclopedias clearly explain. Pike explains that Venus / Lucifer, i.e. the Queen of Heaven, is the head of all, the holder of the black / white principle of yin and yang, evil and good in the same god. Originally, the Mormon branch of Masonry taught that Lucifer and Jesus were brothers - and many Mormons in Utah hold to the original teachings to this day, as I discovered while doing research in Salt Lake City.

p. 104 - Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; (p.105) to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it. So God Himself incapacitates many men, by color-blindness, to distinguish colors, and leads the masses away from the highest Truth, giving them the power to attain only so much of it as it is profitable to them to know. Every age has had a religion suited to its capacity.

Pike explains again that deception is an important part of Masonry, and that even "God Himself" uses lies to lead the masses away from the truth, that truth is not for those "who are unworthy." Obviously this is not the religion or God of the Bible, who never lies and is incapable of lying. Furthermore, the Gospel is only for those who are unworthy, the exact opposite of Pike's religion of Masonry.

p. 320 - The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all the occult figures…

Pike repeatedly mentions John's book of Revelation as a holy book of Cabala, while completely ignoring the rest of the Bible. This is typical among witchcraft and Illuminism, which recognizes that John correctly names the demons and goddesses of Cabala, but blocks out the rest of the Bible which explains the sin of man, and the deceptions of Lucifer. See Schnoebelen's "Lucifer Dethroned".

p. 321 - The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and desposes all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired.

This is the Pike classic quote, where he identifies Lucifer as the bearer of Light. Furthermore, he says Plato and Philo were also inspired by Lucifer, which is obvious when one studies the writings of Plato, which are clearly designed to increase man and decrease God.

p. 486 - The Ancient Astronomers saw all the great Symbols of Masonry in the Stars. Sirius still glitters in our Lodges as the Blazing Star, (l'Etoile Flamboyante). The Sun is still symbolized by the point within a Circle; and with the Moon and Mercury or Anubis, in the three Great Lights of the Lodge.

The 3 lights of Masonry in one paragraph: Sirius (Lucifer as Christ), the Sun (Lucifer as god), Moon (Lucifer as female Isis) or Mercury (Hermes). Obviously, this is not Christianity, but the oldest satanic religion on earth - worship of the stars, specifically, the trinity of Lucifer.

p. 567 - To prevent the light from escaping at once, the Demons forbade Adam to eat the fruit of "knowledge of good and evil," by which he would have known the Empire of Light and that of Darkness. He obeyed; an Angel of Light induced him to transgress, and gave him the means of victory; but the Demons created Eve, who seduced him into an act of Sensualism, that enfeebled him, and bound him anew in the bonds of matter. This is repeated in the case of every man that lives.

By the time a Mason reaches page 567, he has gone through the 25°, called "Knight of the Brazen Serpent", i.e. a knight of Lucifer, and is becoming increasingly blinded by demonic forces of the Mystery of Iniquity. So it is no surprise to see Pike now begin to call God satan, to mock and deride the holy name of God openly. Notice he says that Demons created Eve, and Demons told Adam not to eat of the fruit. Sick blasphemy. Obviously, this chapter alone is proof that Masons must not attain the 33° to know who the god of Masonry is!

p. 567, 2 - To deliver the soul, captive in darkness, the Principle of Light, or Genius of the Sun, charged to redeem the Intellectual World, of which he is the type, came to manifest Himself amoung men. Light appeared in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not; according to the words of St. John. The Light could not unite with the darkness. It but put on the appearance of a human body, and took the name of Christ in the Messiah, only to accommodate itself to the language of the Jews. The Light did its work, turning, turning the Jews from the adoration of the Evil Principle, and the Pagans from the worship of Demons. But the Chief of the Empire of Darkness caused Him to be crucified by the Jews. Still He suffered in appearance only, and His death gave to all souls the symbol of their enfranchisements. The person of Jesus having disappeared, there was seen in His place a cross of Light, over which a celestial voice pronounced these words: "The cross of Light is called The Word, Christ, The Gate, Joy, The Bread, The Sun, The Resurrection, Jesus, The Father, The Spirit, Life, Truth, and Grace."
Satan is the son and lord of matter; and the secondary angels and demons, children of matter. Satan created and governs the visible world. But the soul of man emanated from God, and is of the same substance with God. Seduced by the evil spirits, it passes through various bodies, until, purified and reformed, it rises to God and is strengthened by His light. These powers of evil hold mankind in pledge; and to redeem this pledge, the Saviour, Christ the Redeemer, came and died upon the cross of expiation, thus discharging the written obligation. He, like all souls, was of the same substance with God, a manifestation of the Divinity, not forming a second person; unborn, like the Divinity, and nothing else than the Divinity under another form.

Pike clearly calls God satan here, saying Satan created all that is seen. He also reiterates the doctrine that man is one with god and the universe, called reincarnation by most, or "becoming a god" as the Mormon branch of Freemasonry would phrase it.

p. 568 - The universal belief of the Orient was, that the Supreme Being did not Himself create either the earth or man. The fragment which commences the Book of Genesis, consisting of the first chapter and the three first verses of the second, assigns the creation or rather the formation or modelling of the world from matter already existing in confusion, no to IHUH but to the ALHIM, well known as Subordinate Dieties, Forces or Manifestations, among the Phœnicians.

Over and over Pike denigrates God the Creator, paving the way for evolution, and more importantly, allowing for a "smaller diety" -- i.e. Lucifer -- to become the "Supreme Being", who did not have to create the world or man, but merely guide it and improve it from already existing matter (i.e. Evolution, which was being pushed by Freemasons such as Erasmus Darwin -- grandfather of Charles -- exactly at the time Albert Pike wrote his Bible of Masonry. As the head of Masonry in his hemisphere, and one of the 2 or 3 top Illuminists worldwide, Pike was obviously a superior of Erasmus Darwin in the Lodge, and perhaps had direct contact with Erasmus regarding ways to spread the "new" religion of evolution. As you can see, the more you read of Pike, the more you realize that Masonry accepts any philosophy or spirit being as god, as long as it is NOT the God of the Bible. This is very important, as it unifies buddhist Freemasons in Japan Lodges, Jewish Freemasons of B'nai B'rith, and Catholic Masons of Germany, none of whom the lower-level Masons in America consider "Christian".

P. 624 - Though Masonry is identical with the Ancient Mysteries… it presents only an imperfect image of their brilliancy… Upon leaving Egypt, the Mysteries were modified by the habits of the different nations among whom they were introduced.
p. 626 - The Kabalah is the key of the occult sciences; and the Gnostics were born of the Kabalists.
p. 776 - A man who is the slave of prejudices will never become the King of Nature and the Master of transmutations. The Philosophal Stone, therefore, is necessary above all things. How shall it be found? Hermes tells us, in his "Table of the Emerald," we must separate the subtile from the fixed, with great care and extreme attention. So we ought to separate our certainties from our beliefs, and make perfectly distinct the respective domains of science and faith; and to comprehend that we do not know the things we believe, nor believe anything that we come to know…"
p. 776 - The Sun and Moon of the Alchemists… correspond to the two columns of the Temple, Jachin and Boaz. The Sun is the hieroglyphical sign of Truth, because it is the source of Light; and the rough Stone is the symbol of Stability… To find the Absolute in the Infinite, in the Indefinite, and in the Finite, this is the Magnum Opus, the Great Work of the Sages, which Hermes called the Work of the Sun. To find the immovable bases of true religious Faith, of Philosophical Truth, and of Metallic transmutation, this is the secret of Hermes in its entirety, the Philosophical Stone.
p. 777 - He who desires to attain to the understanding of the Grand Word and the possession of the Great Secret, ought carefully to read the Hermetic philosophers, and will undoubtedly attain initiation, as others have done; but he must take, for the key of their allegories, the single dogma of Hermes, contained in his table of Emerald, and follow, to class his acquisitions of knowledge and direct the operation, the order indicated in the Kabalistic alphabet of the Tarot.

Wow. It just keeps getting worse. Now Pike recommends the pagan philosophers of Hermes, and the demonic Tarot.

p. 778 - The Hermetic Gold is not only a true dogma, a light without Shadow, a Truth without alloy of falsehood; it is also a material gold, real, pure, the most precious that can be found in the mines of the earth.

A while back, we saw how Pike advocates and even relishes the lying and deception within Masonry. Now, he tries to paint the Mystery Religion as being of truth and without falsehood. What a fraud, Pike. You can't have it both ways! Who could read such hypocrisy within the very same book without disgust? By the way, have you ever met a Mason who has read "Morals and Dogma"? Nor have I.

p. 778 - But the living gold, the living sulphur, or the true fire of the philosophers, is to be sought for in the house of Mercury.

"In the house of Mercury" he says! Here near the end of the Mason's Bible, Pike apparently assumes no Christians have read this far, or he wouldn't spell out Lucifer so clearly. The dictionary defines mercury as "A Latin god of commerce and gain; - treated by the poets as identical with the Greek Hermes, messenger of the gods, conductor of souls to the lower world." The ancients called him satan.

Esteemed Masonic master Manly P. Hall confirms Lucifer is the power of Freemasonry

"When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy"
- Manly P. Hall, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, p. 48

From "pantheon.org" :
Hermes was a phallic god, being attached to fertility and good fortune, and also a patron of roads and boundaries. His name coming from herma, the plural being hermaiherm was a square or rectangular pillar in either stone or bronze, with the head of Hermes (usually with a beard), which adorned the top of the pillar, and male genitals near to the base of the pillar. (Here are two pictures I have chosen not to include on this page, to make printing less offensive, and to avoid giving undo glory to the despicable gods of Masonry, Cabala, and the Jesuits. The first picture is a "Herm", a hewn sexual stone idol found on major roads and boundaries of ancient Greece and Rome, even to this day. The second picture is included as proof for those who are innocent of Masonry, that the symbol of "medicine" and The Bank is sex worship.)
The "archeological pillar" (left), was not hidden in museums, but placed everywhere at great expense -- at boundaries and major roads -- proving the gross sexual pagan worship of ancient Greece. Apparently, modern medicine is not concerned about the public learning about their god, for indeed, as low-ranking Freemasons do not know about Lucifer, so also harried and brainwashed doctors and nurses remain ignorant of the foundation and long-range goals of pagan "medicine" (drugism).
From "about.com" : Ancient / Classical History:
Hermes was neither originally winged nor a messenger - Hermes was, instead, clever, tricky, a thief, and, with his awakening or sleep-conferring wand, the original sandman…

Over time, "tricky" and "thief" were replaced with "commerce" and "trade" and "gain". Which explains why a USURY specialist like the Illuminati bank UBS has Hermes as their symbol, with statues of a nude Hermes adorning various of their buildings, complete with the Cadaceus, a symbol of Luciferian equilibrium and of the phallus, which is the hidden meaning which Pike keeps referring to: the holy phallus of Lucifer and ritual sex, which is worship of Lucifer. Pike, famous for disgusting food orgies and 300 pounds of rolling fat, was nevertheless also famous for his group sexual orgies in the forest; so his praise for Hermes, the phallic god, is no surprise, nor the continual reference to the serpents.
The surprise is that banks would choose a symbol of thievery, sex and satan, or that the modern medical profession, founded by Rockefeller, would openly reveal whom they serve, by choosing such condemning symbols. The term "field of medicine" implies drugs, by the way, not health, and literally taken would accurately describe why a banker named Bush creates war with his CIA in countries specializing in "fields of drugs". Perhaps now you will understand a bit more of the nature of banking (the world's top source of poverty), and modern medicine (the number one cause of death in the United States). Both groups, banking and "medicine", together have a monopoly on, and derive most of their income from, the manufacture, control, distribution, and administering of drugs, both legal and illegal, for insane off-the-books profits, and the destruction of society. If there is a Hermes Award, surely its greatest recipient would be George H. W. Bush, the destroyer of Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, Nicaragua, and the founder of the "War on Drugs" under clueless Mason Ronald Reagan. The Hermes Award would mean the man who does the most to destroy health and wealth, through the promotion of drug usage, and the encouragement of investing on his Wall Street to get rich, while actually doing the opposite: transferring wealth from the general public to himself and friends by destroying savings through booms, busts and inflation (printing dollars and credit); and exchanging dangerous legal and illegal drugs for people's health - all in the name of Sun god, the Serpent, and the Love of Money.
No one ever won in battle without understanding the wiles of the enemy. As darkness and pagan perversion overwhelms the light in this post-Falling Away world, it is clear that the Church has lost its armor, its battle plan, and its sword... not to mention not being able to hear their General's soft Voice. This is an army which hasn't a clue who or what the enemy is... for the enemy is within!

top

Barros Serrano's Research

2011-02-08T10:33:00.003-05:00

You're daft. The Scythians were north of the Black Sea, not from Anatolia. Phrygians, yes. The Greeks were related to Phrygians, Trojans, etc., yes, back when they were migrating out from the Black Sea.

Now how do Khazarim get into this? THEY are originally a Turkic people from East Asia, and they got to the steppes of what had been Scythia long after those other peoples were active there. They were after the Huns. They had nothing to do with the others you mention.

The modern European Jews called "Ashkenazim" were so named because they were IN THE TERRITORY OF ASHKENAZ meaning the Slavics and Germanics. Ashkenaz refers to Poles, not to Jews. It is like someone from Armenia in California is an Armenian-American, but they are not descended from Americans, but from Armenians from somewhere else.

The word Ashkenazim denotes WHERE THEY LIVED, not who they are. Get it? THEY are Jews/Hebrews/Israelites... whereas you, on the other hand, are NOT.

__________________

These guys have no idea what is contemporary with what.

Now we've got Khazarim in the Roman army.

______________________________

Economic growth under Carter was completley staganant" That's just a lie. Carter ranks NUMBER TWO among post WWII Prez in the category of job growth specifically. Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents Johnson 3.8% Carter 3.1 Clinton 2.4 Kennedy 2.3 Nixon 2.3 Reagan 2.1 Bush 0.6 -Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey Reagan's tax cut was followed by longest, deepest depression since Hoover

I have posted REAMS of official documentation to support my conclusion that EGALITARIAN societies are (all things being equal) more productive than are those societies characterized by Reaganesque disparities in income and wealth.
But for the brief respite under CLINTON [See Weinberg, Census Bureau] the trend begun under Reagan results in just 1 percent owning more than about 95 percent of the rest of us combined.
Elites' windfalls are invested OFFSHORE and benefit NO ONE domestically.

What started this exchange was my state of FACT that JFK was among the BEST US Presidents in terms of job growth.
Notably, there is a BONESMAN among the very worst in terms of job growth.
It is a TRAGEDY for the nation that JFK did not LIVE to 'smash the CIA' into a thousand pieces.

The IDIOT posting here denies the existence of Skull and Bones. LOL LOL LOL LOL
Google: "Yale Daily News, Evolution of tap night "
The FIRST result takes you to Yale's OWN newspaper, The Yale Daily News where there is an article about S AND B 'tap night'.
S and B maintains a building on the Yale campus and you can LOOK AT IT with Google Earth.

That's all just GOP propaganda and revisionist B_____.
1) IKE sent the FIRST advisors to Viet Nam --NOT JFK.
2) JFK EXPERTLY DEFUSED the Cuban Missile crisis before WWIII could break out.
4) BAY OF PIGS was a ROGUE CIA operation. JFK was right to withdraw over. He had threatened to SMASH the CIA into a thousand pieces. The CIA is --in fact --the world's number one terrorist organization. I have the STATS to prove it.
It is too bad JFK was murdered before he could SMASH the CIA.

Supply-siders and Freideman-heads boast that the 80s were a golden era of American entrepreneurialism, but that's just NOT true. It was a golden era for the UPPER QUINTILE which alone benefited from tax cuts.
NONE of those tax cuts resulted in increased GDP as a result of increased investment. The Reagan DEPRESSION is the proof and result of that.
GOP policies esulted in 1 percent now owning more than 95 percent of the rest of us combined. Windfalls were just invested offshore. Not here.

Re: "Hopefully the C.I.A. had a hand in his death before he completly f___ the U.S. or made a few more idiot mistakes that would result in nuclear war "
They most certainly DID have a hand in his cold, blooded murder. That you would say such a thing just proves that you are a TRAITOR to this nation just as were the CIA conspirators who murdered JFK.
Motive for JFKs murder was that he had promised to 'smash' the CIA into a thousand pieces. The TRAITORS murdered him before he could do it.

There were many motives for JFKs murder but four seem most important in retrospect: 1) JFK threatened 'secret societies'; Skull and Bones??; 2) he would have ENDED the power of the FED; 3) he would have ENDED the OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE; 4) he threatened to 'smash the CIA into a thousand pieces'.
And he was NOT a liar. He was, perhaps, the LAST Prez to have ever told the truth.

JFK was among the BEST Presidents in several areas --prominently: JOB GROWTH. Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents Johnson 3.8% Carter 3.1 Clinton 2.4 Kennedy 2.3 Nixon 2.3 Reagan 2.1 Bush 0.6 Those are the GOVT'S own stats --btw. I don't have final figures for JUNIOR yet. Safe to say --he will join the other gopps at the bottom.

Then why was JFK elected President?
Pundits, consultants, media --all say Nixon looked sweaty and shifty. Explanation: he WAS sweaty and shifty! Despite his protestations to the contrary, he WAS 'a crook'.
JFK was murdered because he would have dismantled the CIA, abolished the FED, withdrawn from Viet Nam. Cuban partisans were pissed because he withdrew air cover for the Bay of Pigs.
Google: existentialist cowboy, Three Reasons JFK was Murdered

JFK won the debate and the election.
When JFK was murdered (Oswald didn't do it), LBJ became PREZ. LBJ escalated Viet Nam and protected the 'oil depletion allowance' which JFK had said he would abolish.
Nixon did not become President until the elections of 1968 when he won over the Democratic candidate: Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon resigned before he would have been impeached in connection with the bugging of democratic headquarters by a odd collection of CIA spooks, prominently E. Howard Hunt.

lennhart 1 year ago

______________________

How to stop the depression

What needs to be done first of all is the commitment that not one nickel of public funds should be spent on bailing out bankrupt and panic-stricken junk bonds and other paper. The US needs a uniform federal law stating quite simply that, unless and until the president can certify that the current world financial crisis has been overcome, any and all foreclosures on homes, farms, businesses, hospitals, and infrastructure are banned. This would be accompanied by a debt freeze or debt moratorium on payment of principal and interest, again for the entire duration of the crisis. Something similar was done in the New Deal. The interests of bankrupt banks and mortgage lenders must yield to the social imperative of not evicting 10 or 15 million people over the coming months. No bailout of the financiers. Just a law that stops foreclosures, and lets the financiers, not the people, fend for themselves.

A federal ban on foreclosures is obviously a measure in the New Deal tradition. A monetarist follower of Milton Friedman or von Hayek, by contrast, would say that the homeowners who default should be thrown into the street, so that the market can work. A Malthusian might care only about the carbon footprint of the homes involved. A Mexophobe would rant that illegal aliens might get some of the money. In this wasteland of ideas, the New Deal approach emerges as the only one consistent with human life and human civilization in such a crisis.

Republican Ron Paul, interviewed on August 10 after the close by the infamous Kudlow, blamed the credit market panic on interest rates which had been too low. Paul should recall that any interest rates above 5 percent, as charged on these mortgages, are historically very high. (During World War II, for example, successful New Deal policies allowed a typical 2 percent yield for a 10-year Treasury note, with other rates in line with that.) Paul was adamant that there be no bailout, but did not distinguish between help for ordinary people facing foreclosure and eviction on the one hand, and bailouts for predatory financier sharks on the other. His only advice was to “let the market liquidate bad debt and bad investment” -- which, under current conditions, will mean that more than 10 million people will be thrown out on the street during the next few months. One hears an echo of monetarist Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury, whose advice on how to deal with the Great Depression was “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate. . . ." Those on the receiving end of such “creative destruction,” as Schumpeter called it, have generally lost their enthusiasm for monetarism.

Paul mocked warnings that “poor people are losing their homes” -- a sadly Dickensian moment, since that is just what is happening to 10 million Americans. When asked how much he would like to cut federal spending, Paul said that under his presidency it would come down by “50-60-70 percent” -- figures which seem to bode ill for the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, WIC, Head Start, S-CHIP (medical care for poor children), TANF (what is left of welfare for mothers with dependent children), and other programs which keep many Americans alive. The Republican line from Giuliani to Paul is that these institutions are part of the hated “nanny state.” When asked for specifics about what he would cut, Paul mentioned the abolition of the Department of Education, a favorite target of Republicans. Does that include Pell grants and federal support for subsidized Stafford loans, which are the only way the ghetto poor and much of the middle class can hope to send their children to college? No help here for victims of the current economic breakdown crisis, but Kudlow said that this approach would be well received on Wall Street..

GOPer Ron Paul has said that he admires the late Ohio Senator Robert Taft, “Mr. Republican,” who was like many in his family a member of Skull and Bones. One wonders if this admiration includes Taft’s sponsorship of the infamous union-busting Taft-Hartley Act, which has allowed many southern states to effectively block union organizing with so-called “right to work” laws, thus greatly facilitating the demolition of the US labor movement over recent decades. Taft-Hartley has been the key to the race to the bottom in wages and working conditions in this country. It should be repealed and replaced with a modern version of the pro-labor Wagner Act, which made it easier for workers to organize, bargain collectively, and defend themselves. Repeal of Taft-Hartley would be a first step towards rolling back the low-wage Wal-Mart/McDonalds model for the US economy.

-Webster Tarpley

_______________________________________

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TT7N6HTB0P18MK4CE/p2

Dick Gregory propagates this theory, that Jesse Jackson was an agent. I believe he says they intended to kill Ralph Abernathy as well, I forget...

Go to Youtube and search Dick Gregory and Steve Cokely and you'll find these speeches by them discussing several people involved with SCLC who they claim were agents, including Julian Bond.

-Savant

________________________________

TruthSeeker24's 3rd Millennium Tidbits

The Poor Peoples Campaign

Economic Information

Notes

The Eucharist

The Bible and Apologetics

More News

Dry Bones

Religious Information

Steve Lefemine on the Civil War

Steve Lefemine on Abraham Lincoln

Neo-Liberalism Exposed

The Religion of Pike

Welcome to the religion of Cabala, Masonry, the Illuminati. The religion of the President of the United States of America, and of America's most famous pastors!

All quotes from Albert Pike's book:"Morals & Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry"(late 19th century)with comments by Usury, Inc.

Quotes by Pike on God being Satan, and Lucifer being god, in no particular order:

Esteemed Masonic master Manly P. Hall confirms Lucifer is the power of Freemasonry

Barros Serrano's Research

Welcome to the religion of Cabala, Masonry, the Illuminati.
The religion of the President of the United States of America,
and of America's most famous pastors!

All quotes from Albert Pike's book:
"Morals & Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry"
(late 19th century)
with comments by Usury, Inc.