Loading...
Menu

The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults unde

The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults under the Sign of the Cross

Bill Etem

I’m in Rock Island, IL, and I’m trying to sound more or less coherent. I’ve given up trying to sound dignified as I speak to an audience of Protestants there. We were reviewing the sign of the cross and I was saying one commits sacrilege if one says evil things are sacred, or if one says sacred things are evil.

Bill Etem – `Look, I’m sorry I said earlier that you people are brainless idiots. But you said some nasty things to me, you know, stuff which got me pretty worked up. Anyway, I apologize for being pretty damn bitchy towards you there a few seconds ago. I get so over-the-top in my language sometimes, you know? I have to be more caring, more altruistic, more kind and sensitive when I address you people. Like you I’m a Protestant, but I’m a different kind of Protestant than your kind, anyways, sometimes you Protestants are just so damned lost and confused, so deluded and brain dead, you know?’

 

Then a young white woman with long greasy brown hair, with sort of a fallen, tawdry and definitely unwashed aspect to her persona, giving every impression that she is either on welfare or is trying to get on welfare, starts screaming at me. She’s repeating herself terribly. She’s screaming over and over, with a sort of religious mania in her eyes, with a sort of zealous hysterical howl emanating from deep in her gut and escaping from her mouth and throat:

 

`You’re a smug f#&ker! You’re a smug f#&ker! You’re a smug f#&ker, You’re a….’

 

Me – `That’s just crazy, right there.’

 

So, all things considered, you would have to say that the Rock Island Symposium; Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults got off to a rather inauspicious start. Things have sort of gone from bad to worse for me here in Rock Island, IL which is not too far from Atalissa, IA. But I’m indefatigable, and I start in again.

Bill Etem – `We sort of got off on the wrong foot, but I don’t think this relationship between us has to be scrapped entirely.’

 

I let this sink in with the audience, and then I was just starting to review Gibbon’s remarks about some evil people under the sign of the cross, here my intent was to substantiate my arguments about 2 Thess 2 and the falling away from the True Faith, about how the falling away happened many centuries ago, but I was thoroughly shouted down by the angry mob of Protestants in Rock Island, IL. I was just starting to quote Gibbon, you know that passage where Gibbon writes about the 4th century Catholic Emperor Valentinian and his judges,

 

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

 

Yeah, that’s the passage. I was trying to say that that sort of evil shows a falling away from the True Faith. Obviously, the evil Christians who are torturing people to death have fallen away from the True Faith. But good Christians who fail to excommunicate evil Christians have also fallen away from the True Faith. A good Christian is not to celebrate communion with evil people. St. Paul told people to obey the emperor but he didn’t tell people to obey the emperor when they ordered you to do anti-Christian things, such as torture people to death, such as worship their image etc. St. Paul didn’t tell people to hold communion with evil emperors. Anyway, a Protestant guy was now addressing me, saying – `Look you dumb bastard, you know perfectly well most of us here are Protestants. You bring up some Catholic from 16 centuries ago and you seem to think that has some bearing on Protestantism, and you seem to think it proves Protestantism is satanic. You got shit for brains! Everyone here knows you got shit for brains!’

 

 

This gets a big applause from the audience. Then I start in again, and I have to compete against a chorus of boos just to be heard.

Me – `A True Christian has the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on his heart. If a person is a heretical Liberal, or if he is a heretical Conservative, then he does not have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on his heart. Similarly, if a person commits sacrilege then we know he doesn’t have the Divine Law written on his heart: we know he has fallen away from the True Faith. Sacrilege is committed when a person says that things which are evil in the sight of God are sacred. And sacrilege is committed when one says that things which are sacred things in the eyes of God are evil. What about the sign of the cross? Is it sacred or not sacred? What about the Roman Catholic crucifix? Is it sacred or not sacred? What about the Eastern Orthodox crucifix? The Anglican crucifix? Again, one falls away from the True Faith when one commits sacrilege, and one commits sacrilege when one says evil things are sacred, and when one says sacred things are evil. Sacrilege is a sin which leads offenders straight to perdition.’

 

I then went on to review the evidence with these Protestants in Rock Island, the evidence which says the Roman Catholic crucifix and the Eastern Orthodox crucifix and the Anglican crucifix are evil symbols, are evil, and are therefore prime suspects for this `image of the beast’ mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14. The arguments for and against the Roman Catholic crucifix runs as follows: Suppose the True God / True Jesus is a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. Suppose the True God / True Jesus says Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith and is none other than the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. In this scenario, let’s call it Case 1, there is nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic Crucifix: it is a sacred image of the True God / True Jesus. If Rome leads people to heaven then you have to conclude that Rome is right when Rome says the Roman Catholic crucifix is a sacred symbol. Suppose the True God / True Jesus is not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. Suppose the True God / True Jesus says the Roman Catholic Church leads people to perdition. Suppose the True God / True Jesus says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith and is not the True Church, not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, to recall Matthew 16. 13-19. In this scenario, call it Case 2, the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a false god, because, it is an image of a Pro-Roman Catholic god, a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven, but this is a false god, a false version of Jesus provided the True God / True Jesus says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, and is not the True Church, and therefore Rome eads people to perdition. If the True God / True Jesus is anti-Roman Catholic, then the Roman Catholics worship a false god, because they worship a god who is pro-Roman Catholic. False gods are evil and beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition. So, to review. If the True God says Rome leads people to heaven, because Rome upholds the True Faith, because Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then everyone should convert to Roman Catholicism, and everyone should obey the pope, and there is nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic crucifix, indeed it is sacred and it is a sacrilege to say it is evil. But, on the other hand, if the True God says Rome leads people to perdition, because Rome has fallen away from the True Faith – and Rome has either fallen away from the True Faith or else Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith – if the True God / True Jesus is anti-Roman Catholic, if the True God says Rome leads people to perdition not to heaven, then Rome is, you know, sort of satanic, and the Roman Catholic crucifix, the image of a pro-Roman Catholic god, is an image of a false god. So, if Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a false god – and false gods are evil and beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition – then you commit sacrilege should you the roman Catholic crucifix is a sacred symbol. It’s an image of a Roman Catholic god, a Roman Catholic version of Jesus. So, is it sacred or is it evil? Well, obviously, if the True God / True Jesus is pro-Roman Catholic, then you commit sacrilege if you say the Roman Catholic crucifix – an image of a Roman Catholic god – is evil. But if the Roman Catholic crucifix is evil, if it is the image of a false god, that is, if the True God / True Jesus are anti-Roman Catholic, then the Roman Catholic crucifix – an image of a pro-Roman Catholic version of God / Jesus – is an image of a false god, hence it is evil – because the True God is anti-Roman Catholic not pro-Roman Catholic! If the True God says the Roman Catholic crucifix is evil, if the True God says it is the image of a false god, then you commit sacrilege if you say the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred. Again, images of false gods are beastly and evil, because false gods lead people to perdition, and it is beastly and evil to lead people away from heaven and to perdition. Of course the 1st commandment is hostile to all graven images, but that’s another line of reasoning. I think we can say with certainty that if the Roman Catholic Church leads people to heaven then the only sensible thing to conclude is the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred to God. And one can make an analogous argument about the Eastern Orthodox crucifix / Anglican crucifix. So much depends on finding the True Faith, finding the Faith which leads people to heaven and not to perdition. The god of the Muslims is wonderful if he leads people to heaven, but the god of the Muslims is evil and beastly if he leads people away from heaven and to perdition. The gods of the Hindus are wonderful if they lead people to heaven, and they are beastly and evil if they lead people away from heaven and to perdition. The gods of Buddhism are wonderful if they lead people to heaven, and they are beastly and evil if they lead people to perdition. The god of the Roman Catholics is wonderful if he leads people to heaven, but he is beastly and evil if he leads people away from heaven and to perdition. The god of the Eastern Orthodox, that is, that god who says the Eastern Orthodox Church upholds the True Faith and leads people to heaven is wonderful if he is the True God, but if he is a false god, if the Eastern Orthodox Church has fallen away from the True Faith, if the True God / True Jesus says Eastern Orthodoxy has fallen away, then any god who says Eastern Orthodoxy leads people to heaven and has not fallen away is a false and evil god, a false and evil god who leads people away from heaven and to perdition. So, you get the pattern here. You get what’s going on, right?’

 

`2 Thess 1. 8 – hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ – is more or less the same as John 15. 6, which is more or less the same as Luke 13. 3. You get this, right? If you have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on your heart then you will know God and you will obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you do not have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on your heart, then you will not know God and you will not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a mistake to insist that all those cast into the lake of fire at the Last Judgment – see Revelation 20. 15 – suffer eternal torment. It’s sound to say the damned are banished from heaven for eternity but you have to be careful when dealing with eternal hellfire. Daniel 12, for instance, mentions eternal shame, not eternal hellfire. Some of the damned suffer eternal fire but not all. God does show mercy on some of the damned.’

 

 

So, one commits sacrilege, a sin which leads to perdition, if one commits sacrilege with the cross or the crucifix, though one really should make a distinction between the Roman Catholic crucifix, the Eastern Orthodox crucifix and the Anglican crucifix. It’s a sacrilege to say that evil things are sacred. And it’s a sacrilege to say that sacred things are evil. So, if the Roman Catholic crucifix is sacred, if the True God / True Jesus is a Roman Catholic God, if the True God / True Jesus say the Roman Catholic crucifix is the sacred image of the True God / True Jesus, then you commit sacrilege if you say the crucifix is the image of an evil beastly false god who leads people to perdition. On the other hand, if the True God / True Jesus says Rome leads people to perdition, because Rome has fallen away from the True Faith and is not the True Church, if the True God / True Jesus is anti-Roman Catholic, then the Roman Catholic crucifix, the image of a Roman Catholic god, is the image of a false god, and false gods are evil and beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition. Recall that Jeremiah 31. 31-34 says that even the least of God’s people will have the Divine Law written on their hearts. To have the Divine Law written on your heart you can not commit sacrilege. So, if the Roman Catholic crucifix is the evil image of a evil and beastly false god, if it is the `image of the beast’ mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14 – then you commit sacrilege if you say it is a sacred symbol – because it is sacrilege to say that evil things are sacred. Chapter 1 of Constitutional History of the Western World is filled with evidence which says the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church have fallen away from the True Faith and neither one is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lead people to heaven. People can’t handle too much of this sort of info before their eyes glaze over. Look at the issue with Capistrano. Durant tells us in `The Reformation’ (p. 731):

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Me – `A lot of people find the above unreadable. They just can’t read much of that sort of stuff before they get sick of it. Anyway, to evaluate what it all means, the Church of Rome says every True Christian must venerate Capistrano as a saint. If Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith, if the True God / True Jesus is a Roman Catholic Deity, then everyone should obey Rome and everyone should venerate Capistrano as a saint. But if Rome leads people to perdition, if the True God says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith and is not the True Church, then everyone should renounce the Roman Catholic Church, and everyone should understand that the Roman Catholic crucifix – the image of a Roman Catholic god – is the image of a false god, and again false gods are evil and beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition.

 

 

So much of the progress humanity has made in becoming more civilized and less barbaric is due to non-Christians, to people like Voltaire and Diderot. This is because the people under the sign of the cross often see no reason to try to improve themselves. If one believes that as soon as one is splashed with baptismal water one is saved, that one has become a child of God and a saint, when in fact one is merely an evil barbarian who has been baptized, then one is still an evil barbarian, even though one is deluded enough to believe one has suddenly become a wonderful child of God. If one believes one is a saint, when in fact one is an evil barbarian, why would one change when one is convinced one is a wonderful child of God, a saint destined for immortality in heaven?’

 

 

Recall the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2. Recall also Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Does one fall away from the True Faith / Divine Law when one venerates Capistrano? Or does one up fall away from the True Faith / Divine Law when one venerates Capistrano. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century. The good Christians fell away from the True Faith, as well as the evil Christians, because good Christians are supposed to excommunicate evil Christians. This evil is either reflected in the sign of the cross or else it is not reflected in the sign of the cross. Paul Johnson in `A History of Christianity’,

 

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

 

Me continuing: `Everyone can see that, for century after century, a lot of evil was perpetrated by people the sign of the cross. Of course not every person under the sign of the cross was evil, but the good people under the sign of the cross held communion with the evil people under the sign of the cross, and good Christians fall away from the True Faith when they celebrate communion with evil people. So, you will not be led to perdition if don’t fall away from the True Faith. So, don’t celebrate the Eucharist with evil people or you will fall away from the True Faith. What do the Protestants do today? They basically give the Eucharist to anyone who asks to receive it. It hurts a Protestant church’s cash flow to excommunicate people. The Protestant churches put money above the True Faith. The Protestants don’t obey the Sabbath. The Protestants under the sign of the cross don’t excommunicate Sabbath violators. Half of the Protestants under the sign of the cross will tell you they don’t need to obey the Sabbath, because “that’s legalism”. Half of the Protestants will tell you they are saved regardless if they obey the Sabbath or not, because “they are born-again”. So the Protestants under the sign of the cross have clearly fallen away from the True Faith. Look at Revelation 14. 12 – `here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus’. You’re not keeping the faith of Jesus if you hold communion with Sabbath violators…One could fill a book describing all the ways that the Protestants under the sign of the cross have fallen away from the True Faith: they don’t excommunicate pro-choice people; they don’t excommunicate pro-gay marriage people, they don’t excommunicate anyone! Some Protestant churches simply capitulate to the anti-Christian Left on the issue of gay marriage because they don’t like being called `haters’ by the anti-Christian Left. You fall away from the True Faith when you support gay marriage. Why so? Fornication, a sin which leads people to perdition, is transformed into `legal sex’, something which does not lead people to perdition via the marriage rite. When gay guys they are married by a Protestant sect they are essentially given a license by this Protestant sect to perform sodomy. The Protestant sect says, explicitly or implicitly, that they will go to heaven even though they perform sodomy, provided they are `married’. But this is a lie. The sodomites will go to perdition regardless if they have a `marriage license’ or not. A church become malevolent and satanic when it leads people away from heaven and to perdition. So, a church which `marries’ sodomites and tells them implicitly or explicitly that they will go to heaven, when in fact sodomites who fail to repent will go to perdition – and everyone knows the Christian faith is opposed to sodomy – just as everyone knows the True Faith is opposed to adultery and fornication – if a Protestant church implicitly or explicitly tells sodomites they will go to heaven, then that church leads people away from heaven and to perdition – therefore it is a malevolent church, a satanic church – though it insists it is not a satanic church. No one likes being called `a hater’ or some such insult by the anti-Christian Left, but that’s no reason to trample on the True Faith, that’s no reason to lead people to perdition, just so you won’t be called mean and nasty names by anti-Christian Left. Sodomy between consenting adults is a nasty embarrassing sin, but it is not villainy, whereas the Left is very vulnerable on the abortion issue, because inflicting painful deaths on fetuses, and supporting the same via the pr-choice philosophy, really is hateful and villainous. Abortion is legal because millions or billions of people under the sign of the cross want it legal. And it’s not just pro-choice people who fallen away. Pro-life people fall away when they hold communion with pro-choice people.’

 

Moderator jumps in now – `So what you are saying here is that a person would have to be a [email protected] retard if he can’t understand that the people under the sign of the cross fell away from the True Faith many centuries ago. What you’re saying is that any person who is not a [email protected]#king idiot ought to know that Peter and Paul and the other apostles weren’t evil like these [email protected]#king [email protected] under the sign of the cross were for century after century. You’re saying that a person has no right to think he is brighter than some retard who slaves for decades in a vile Turkey slaughtering plant if he can’t understand the truth about the cross and the crucifix!’

 

Me – `You know I put it in more diplomatic language than that! I would phrase it like this: people of normal intelligence, and I include myself in this category along with billions of other people – we’re not retarded but we are certainly not infallible! – are capable of making stupid mistakes if we refuse to examine the evidence with care and integrity. As soon as one lets bias override integrity when examining evidence, and I certainly include myself in this, then one really becomes vulnerable to making really stupid mistakes, the worst of which is making a mistake which leads you away from heaven and to perdition.’

Moderator – `Let me jump in again here to expand on some things. We’re here in Rock Island, IL today because this city works better, logistics-wise, than Atalissa, IA, which is a really miniscule little place a few miles to the west of here, and it is not equipped to handle conferences and symposiums. Half the time Etem pronounces it: ah-TAL-is-ah, which is not the way the people in Iowa say it, they say: At-ah-LIS-ah. He likes to think his way is the way the Indian princess pronounced her name. I suppose we can humor him. No doubt he could use some. Now to review the Atalissa case. 21 Texas men with very low IQs were shipped up north and essentially kept in slavery in Atalissa Iowa for decade after decade until they were rescued a few years ago. They lived in a vile stinking filthy old bunk house which used to be a school. Now get this. When the social workers raided the bunk house they found rodent droppings everywhere, and the roaches were so thick the retarded men had to hold their hands over their dinner plates to keep the roaches from falling into their food. The place just stank like the worst hellhole sewer you could ever imagine. These guys had turkey blood and turkey guts on their bodies, in their clothes, in their sheets and blankets and mattresses etc. They had been slaving away for years at a Turkey slaughtering plant, but their employers, after all the deductions were made, were only giving them $65 per week. The overseer, when he felt discipline was required, would not let them watch TV, he would chain them to their beds, he would load them with weights, he would make them hold on to a pole for long periods of time, he would abuse them verbally, he would abuse them physically. One guy tried to escape, but, with his limited mental capacity, he ended up freezing to death in the arctic-like Iowa winter. Like one of those peasants in a Breughel winter scene, they found his frozen body in a ditch months after he first went missing. So you get the picture. Atallisa is something out of the Middle Ages, only it happened in the heartland just a few years ago. Etem sees in the tale of Atalissa a parable of sorts: he insists that because the cults under the sign of the cross lead souls to perdition: the people who live under the sign of the cross live enchained lives, so to speak and more or less, we live as if we’re effing retards! – big-ass monumental huge effing tards! Etem claims he doesn’t actually use these words, but, you know, if you read between the lines a little, he’s basically sayin’ we’re f#&king retards because we can’t see that these `respectable sects under the sign of the cross’ are actually satanic cults which all lead souls to perdition’ the reasoning being a false church which leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition is a malevolent cult, and a malevolent cult is more or less the same thing as a satanic cult. In this Symposium, we will explore the rationality or lack thereof in Etem’s contention that we are like effing retards – though, again, he says he doesn’t use such terms, but I think that’s what he means – anyway, will those of us who love the cross end up in perdition? And perdition embraces everything from annihilation of the soul, to mildly unpleasant conditions for the soul, to extremely unpleasant conditions, e.g., the most nauseating squalor. Are we right to love the cross Will those of us who love the cross go to heaven?’

Me – `I explained above how I don’t consider myself of normal intelligence, the same classification that billions of other people. But a person of normal intelligence can really make a botch of things if he refuses to examine the evidence with care and integrity. What we are doing here in Rock Island, IL, is conducting a little experiment. Jeremiah 31. 31-34 says that even the least of God’s people can understand the Divine Law. This implies that even mentally retarded people can understand the Divine Law. I’m trying to see if people of normal intelligence can understand it. If people of normal intelligence can’t understand the Divine Law, how are retarded people going to understand it? We have to discover the correct answers to a few questions. Does the Church of Rome uphold the True Faith or has Rome fallen away from the True Faith? Does Eastern Orthodoxy uphold the True Faith or has Eastern Orthodoxy fallen away from the True Faith. If either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy upholds the True Faith, how can Protestantism make any sense? If both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lead people to perdition, if both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away from the True Faith, then maybe Protestantism makes sense. But has every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross fallen away from the True Faith? Isn’t it true that you commit sacrilege if you say the cross is sacred, or if you say the crucifix is sacred? Sacrilege is a sin which leads people straight to perdition. Chapter 2 of Constitutional History of the Western World deals with the sign of the cross. We can review some of it.

 

If at least one church under the sign of the cross leads people to heaven, if at least one church under the sign of the cross has not fallen away from the True Faith, then you can trust that church when it says the sign of the cross is sacred.

 

But if every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, if every church under the sign of the cross has fallen away from the True Faith, then this doesn’t prove the sign of the cross is evil, but it’s a strong indication that the sign of the cross is evil.

 

If you trust St. Paul and his words in 2 Thess 2 why wouldn’t you trust him in 2 Thess 1. 8, where he mentions hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So we have to determine if God is pro-Rome or anti-Rome, pro-Eastern Orthodox or anti-Eastern Orthodox etc., etc. We have to determine if God is pro-cross or anti-cross, pro-crucifix or anti-crucifix.

 

 

Apropos of people who are led to perdition because they worship false and beastly gods, recall the multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 1-8,

 

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

Me – `When you fall to your knees to worship the Creator of the Universe you have to make sure you are not worshipping a false god, some false evil deity who leads people away from heaven and to perdition. You must make sure you worship the True God. And you must make sure you have not fallen away from the True Faith. If the True God is anti-cross then you worship a false god if you worship a god who is pro-cross. If the True God is anti-crucifix then you worship a false god – and false gods are beastly because they lead people away from heaven and to perdition – if you worship a god who is pro-crucifix etc., etc.

You Protestants inherited the sign of the cross from two churches which both lead people to perdition – the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Christ and the apostles never said the mark of a cross is sacred. Christ and the apostles never used the cross and the crucifix as their symbols….But let’s assume you people are right. Let’s assume you people are right when you say the sign of the cross is sacred to God. Let’s assume it is a foul satanic lie on my part to drop these hints which I’m dropping which say one will burn in hell forever if one puts the mark of a cross on one’s forehead or right hand. As I’ve told you over and over, Revelation 9 mentions a seal of God which you must have on your forehead in order to escape months of agonizing torment. Atheists and non-Christians don’t care two cents about either Revelation 14 or Revelation 9, but any sane Christian ought to care about those chapters. So, if the sign of the cross is sacred to God, then you can’t possibly get hurt – you can’t possibly burn in hellfire forever and ever! – should you put the mark of a cross on your forehead during the Great Tribulation – that’s when the Antichrist is on the earth, probably when the archangel Michael is on earth as well – recall Daniel 12. 1 mentions Michael delivering the Jews during a time of unprecedented trouble on earth, that is, during a time of great tribulation. If the sign of the cross is sacred, if it is this seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, then putting the mark of a cross on your forehead might save you from months of agonizing torment, torments described in Revelation 9. But if I’m right, if the sign of the cross is an evil symbol, an evil symbol which leads pro-cross people straight to perdition, then, if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, most likely, you will suffer eternal torture – you know what the scripture says, I’ve repeated it often enough, I mean the scripture in Revelation 14, the scripture about what happens to those who have the evil mark on their foreheads – `and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name’ ….You deluded people have been brainwashed into believing material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred. The spiritual cross of Christ is sacred, yes indeed, but material crosses and the sign of the cross are evil. Christ and the apostles never took the cross as their symbol. They never said the material cross is holy. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and as a result we say the Nazi swastika is evil. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century. I have some books which describe some of the evils perpetrated over the centuries by people under the sign of the cross. Let’s not go over again all of this: any educated person knows what happened over the centuries under the sign of the cross. Let’s instead review why it is that every sect under the sign of the cross, including every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross, is satanic. Now, if the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, recall Matthew 16. 13-19, says that material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred, then they are indeed sacred. You can always trust the True Church. The True Church can make mistakes but she never leads anyone to perdition. She always leads people to heaven. But what is the True Church? If the Roman Catholic Church is God’s True Church, then, to rebel against Rome is to rebel against God. The only sane reasons for Protestantism to exist are the reasons which say, 1) Christianity is true, and 2) both the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church lead souls to perdition, because both have fallen away from the True Faith – recall the phrase `the failing away’ in 2 Thess 2 – and neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because both have fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore both lead people to perdition. And therefore both are satanic. It is satanic, it is malevolent - obviously!- to lead people away from heaven and to perdition. If the Church of Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then what the hell are you Protestants doing? You’re rebelling against God, you’re being satanic. You are! Ok, if Rome leads souls to perdition, if Rome is satanic, if Rome has fallen away, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then Protestantism has a chance of making sense….I’m a Protestant because Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lead people away from heaven and straight to perdition. They have both fallen away from the True Faith. Neither one of them is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Therefore they lead people to perdition. Therefore they are satanic. If just one Protestant church under the sign of the cross led people to heaven, if just one Protestant church under the sign of the cross has not fallen away from the True Faith, if there is a Protestant church under the sign of the cross which is indeed the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then, when this Protestant church says the material cross is sacred, then it is indeed sacred. If the True Church tells you it is safe to put the mark of a cross on your forehead then it is indeed safe to do so. But as I’ve already told you, over and over, material crosses, and the sign of the cross, are evil! They lead souls to perdition. Therefore, the True Church agrees with me. The True Church says the cross is evil! Therefore, no Protestant sect under the sign of the cross can possibly be the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Therefore, since no Protestant church under the sign of the cross is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, every Protestant church under the sign of the cross has fallen away from the True Faith; therefore, every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition. Therefore, every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross, and indeed any church under the sign of the cross, is satanic…..Can’t you people understand the simplest things? The sign of the cross is evil. It is satanic. It is a symbol which leads people away from heaven and to perdition. Therefore it is a satanic symbol!’

By now the audience is screaming nasty, obscene words at me, words such: `you [email protected]#king satanic shithead! You [email protected]#king brainless, evil, devil-loving satanic asshole etc., etc.’

Me – `No wonder you Protestants under the sign of the cross are damned. You morons will never learn!’ I was about to say to the crowd: `Can’t you [email protected]#king retards ever [email protected]#king learn?’ But, at the last second, I caught myself, and I judged that sort of language to be over-the-top, too obscene and insensitive, quite unbefitting a good Christian, so instead I simply went with: `No wonder you Protestants under the sign of the cross are damned. You morons will never learn!’ And then I added, `Look here, the essence of our debate comes down to something really simple. We have a Case 1 and we have a Case 2. If, when you people put the mark of a cross on your foreheads you are saved from months of agonizing torture, torture described in Revelation 9, if the sign of the cross is the seal of God which saves one from torment – then you will be proven right – this would prove that I am a satanic shithead, a real brainless evil ass, as you people insist so vehemently. But, on the other hand, if you people put marks of the cross on your foreheads, and then you people end up burning in hell forever, then, this will prove that it is you people who are the brainless devil-loving ass satanic half-wits, not me! When you people are being tortured in hell forever and ever, when you people are burning in fire for all eternity, because you put that evil cross on your foreheads, this will prove that it is you people, not me, who are the evil satanic half-wits.’

 

`Let’s begin at the beginning. Let me paraphrase the Bible for you. I’m condensing things now, I’m leaving a lot out. I’m just trying to give you the most important info, or at least some of the most important info. Ezekiel 20: 24, 25 says:

 

“Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised My statutes and polluted My sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live.”

 

`A big problem with the Old Covenant, the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is that it commands the children of Israel to execute various people, such as practicing homosexuals – sodomites – rebellious children, witches, Sabatth violators etc. So that’s a big problem. There’s no sanctified altar and no Temple in Jerusalem, and therefore there are no animal sacrifices, but, nevertheless, the whole Old Covenant system of animal sacrifice is not at all good in the estimation of most people today. Exodus 29. 20 tells us that God wanted the blood of a ram to be placed on the tip of Aaron’s right ear, and on the tips of the right ears of his sons, and on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. This curious little ritual certainly appears to be an example of God mocking man, mocking him because of his incessant rebellions and eternal heart of stone. Yet scripture is clear that even an Old Covenant law of the most frivolous or barbarous aspect must not be discarded until a New Covenant – a Covenant which says the Old Covenant is still eternal yet unobserved in many of its statutes – has been given, for dire curses would crush the children of Israel if they rejected the slightest element of the Old Covenant. “Cursed be thy basket and thy store…”

 

`We can certainly see that the Old Covenant needed to be amended with a New Law. The Old Law can be put into abeyance so that it is an eternal law, though unobserved, whereas the New Law is both eternal and observed.

 

`Since the Jews reject Christianity as the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31. 31-34, then, as the Temple has long since been razed, as the daily sacrifices have long since been taken away, as prophecy and vision seem to have long since been sealed, what has become of the true religion? Where is the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Elijah?

 

`Of course Christianity insists that Christianity is the True Religion, the True Religion of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Christ, who is Jewish, of the tribe of Judah, a direct descendant of David, states at the Last Supper – Matthew 26. 28, Mark 14. 24 and Luke 22. 20 – `This cup is My blood of the new covenant…’ These words from Jesus refer to a passage in the Old Testament. Jeremiah 31. 31-34,

 

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

 

Jeremiah is not the only Hebrew prophet who tells of such a covenant which consists of God putting His law inside people.

 

Isaiah 59. 20-21,

 

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

 

Ezekiel 36. 24-28,

 

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

 

Christians don’t believe that the above scripture refers to the gathering of the Jews in the Holy Land after the Babylonian Captivity, because Christians do not believe the prophecy was fulfilled after the Babylonian Captivity. Jesus was crucified 2,000 years ago, and Christians do not believe that those who approved that He be crucified understood and obeyed the Divine Law! Christians believe that Ezekiel 36. 24-28 will be fulfilled later. But there are two parts to Ezekiel 36. 24-28. There is the first part, God will gather the Jews in the Holy Land, which looks a lot like Zionism, and then the second part, the Jews will receive the Divine Law.

 

`I haven’t said anything about Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, so this is a very brief paraphrase of the Old Testament. To paraphrase the New Testament you should first recall two scriptures from the Old Testament. Psalm 2 mentions that the Son is begotten by the Father. The word `begotten’ implies that the Son has more or less the same `DNA’ as the Father. Since the Father is God then the Son is also God. Isaiah 9. 6 specifically calls the Son the `Mighty God’.

 

Isaiah 9. 6,

 

“ For unto us a Son is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

 

Obviously, Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6 don’t prove that Jesus is the Divine Son mentioned in Psalm 2 and Isaiah 9. 6. This requires further investigation. Chapter 3 of Constitutional History of the Western World gives some of the evidence for Christianity. The clearest scriptures from the New Testament telling us that Jesus is God, the Divine Son, are John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10 and 1 Timothy 3. 16. It’s true Jesus made some self-deprecating remarks – “why do you call me good, no one is good except God” – nevertheless, there’s nothing wrong with a little self-deprecation.

`In any event, this new covenant which God writes on the hearts of His people – recalling Jeremiah 31. 31-34, Isaiah 59. 20-21 and Ezekiel 36. 24-28 – has various names: the True Faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the New Law, the Divine Law etc.

The scriptures tell us you don’t want to fall away from the True Faith. 2 Thess 2 mentions a falling away, and a man of sin, a son of perdition – presumably this is the Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 2. 18, who is presumably the beast mentioned in Revelation 19. 19. If you believe St. Paul is trustworthy in 2 Thess 2, why would you reject what he says in 2 Thess 1. 8? Here Paul mentions hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 2 Thess 1. 8 is rather like John 15. 6 – those who do not abide in Christ are gathered up like sticks and given to the flames. And John 15. 6 sounds a lot like Luke 13. 3 – the message of which is Repent or Perish. So, to attain heaven and to escape perdition, you want God’s divine law, the True Faith, inscribed on your heart. And you don’t want to fall away from the True Faith. Galatians 1. 8-12 is the verse which tells Christians to keep all of St. Paul’s words, just as John 14. 23-26 is the verse which tells Christians to keep all of Christ’s words. You can find two options for these verses. Galatians 1. 8-12 is either untrustworthy or else it trustworthy. It either leads people to perdition or else it doesn’t lead people to perdition. John 14. 23-26 is either untrustworthy or else it is trustworthy. It either leads people to perdition or else it doesn’t lead people to perdition.

The foundations for the True Church begin with Matthew 16. 13-19. This is the famous scripture where Jesus says He has founded His church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. This is reinforced by John 14. 23-26 – those who love Christ keep His words, such as the words He spoke in Matthew 16. 13-19. Revelation 20. 15 mentions a Book of Life. Those who have their names in the Book of Life are the True Church. So as stated above, Chapter 3 of Constitutional History of the Western World gives some of the standard evidence for Christianity. Chapter 2 of the same book deals with the sign of the cross. And Chapter 1 gives lots of evidence saying the Church of Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church lead people to perdition, because both have fallen away from the True Faith, and neither is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. There would be no reason for Protestantism to exist if either the Church of Rome or the Eastern Orthodox Church was the Church which Christ founded on a rock. We got into the nasty shouting match earlier over the sign of the cross. But we have two interesting theories. One says that all of the evil perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross over the centuries is irrelevant in judging the sign of the cross, because the cross is sacred in the eyes of God. The other theory says that the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross over the centuries is reflected in the sign of the cross, because the cross is not sacred to God.

`About this falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2. It’s so easy to find evidence of a falling away from the True Faith, for century after century, by the people under the sign of the cross. For instance, Lord Acton told us in his essay `Human Sacrifice’,

 

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

I continue – `I got no end of these sorts of extracts. I respect Galatians 6.14 and Philippians 3. 18. I agree the cross of Christ is sacred. But this means Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is sacred, this is a spiritual thing, and it doesn’t mean that a material cross, a pagan instrument of torture, or a representation of the same, is sacred to God. The Nazis committed evil for a few years and we say the Nazi swastika reflects their evil. The evil under the sign of the cross goes on for century after century. Christ and the apostle never said a material cross is sacred. It’s insanity to think the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would say that a pagan instrument of torture, or a representation of one, is sacred. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is sacred, of course, but material crosses and the sign of the cross are not sacred.’

The audience is now insisting I’m an arrogant fool again, and they are in no mood to listen to my act, which is to push two ideas on people: the first idea says if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead during the Great Tribulation then you’re going to burn in hell forever, because you’re putting the mark of the beast on your forehead, see Revelation 13 and 14. The second idea I’m pushing says that if I’m wrong about the cross, if it is a sacred symbol, though I insist it is evil, then, provided it is indeed sacred to God, it is most likely this seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, and if you have this seal of God on your forehead then you will be spared months of painful torment, as described in Revelation 9. I’m not quite dogmatically insisting that the cross is the mark of the beast, as that is adding to the Book of Revelation, and the last verses in Revelation describe curses on those who add or subtract from that book – but it is permissible to concoct theories about what the Book of Revelation means. So by piling up facts from history I’m trying to convince people that the evils from people carrying crosses over the centuries is reflected in the sign of the cross, therefore the cross is evil, therefore it is the main suspect for the mark of the beast, or, if you don’t buy that, then you might buy the idea which says the cross is the sacred seal of God. In either case the cross pertains to a mark which is placed on foreheads. So, we’re trying to figure out if, during the Great Tribulation, one will burn in hell forever if one puts the mark of a cross on one’s forehead, or if one will be saved from torments, if one puts the mark of a cross on one’s forehead, during the Great Tribulation. We’re also here in Rock Island to discuss the evidence which says every church under the sign of the cross, including every Protestant church under the sign of the cross, lead souls to perdition. I’m trying to explain this evidence, but the Protestants in Rock Island are getting ugly again. They really don’t like it when I tell them they will burn in hell forever if they ever put the mark of a cross on their foreheads or right hands! They’re insisting I’m a: `satanic f#&ker’ for saying the `holy cross’ leads to eternal hellfire. The Moderator lets them quite down a little before he starts in.

I’m sensing the audience is predominantly Evangelicals and Pentecostals – low-income conservative Protestants, gun owners who drive pick-ups, Wal-Mart shoppers etc., as opposed to Lutherans and Episcopalians, rich Liberals who support gay marriage and abortion. I think I better tell them what they are doing right for a little while, and then I can hammer them again later about the cross. I gotta get the audience to stop cursing me for at least a little while.

 

Me – `Let’s review the most elementary things. This will help me to help you liberate you deluded morons from your delusions. In the next US presidential election you want to vote for some pro-life person. Why is this? I’m not addressing Liberal Heathens at this Symposium, right? You’re Protestants who respect the scriptures – such as Romans 14. 12, right. Romans 14. 12 says that everyone will have to stand before God some day, and everyone will have to give an account of himself or herself to God. You don’t want to have to explain to God why you voted for a pro-choice candidate – I mean anyone who is not a shithead knows that 2nd and 3rd term abortions are villainous procedures. 1st term abortions are terrible sins, but if the fetus feels no pain when it’s being aborted in the 1st trimester that’s at least a lot better than abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, when abortion is simply the torture and murder of a human being.. You do know what villainy is, right? You’re not half-wits, right? When you torture a human being to death you commit villainy. When you push for policies and politicians who refuse to pass laws which prevent the torture and murder of human beings then you make yourself an accomplice to villainy. Accomplice to villainy! I suppose it is better for propaganda purposes to have pro-life women and not pro-life men push the pro-life agenda. But you only have to convince about 10% of the pro-choicers to become pro-lifers, and then the whole pro-choice voting bloc falls apart. Once 10% of the pro-choicers switch to the pro-life position, then no pro-choice candidate will ever again be elect president of the USA, and this will spell the death of the pro-choice movement in the USA. So, to review. What is villainy? The abortion procedure is a villainous act, certainly it is in the 2 nd and 3rd trimesters. When Bill Clinton pushed himself on Juanita Broadderick, she didn’t cry out, so, you might say, he was being a horny governor of Arkansas, but perhaps he wasn’t actually a rapist or a villain. He was just being what they used to call a `masher’. He would have backed off if she had put up at least some sort of a fight. I’m giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt, which is more than most Liberal heathens will give you conservative Evangelicals. If a guy puts a ski mask on his head and rapes women at knife point then he’s a villain. If a doctor rips unborn babies limb from limb in the abortion procedure then he’s a villain. Bill Cosby drugged women before he raped them, so at least he didn’t torture them, so, you might say he is a very selfish and unfunny horny comedian, and a really old ugly guy as well, actually I liked him in `I Spy’, but he never was funny - do you think he was ever funny? - and perhaps he isn’t a complete out-and-out villain, just a really selfish ugly old dude driven by uncontrollable lust. Don’t you find it incomprehensible, or perhaps almost comprehensible, to imagine Jerry Seinfeld, or Chevy Chase or Jon Stewart getting a voluptuous gorgeous young woman up to his hotel suite, and then saying stuff like, `I’ll put some music on. Here’s your drink. Enjoy! Drink up, enjoy your rum and tonic! I put a special ingredient in your drink which you’re gonna love….Well, I can see by the dazed look in your eyes that I have the green light to get you out of those clothes! I want you to know, dear, my darling, my sweet-heart, my honey forever and ever, and I mean this in all sincerity, I’m not 100% pleased with my actions here, but, that being said, you have to admit that you’re pretty much irresistible, I mean, you’re just so amazingly gorgeous and irresistible! - So it’s really not very fair of you to be so totally gorgeous and irresistible, and, also, at the same time, to expect me to resist you. I think that’s only common sense!…So it’s OK for me to not resist you…Here let me help you get out of that bra…And let me help you out of those panties as well, darling…Do you still got that dazed and drugged look in your eyes? Oh, yes, that’s what we like to see…’

 

I suppose I could draw the connection, make everything perfectly explicit, between wacked out drugged voluptuous gorgeous irresistible young ladies in Bill Cosby’s hotel suite, and people who are so wacked out of their minds that they can’t see the truth about the sign of the cross and the Roman Catholic crucifix etc., etc. I mean if you’re wacked out, if you don’t even know what the sign of the cross and the Roman Catholic crucifix symbolize, it’s like you’re some drugged naked chick, and it’s like you’re lying there on the bed and Bill Cosby is just taking advantage of you like you wouldn’t believe, doing all sorts of nasty shit to you, stuff that you would not consent to if you were in your right mind! But now you are too wacked out to really know or care what Bill Cosby is doing up there on top of you. So, if you are just wacked out of your mind, if you don’t know up from down in regards to the sign of the cross and the Roman Catholic crucifix, and the Eastern Orthodox crucifix, and the Anglican crucifix etc., then the Devil is free to take advantage of you in a really nasty way, you know, ruin your chance to attain heaven and dragging you down to perdition. Understand? Get it? Well, so much for this line of theological discourse. We were on the subject of villainy. You see it’s like this. When you torture human beings to death then you’re most certainly a villain, or, to be a little more generous, you are acting like a villain, though maybe deep down you’re not really a villain, you’re not really an evil S.O.B., you’re just really lost and confused and you’re presently acting like an evil S.O.B. I once saw this movie called The Young Lions starring Marlon Brando, Maximillian Schell, Montgomery Clift and I forget who else. Anyway Marlon Brando looked super photogenic in it. He’s got his hair dyed blonde and he looks how superman would look, I mean, if there really was a superman that’s how he would look. This is certainly true at least in one scene, where Brando’s lying on the floor, in a room where the wife of a Nazi officer is standing over him, strongly tempted to sin with him. You’re sitting there watching the movie and you’re wondering if hot modern chicks like Kathy Griffin or Chelsea Handler would be able to keep their hands off of Brando, I mean if they were around when Brando was in his prime. I wonder. I suppose that is one of those questions to which the inhabitants of our cosmos can never ever truly know the correct answer. Brando’s playing a Nazi soldier but he’s sort of kinder-gentler sort of Nazi soldier. In one scene he and Maximillian Schell are at the local Gestapo headquarters, and they hear some guy screaming in pain while he’s being tortured by the Gestapo, and Brando wants to go help the guy, but Maximillian Schell is saying stuff like: `Do you know where you are? Do you know what you’re doing?’ Well, obviously, Brando’s instincts were the right instincts, whereas the Nazi played by Maximillian Schell had the wrong instincts. Someone should have asked him: do you know where the hell you are you asshole, you’re a [email protected]#king Nazi asshole in a [email protected]#king Nazi torture chamber, that’s where you are. You know? The point of the matter here is that millions of Liberals are half-wits because they can not understand that it is villainy, it is evil, to inflict painful deaths on unborn babies. They can understand it is evil to torture whales and dolphins and dogs and cats etc., but the shithead Liberals can not understand that it is evil and villainous to torture and murder the unborn. Some might call them villains or Nazis. But perhaps morons is the better and more accurate term – I suppose I should get out of the habit using the word `half-wits’ when I mean `morons’ – though this generosity of mine toward the Liberals might be reasoning based on propaganda purposes to some extent. If you’re always kicking the Liberals in the balls, what motivation do you give them, what tempting inducements to you give them to just take a time out, and to think for a quiet minute or two, to reflect during a span of time when some right-winger is not kicking them in the balls, to contemplate the errors of their ways. The Liberal Heathens spit on Romans 14. 12. But you Protestants don’t spit on Romans 14. 12, right? Are you going to say it’s voodoo? Are you going to say Romans 14. 12 is a superstition? The truth of the matter is everyone is going to have to give an accounting of himself before God some day, and you don’t want to have to admit to God that you did nothing to help unborn babies escape the knives of the abortionists and their Liberal accomplices….Do we have to review the stuff about the cross and the crucifix? I probably bore people to death on these subject. I’m dropping all these hints saying the cross is the mark of the beast and the crucifix is the image of the beast. If the True God loves the cross then it is a monstrous evil to say people will burn in hell forever if they put the mark of a cross on their foreheads. But if the True God says the sign of the cross is evil, if the True God says the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross for century after century are reflected in the sign of the cross, then it is a monstrous lie to say the True God favors the sign of the cross. We know the New Testament says the cross of Christ is sacred. Christ’s sacrifice on a cross is sacred of course. But to then insist that every material cross is sacred, to then insist that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob says that every material cross, every representation of this pagan instrument of torture, which is what a cross is, is sacred, seems rather far-fetched. And we don’t have to review the crucifix again, just don’t worship any beastly false gods, or any images of any beastly false gods, and then you won’t be worshipping the image of the beast – you remember Revelation 14. 11 – `and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

 

There wasn’t much of a response from the audience at this news. I wasn’t sure they completely understood what I was saying. But I repeated myself enough, saying the same stuff over and over like a frickin’ parrot. I was tempted to start in again by saying, `the Roman Catholic crucifix is a cross plus an image of a false god – because the True God / the True Christ is Anti-Catholic whereas the Roman crucifix is an image of a false god / false Christ who is Pro-Roman Catholic. Image of the beast. Cross is the mark of the beast. Can’t you understand that the spiritual cross of Christ is sacred, but material cross are evil, they reflect all of the evil perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries, rather as the Nazi swastika…You’ll burn in hell forever if you worship the Roman Catholic crucifix, if you worship the image of a false and beastly pro-Roman Catholic god. You’ll burn in hell forever and ever if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand! You’ll be tortured in hell forever….you’ll burn in hellfire forever, forever, forever!’

 

That would have been dramatic if I had said all that stuff, but the audience was quiet and contemplative at the moment, and I didn’t want to agitate them again, didn’t want to stir them up into a frenzy again.

 

Anyway, I started in again after a brief pause.

 

Me – `Let’s look at Revelation 13. 1-8,

 

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

 

When Hindus fall to their knees to worship the Creator of the Universe, they worship false gods. They think they know what they’re doing but they are deluded. And these false Hindu gods lead them away from heaven and drag them straight to perdition. Therefore the Hindus worship beastly false gods. When the Muslims fall to their knees to worship the Creator of the universe, they worship a character named Allah. So, does Allah lead people to heaven or is Allah a beastly false deity who leads people away from heaven and to perdition? When the Roman Catholics fall to their knees to worship the Creator of the universe, they worship a pro-Roman Catholic God. But if the True God says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if the True God says Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore Rome leads people to perdition, then the Roman Catholics don’t worship the True God, they worship a false god who leads them to perdition. The Roman Catholics don’t worship an anti-Roman Catholic God, they worship a pro-Roman Catholic god, therefore they worship a false god who leads them to perdition, if the True God is anti-Roman Catholic. If the True God, if the True Creator of the universe, is a pro-Roman Catholic Deity, if the True God is a Deity who says Rome is His True Church, if the True God says Rome leads people to heaven not to perdition, then it is a terrible blasphemy to say the Roman Catholic god is a beastly false god who leads people to perdition. But if the True God is an anti-Roman Catholic God, then it is right to say that a pro-Roman Catholic god is a false and evil god who leads people away from heaven and to perdition.

 

You have to determine if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith. The same goes with Eastern Orthodoxy. The same goes for every other church. You have to know what the True Faith is to know if some sect has fallen away from the True Faith. You have to know what this Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is in order to know if you have it written on your heart or not.

 

The people in this room are Protestants. So I can sell to you people some ideas, you know: Rome has fallen away, Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock: the True God is anti-Catholic not pro-Catholic. Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Rome has fallen away from the True Faith. Rome leads people to perdition. Rome is satanic because Rome leads people away from heaven and to perdition. The Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a pro-Roman Catholic god, but the True God is anti-Catholic, therefore the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image a false god who leads people to perdition, the image of a beastly false god who leads people to perdition: the image of a beastly evil god. Do you get it? The Roman Catholics worship a beastly false god not the True God. Right? You can make the same sort of arguments against the Eastern Orthodox crucifix and the Anglican crucifix. If you can understand these arguments then you ought to be able to understand the connection between the mark of the beast and the image of the beast? You know – the smoke of their torments ascends forever and ever – you ought to be able to see the connection between the cross and the crucifix, the mark of the beast and the image of the beast.’

 

I can sense the Protestant audience is uneasy with all this. If Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy haven’t fallen away from the True Faith, why are these Protestants Protestants? Why do they rebel against the True Faith. But if Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away from the True Faith, if the True God is anti-Roman Catholic and anti-Eastern Orthodox, then the True God is hostile to an image of a pro-Roman Catholic god, and hostile to an image of pro-Eastern Orthodox god.

 

The panel of `experts’ at the Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults consists of a Moderator, Catholic Man, Maurice, Jew Girl, Old Protestant Lady, Protestant Fundamentalist Mom and Atheist Guy. I was going to insist that there be no flaming by the panel of experts at the symposium – flaming is when you say stuff like: `you’re a f#&king retard if you think such and such’ – but the people who promote these shows on cable TV tell me you have to allow flaming, you have to let people express themselves sincerely, even if they are sincerely obnoxious, or else you’ll never get decent ratings on cable TV. That’s what the experts say. Let’s listen in some more on the Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults. The Moderator is trying to explain Christianity to Christians, which can be difficult.

Moderator – `Now pay attention you effing retards! I’m trying to paraphrase Etem’s religious ideas. It’s neo-paganism to say that doctrine doesn’t matter. It’s neo-paganism to say that nice people who reject Christ and the True Faith can go to heaven. Christ said in John 14. 23-26 that those who love Him keep His words. If you don’t keep Christ’s words, then you don’t love Christ. If you don’t don’t love Christ then you go to perdition. To think I have to explain the simplest stuff to people who call themselves Christians just boggles my mind. Some of you Protestants are so amazingly lost and confused! I know Protestants who consult mediums, witches, more or less, who put them in touch with their dearly departed ancestors, and these Protestants think that this proves their church leads people to heaven. Anyone can read the 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation and see that the Last Judgment happens after the Second Coming and after the Millennium, therefore, 1) we know it is a sin to consult mediums / witches, and 2) we can’t know for certain if someone’s dearly departed relative is damned or redeemed until after the Last Judgment, therefore it is crazy to assume some ghost was in a church which leads souls to heaven merely because some medium / witch puts people in communication with that ghost. So, let’s review, so you crazy Protestants don’t get any more lost and confused than you already are. John 14. 23-26: those who love Christ, those who keep His words, are the True Church. If you keep Christ’s words then you will obviously keep the words He spoke in Matthew 16. 13-19, where Christ says He has founded His Church on a rock, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against this True Church. So, if the Church of Rome is God’s True Church, then those of us who are Protestants will go to perdition after we die, because we rebel against God’s True Church, the Church of Rome. Now if the Church of Rome leads people to perdition, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because Rome has fallen away from the True Faith – recall the info about the Antichrist and the falling away in 2 Thess 2 – and if Eastern Orthodoxy also leads people to perdition, because it too has fallen away from the True Faith – then perhaps Protestantism leads people to heaven. Etem, the half-wit, the brainless fool, while he is very much an anti-Catholic and anti-Eastern Orthodox sort of halfwit – I applaud him for at least being some sort of Christian – also insists that every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, a doctrine which I of course detest. Etem sees the Great Tribulation – see Daniel 12. 1, Revelation 7. 14 – is simply a big argument over what is the True Church and the True Faith. If Rome is the True Church, if Rome leads people to heaven, then everyone in the world should obey Rome. But if Rome leads people to perdition, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has fallen away, then everyone in the world should renounce Rome. That’s simple enough to understand. Rome either leads people to heaven or else Rome leads people to perdition. Rome is either God’s True Church or else Rome has been subverted by the Devil. You could say the same for any sect or person. Islam is satanic if Islam leads people away from heaven and to perdition, whereas Islam is a fine and respectable religion if it leads people to heaven. The Church of Rome is God’s True Church if it leads people to heaven, if it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. But if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads people to perdition, then Rome is satanic. I suppose Atheists would have a problem with this reasoning since they don’t believe in heaven, but the concept is not all that radical. The Koran is filled with verses which say that you will be tortured in hellfire if you reject Islam. If that is true then convert to Islam! But if Islam is a superstition which leads people away from heaven and to perdition then Islam is a satanic cult. We’re concerned especially with misguided Christians who say that doctrine is unimportant, who say that being a good person is enough to get one into heaven. We’ve been over John 14. 23-26. Galatians 1. 8-12 says you’re damned if you corrupt Paul’s doctrine, which he learned directly from Christ. The scriptures which support the doctrine that Jesus is God, the Divine Son in a Divine Trinity, include Psalm 2, Isaiah 9. 6, John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10, 1 Timothy 3. 16 etc. The non-Christians say Jesus is a bogus deity. They say He is a fraudulent god. Therefore perdition awaits the blasphemous non-Christians: John 15. 6 – fire for those who don’t abide in Christ; 2 Thess 1. 8 – fire for those who don’t know God and who don’t obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ; Luke 13. 3 – repent or perish etc., etc. To review the scriptures which tell us there is a True Church and a True Faith, we’ve been over John 14. 23-26 – those who love Christ keep His words – those who love Christ are in the True Church; those who keep Christ’s words keep the words Christ spoke in Matthew 16. 13-19, where Christ tells us He has founded His True Church on a rock and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Those people who keep the True Faith are the True Church. Recall Christ’s words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant…’ This new covenant is the True Faith. In Jeremiah 31. 31-34 we are told that God will write a new covenant on the hearts of His people. This new covenant / New Law amends the Old Covenant, the old Mosaic Law. Not everything in the Old Law has been tossed out, mind you. The Ten Commandments are part of both the Old Law and the New Law. Under the New Law bulls and goats are no longer sacrificed, but the Old Law’s command to use just weights and measures is still valid under the New Law. Anyway, the people who have God’s New Law written on their hearts, recalling Jeremiah 31. 31-34, are the True Church. They are the saints. They go to heaven and not to perdition. If you don’t have the New Law written on your heart you go to perdition, because you don’t keep the True Faith, because you are not in the True Church. In Ephesians 5. 5 Paul tells us there is one body, and in Paul’s lingo this means there is one True Church. Revelation 20. 15 mentions a Book of Life. If your name is written in the Book of Life then you are in the True Church. If your name is not written in the Book of Life then you go to perdition not to heaven.

If at least one church under the sign of the cross leads people to heaven, if at least one church somewhere under the sign of the cross is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then this proves that the sign of the cross is sacred. Etem, the fool, is quite convinced the sign of the cross is evil – the blasphemous sacrilegious moron! – argues in this way: If one actually had the Divine Law / New Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on one’s heart, if one was actually a saint in the True Church, then one would not commit sacrilege with the cross. It’s a sacrilege to says the evil things are sacred, and it’s a sacrilege to say that sacred things are evil.

We have two especially dramatic and interesting scenarios with the sign of the cross, a very dramatic Case 1 and a very dramatic Case 2. Case 1: the sign of the cross is sacred, and perhaps it is also this seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. If one has the sign of the cross / seal of God on one’s forehead then one will be saved from torments described in Revelation 9 during the Great Tribulation, provided the cross is sacred, and is the seal of God. Case 2 says the sign of the cross reflects the evils perpetrated over the centuries by those united under the sign of the cross. It’s an evil symbol. Revelation 14. 6-11 comes to mind if the cross is an evil symbol. You burn in hell forever if you have the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand! Etem insists he has proven that the sign of the cross is evil. I say he’s full of it. If every sect under the sign of the cross, including every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross, leads people to perdition, hence if every sect under the sign of the cross is a satanic cult – because that’s what you call a church which leads people away from heaven and to perdition – a satanic cult – this doesn’t prove the sign of the cross is evil. But, nevertheless, if every sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition then every sect under the sign of the cross is satanic! Now if at least one sect under the sign of the cross led people to heaven, if at least one church under the sign of the cross, Protestant or otherwise, is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you can trust that Church when it says the cross is sacred, and, therefore, during the Great Tribulation, you would want the mark of a cross on your forehead, as it will save you from torment if it is the seal of God. But Etem is more or less convinced that having the mark of a cross on your forehead will result in suffering eternal torture, recall again Revelation 14. 11. If the cross leads people to hell and perdition, then, obviously, any church which says the cross leads people to heaven is obviously a satanic church. And, obviously, if the cross leads people to heaven, then any church or sect which says the cross leads people to perdition is satanic.

Do you burn in hell forever if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand? Are you saved from the torments described in Revelation 9 if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead? If just one sect under the sign of the cross led people to heaven, because it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you can trust that Church when it insists that the sign of the cross is sacred, therefore, during the Great Tribulation, you would want to put the mark of a cross on your forehead, to save you from torments, recall the seal of God and the torments described in Revelation 9. But if you will burn in hell forever and ever if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead then don’t put the mark of a cross on your forehead!

Therefore, to paraphrase Etem, we got new people coming into the building, so let’s review for their benefit, any church which tells you that it is wise to put the sign of the cross on your forehead, when doing so will cause you to be tortured in hell forever and ever, can not be the True Church: it must be a satanic church! It can not be the God’s True Church if it leads people to perdition and hell. But then, on the other hand, if just one church under the sign of the cross has not fallen away, if just one church under the sign of the cross is God’s True Church, the Church Christ founded on a rock, then this church will not steer you wrong in regards to the sign of the cross, and if this church says the cross is sacred then you can be 100% certain the cross is sacred, and, furthermore, if the sign of the cross is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, then you want the sign of the cross on your forehead during the Great Tribulation, to protect you from the torments described in Revelation 9.

So, to review matters, so that there can be no confusion. There are two especially dramatic scenarios with the sign of the cross. Case 1 says the sign of the cross is sacred to God, and indeed it is this seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. Case 2 says the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast. The Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and as a result the Nazis swastika reflects this evil. The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century, so the theory runs that the sign of the cross reflects this evil. Now if ever church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, if every Catholic and Protestant and Eastern Orthodox sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition then this does not prove that the sign of the cross is evil, though it inclines one to think it is. But if just one church under sign of the cross leads people to heaven and not to perdition, if just one church somewhere under the sign of the cross has not fallen away from the True Faith, if one could find just one church under the sign of the cross that is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then, when this church says the sign of the cross is sacred you can trust that church, and the sign of the cross is indeed sacred, and therefore it couldn’t hurt to have the sign of the cross on your forehead, as it might save you from the torments described in Revelation 9. I’m an Episcopalian, and of course the Episcopalian Church leads people to heaven: the Episcopalian Church has not fallen away, indeed it is none other than Church which Christ founded on a rock, so, of course, you can trust the Episcopalian Church when it says the cross is sacred, unless, somehow, you can’t trust the Episcopalian Church. If it is run by very confused people who have fallen away from the True Faith, if it leads people to perdition, not to heaven, then I suppose I shouldn’t be so damnably emphatic, so satanically emphatic when I insist the Episcopalian Church leads people to heaven!’

Me – `I proved the cross is evil. I proved it! You know I did. I know you read Chapters 1 and 2 of `Constitutional History of the Western World.’ You read those chapters so you know I proved the sign of the cross is evil. The sign of the cross leads people to perdition. Jesus is God, the Second Person in a Divine Trinity. Christianity is true. And yet every sect under the sign of the cross has fallen away; every sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition…’

This display of anti-cross vehemence on my part drew lots of boos from the audience. A chorus of stern rebuke from the fans of the cross rained down on me.

Moderator – `You tell him people! Tell the obnoxious fool what you think of his foul blasphemous idiocy! Anyway, thanks to everyone for coming. And a special thanks to our out-of-town guests. Welcome to the Quad Cities! Next up among our speakers is Maurice. He’s a Protestant from Chicago who loves the sign of the cross. Welcome Maurice!’

There’s polite applause for Maurice from the 17 or 18 people sitting on folding chairs in the audience at the Symposium, which is held in a large conference room at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Rock Island, IL. You can rent the space for $250 for 3 hours, $100 for each additional hour, and I thought that was reasonable, so I reserved the room and got my speakers together. I should have given away a lot more free T-shirts and a lot more free chicken wings and diet cokes, because the room is pretty big and it looks almost empty with only 17 or 18 people in the audience. Live and learn, as they say.

Maurice – `Check this out. I knew a ho named Magenta Ivory Slaughtersfield from South Philly – she is baptized in Jesus but sometimes she forgets she is – and she is real aloof see when she isn’t drinkin’ but when she gets a little tight guys would just move in on her, sayin sh*t like they were short of cash and sayin they would pay her tomorrow if she gave them some love that night, so she would be like yeah yeah OK but you damn well better get your ass to the bank so you can pay me tomorrow, and of course the dudes never had any money for her the next day, or the next day, or the next, so she would get all nasty and sober for a few weeks, but then she’d get drunk again a month later, and then she would be with dudes for free again. She knew this white boy who was an even bigger sh*t-head than she was, I mean he would make huge-ass wagers on fighters and ballers and he didn’t even have any sort of shrewd strategy to his game plan. If you got it on good authority that a fighter is going take a dive in Round 5, and if you hear from some most reputable sources that a hitman is goin’ grease the mother if he don’t take that dive, ok then lay down some cash, but you got to be a big-ass chump to bet on fighters or any sort of game of chance when you ain’t got no inside angle. I mean if you know, from guys on the inside, the balls are gonna be deflated for Brady, well then you lay down a little wager on the big game, cause you know Brady can thread the needle and move the chains all day long on that overrated Seattle D, especially when he got charmin-soft balls to toss around. When Brady can sling those cupcakes to his wideouts and his slot man and to the dudes comin’ out of the backfield, to tuck away and then run like my man O.J. done did back in the day, you just know it’s gonna be a bad day for all them latté drinkers in Seattle. Like I was saying or at least implicating to you gentlemens and ladies earlier, it’s just stupid to not have no sound strategy. I suppose I could invent some story about a small-town white chick who meets a bad-ass brother at a bus station in Peoria who promises he can get her a great job, but then he makes a sex-slave out of her – don’t get into the cars of strangers you clueless white girls…’

Bill Etem, aka Me, – `With a few Russian alterations that was more or less the theme of Lila Forever.’

Maurice – `That’s OK, you can interrupt me once or twice. Now I’m a Protestant and what you is sayin’ is that because I’m not wise to these damned Protestant cults under the sign of the cross, I’m like some dumb-ass white chick from the sticks who gets into the car of some bad-ass dude, thinking he’s a nice guy, until he puts a knife to her throat and forces her to become a ho, and then he takes most of the money she makes as a ho. What you is saying is that I’m like a brainless sh*t-head slave of the Devil, that’s what you is sayin.’

Me – `Well yes, more or less, I mean, I explain everything in glorious detail in my books, but you got the shorthand version, when everythingis put into a nutshell.’

Old Protestant Lady – `You’re a F#$%ing Sh*t-head, to explain you in glorious detail.’

There are now 19 people in the audience at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Rock Island, IL, the place is really starting to fill up.

Me – `You can imagine some English professor at Peoria State writing some criticism of me: `Etem’s all about the True Church and the True Faith. In his writings he starts off with the Church of Rome. Either it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore it leads souls to heaven, or else it has fallen away, and is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and so it leads souls to perdition. If it is God’s True Church then everyone on earth must obey Rome if they want to go to heaven. But if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if it has fallen away, then Catholics must renounce Rome or else they will remain in a church which leads people to perdition. OK that’s remedial enough. So Etem, who is obviously an anti-Catholic, then moves on to attack the Protestants under the sign of the cross. Etem decamps from his sober down-to-earth theological discourse and he descends into comical or not-so-comical affectations: he invents some inner-city Protestant character named Maurice, perhaps a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s congregation, with rather dubious comedic results I might add.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Do you spend a lot of time worrying what imaginary people say about you?’

Me – `Not a lot.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Try one more time to explain to me, but in a coherent way, why it is I’m going to be damned if I don’t change my religious beliefs.’

Me – `OK to review. Revelation 13. 1-8 says this,

 

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

Me continuing – `It’s farfetched to think the whole world will worship a literal multi-headed beast so we are looking for a figurative interpretation. You have to ask yourself – and you must come up with the correct answers to these questions you’re asking! – Do the Hindu gods lead people to heaven or do they lead people to perdition? Does Allah lead people to heaven or to perdition? Is Allah a false god or is Allah the True God? If a god is a false god who leads people away from heaven and to perdition, then that false god is beastly, so, one interpretation of Revelation 13. 1-8 says that the heads on this multi-headed beast symbolize false religions, or the false gods of these false religions. We have two options with the Church of Rome. It leads souls to heaven or it leads souls to perdition. It’s either the Church which Christ founded on a rock or else it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. It has either fallen away from the True Faith or else it has not fallen away from the True Faith. If the True God says Rome leads souls to perdition, then a version of the Trinity that says Rome leads souls to heaven – which is the version of the Trinity that the Roman Catholics worship – is a false trinity / false god, a false god who leads the Roman Catholics to perdition, hence a beastly false god, hence a candidate to be one of the heads in this multi-headed beast mentioned in Revelation 13. 1-8. There’s no reason for Protestantism to exist if Rome leads people to heaven, if Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock…’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Right, right, I get all that. But why should I believe that your version of God is the right version? You say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are anti-cross. Why would I believe that?’

Me – `Obviously you have to be right about a few things! You can’t commit sacrilege. You can’t say that evil things are sacred. And you can’t say that sacred things are evil and then expect to attain heaven and escape perdition. You can’t make botch things with the cross and the crucifix, obviously! Where in the Bible to we read that the sign of the cross is sacred to God? Nowhere. Now let’s try to follow the development of Protestantism. It crazy to think these reformers of the 16th century were good Christians. Luther ended up saying really nasty things about the Jews. The Jews reject Jesus, so that will obviously lead Christians to have some animosity for the thinking of the Jews, but Christians mustn’t let the animosity lead to violence or nasty strife. Just agree to disagree, or at least find a way to explain your position without throwing too much gasoline on a fire. Paul Johnson, a Roman Catholic historian, doesn’t whitewash any Protestant evils. He tells us that George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, supported slavery (presumably the African slave trade) and that John Wesley – the founder of Methodism – supported burning `witches’. The quotation marks are used because `witches’ were usually innocent women slandered as witches. Does it make any sense to say Fox and Wesley understood the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34? In former centuries, Catholics and Lutherans subjected the Anabaptists to the most frightful tortures. Therefore, these Catholics and Lutherans envisioned God to be the sort of God who wanted the Anabaptists subjected to the most frightful tortured, which might lead you to believe that these Catholics and Lutherans, though they insisted they worshipped the Creator of the Universe, actually worshipped evil deities, such as the dragon and the beast mentioned in Revelation 13. 1-8.

 

For century after century, when Christians fell to their knees to worship God, they envisioned God to be a deity who smiled upon the cruel jurisprudence of the Middle Ages, who smiled upon the African slave trade, who threw His full support behind the Inquisition, who approved the oppression of the peasantry by the nobles, who wanted women accused of witchcraft tortured to determine if in fact they were witches etc., etc. That’s the god / version of Jesus that the people under the sign of the cross worshipped. Therefore, one would think, that millions of intelligent 21st century Christians ought be able to understand that these barbarous Christians of former centuries worshipped a false god: they claimed to worship the True God, but, in fact, they worshipped an evil god.

 

Rome says that God / Jesus is a Roman Catholic Deity. Rome says, that God says, that the Inquisition, the `Holy Office’, is indeed holy. Rome says, that God says, that Rome and only Rome is the True Church. Protestants say that God says that Rome has fallen away from the True Faith. Protestants say, that God says, the Inquisition was evil not holy. Either it’s holy or it’s evil. It’s a sacrilege to call evil things holy, or to call holy things evil. You have to determine if the Catholics commit sacrilege by calling the Inquisition holy. If you worship a god who says the Inquisition is holy, are you worshipping the True God / True Jesus who leads people to heaven, or are you worshipping a False God / False version of Jesus who leads people to perdition? It’s a paradox but the evils committed by people under the sign of the cross is evidence of fulfilled New Testament prophecies, and hence is evidence in favor of Christianity. The evils committed by people under the sign of the cross are, of course, not conclusive proof that Christianity is true! But these evils do corroborate some Christian prophecies. In 2 Thess 2 St. Paul made a prophecy that there would be a falling away from the True Faith. St. Paul states in Acts 20: 28-31,

 

`The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure fierce wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch and remember that over the course of three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.’

 

Suppose the True God is hostile to the sign of the cross and suppose the True God also supports 2 Thess 1. 8 – you’re damned if you don’t know God and if you don’t obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ – then if you worship a god who is pro-cross, you worship a false god, because the True God is anti-cross. A false god who leads people to perdition is a beastly god. So, if the True God is a Christian God who is anti-cross, but if you worship a god who is pro-cross, then you worship a false god, hence you are bound for perdition. Apropos of people who worship false and beastly gods recall the multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 1-8,

 

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

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `So if the True God / True Jesus says the cross is evil, then I worship a false god / a false version of Jesus when I worship a God / Jesus who says the cross is sacred. But the cross is sacred! You are the one who worships a false god when you say the True God is anti-cross. The True God is pro-cross!’

Me – `No, no, no. The True God is anti-cross. The True God says the cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred, this cross of Christ is something spiritual, but material crosses, and the sign of the cross, which is also material not spiritual, are evil. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but material crosses are evil.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `That’s insane! The cross is sacred and you commit sacrilege when you say it is evil. It is a satanic lie to say that the sign of the cross and material crosses are evil. It is a satanic lie! You’re a satanic idiot who worships a false satanic version of God / Jesus, a false, anti-cross, satanic version of God / Jesus, and therefore you will go to hell if you don’t improve your thinking by a lot. And I mean a lot, buster!’

Me – `Agree to disagree.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Look here dumb-ass. What does 2 Thess 1. 8 say? It’s says Fire for those who don’t know God and who don’t obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You don’t know God. If you did you would know God is a Pro-Cross God. And you don’t obey the Gospel. You don’t obey the Gospel because you commit sacrilege when you say the cross is evil, and who knows in how many other ways? You’ll burn if you don’t wise up!’

Me – `Sorry, don’t see it that way.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `You be screaming in hellfire for a long long time, you be saying stuff like: AHHHHAAAAAAA…AAAHHHHAAAAA…OUCH….OUCH….MAKE IT STOP PLEEEEESSSSSSEEEEEE.’

Me – `Ok, you’re getting a few laughs from the audience. But what about the rest of my case against Protestantism under the sign of the cross? It doesn’t all rest on the premise that the cross is evil. You quote 2 Thess 1. 8. But did the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century know God? Did they obey the Gospel? James MacKinnon in his article on Luther in the Britannica (1963) tells us that the extermination of the Anabaptists was advocated by Luther, and this anti-Christian policy was carried out by both Protestant and Roman Catholic authorities. Professor Mackinnon writes of Luther,

 

`Towards the Anabaptist movement, on the other hand, he adopted an attitude of uncompromising antagonism. These sectaries, who took their rise at Zurich in 1525, and rapidly spread their views from Switzerland over the Empire, continued the more radical tendency of Münzer, whose revolutionary teaching was adopted by the more extreme section and eventuated in the fantastic and fanatic attempt to establish the reign of the saints at Münster in Westphalia. The more moderate section led by Hubmaier, Hetzer, and Denck, all of them men of scholarly attainments, eschewed revolutionary violence, and advocated adult baptism as the exclusive scriptural practice, and a more literal revival of primitive Christianity as they understood it. To Luther both sections were alike obnoxious subverters of religious and social order, and he ultimately belied his own principle of freedom on conscience by supporting the persecution to which both sections were alike subjected in Protestant as well as Roman Catholic territories, and in joining Melanchthon in pronouncing for the infliction of the death penalty for persistent profession of the Anabaptist error (1536).’

 

The Israeli statesman Abba Eban, in his book `Heritage: Civilization and the Jews’ (Simon & Schuster, 1984, pp. 198-201), gives an account of Luther’s transformation from being a friend of the Jews to one of their bitter enemies. In 1523, in his pamphlet That Jesus Christ Was a Born Jew Luther excoriates the popes, bishops and monks for their cruel treatment of the Jews. Nineteen years later, in 1542, in his Against the Jews and their Lies, Luther calls for, 1) burning the synagogues of the Jews, 2) destroying their homes to make them live like gypsies or force them to live under one roof, 3) deprive them of their prayer books and Talmuds, 4) forbid rabbis to teach, and execute those rabbis who violate this decree, 5) forbid the right to travel to the Jews, 5) confiscate their valuables, forbid them to loan money, 6) make the Jews earn their livings via manual labor….This is insane evil. All a Christian has to say to to the Jews. Jesus is God, that is God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and Jesus is God the Son. Those who do not know or worship the True God, and those who don’t obey the Gospel, will go to perdition. And then when the Jews responds by saying the Christians will go to perdition, you just agree to disagree and move on, you know, you don’t let the animosity fester, you know boil over into nasty words / violence. Christians may speak to non-Christians, but the saints are supposed to give a very polite rebuke to Christians who teach heresy – heresy is any false doctrine which leads people to perdition – and then if the heretic doesn’t stop being a heretic the saints are to excommunicate him, which means giving him the silent treatment, as well as not giving him the Eucharistic bread and wine.’

 

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `I shouldn’t even be talking to you.’

 

As I say we’re in Rock Island, IL, and I’m trying to articulate a few things which require abstract thinking ability. The audience looks sort of puzzled. They look sort of beaten down and confused. Let’s listen in as I make another attempt to explain the simplest things about Christianity.

I was citing all of the verses in the New Testament which damn the rich; and I was citing those two scriptures in The Book of the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 2. 44-5 and Acts 4. 32, which tell us there was equal sharing of the wealth among the apostles. And I was saying that in the True Faith, and in the True Church, every able-bodied person worked, and, for instance, if you worked 40 hours per week then you got a full share, you got the same share regardless if you worked as a CEO or a surgeon or a garbage man, and if you worked 80 hours in a week then you got 2 shares, and if you worked for one hour in the week then you got a forthieth of a share, and if you worked 33 hours in a week you got 33/40 of a share. And I was explaining that this is really what the True Faith and the True Church teach in regards to money. And, obviously, charity is extended to Christians who are not able to work, and charity is given to non-Christians – Christians don’t let people starve to death! The True Church certainly helps out starving kids even if their parents hate Christianity etc., etc. Obviously the New Testament doesn’t specifically state that such a system is the correct economic system for Christians to adopt. But we know that Christ gave two commandments: love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Picking up on the second of these two commandments, the proper Christian attitude is not: How Can the Kings and the Nobles and the Rich Further Enrich Themselves? But rather, the proper Christian attitude is: How Can Christian Society Be Structured to Benefit the Greatest Number of Christians while also providing charity to Non-Christians? We can’t simply ignore all of the scriptures which say rich people will be damned – I review these scriptures in my books – and then you add Paul’s assertion that an able-bodied person should not be given alms if he refuses to work, and combining these ideas with the two verses which we’ve seen from The Acts of the Apostles where the early Christians shared everything, and then you arrive at the economic system which I articulated above. The Popes and the Eastern Orthodox clergy gave their blessings to the feudal system – a system which enriched the nobles and sunk the peasantry into a condition which, at best, let the peasants hover just above starvation and despair. Both the Popes and the Protestants gave their blessings to the African slave trade. Anyway, the upshot of the last 1,700 years, that is, the upshot of events ever since the priests, kings and the nobles took control of Christianity 1,700 years ago, is that the economic system under the sign of the cross has been an economic system which has not asked: How Can We Love Our Neighbors? It has not been a system which asks: What Economic System Helps the Greatest Number of Christians? But, generally speaking, aside perhaps from the last 100 years, the economic system, or rather systems, under the sign of the cross for the last 1,700 years have been systems which always ask: `How Can the Rich and Powerful Become Even Richer and More Powerful?’

Now, of course, this economic system which I articulated above is unworkable unless a few things transpire. On the one hand, we have these scriptures which say rich people will be damned. But if a rich person is always giving his money away to the poor, he will soon be destitute, and in need of alms himself. So there needs to be a system where people aren’t driven to destitution. The economic scheme I articulated above would work well in an agricultural based society, as was the world throughout the Middle Ages. But how could society run an economic system, where everyone makes the same wage, without that system collapsing on itself, without everyone or most everyone driven to destitution? Obviously, it is not fair and equitable to give people who worked 1 hour in a week the same amount of money as people who worked 40 hours in a week. But let’s return to the first principles of Christianity. It is anti-Christian, you know, you sort of become like Judas, if you say there is no True Church. John 14. 23-26 says that those who love Christ keep His words. So, if you love Christ, if you’re not a Judas, you will keep the words Christ spoke, such as the words He spoke in Matthew 16. 13-19, where Christ says He has founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. So, where is this Church which Christ founded on a rock? You need this True Church to run the economic system. The True Church decides who needs to be excommunicated – and when a person is excommunicated then the people in the True Church give him the silent treatment. For centuries Roman Catholic theologians insisted that the authority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy shone like the sun, whereas the authority of the kings and nobles was like feeble moonshine. And this makes perfect sense if the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which leads people to heaven and which leads no one to perdition. And of course it makes no sense – it is complete satanic madness! – to say the authority of the Roman Catholic hierarchy – the authority of the pope and the other bishops – shines like the sun if the Church of Rome leads people to perdition, if the Church of Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if the Church of Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. It is impossible, under the current conditions to implement a system where Christians share the wealth. The system would collapse into chaos. But when the prophecies mentioned in Revelation 18 come to pass, when there is economic collapse, when famine becomes either real or a real possibility, then Christians will be supplied with inspiration, or at least they will be desperate enough to adopt an economic system which emphasizes sharing, which emphasizes the strong helping the weak, because people will be acting in their own self-interest. During times of economic collapse and famine it is in one’s self-interest to adopt an economic system which emphasizes sharing rather than an economic system which emphasizes hoarding up money for you and your family.

Paul is quite clear that the saints are not speak to heretics. You people are Protestants. Let me review the ABC’s of Protestantism. Protestantism is founded on the premise that neither the Church of Rome nor the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Protestantism is founded on the premise that both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lead people to perdition. If Rome led people to heaven, if Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith, recall the falling away mentioned by Paul in 2 Thess 2, then why are you people Protestants? Are you confused? Why do you rebel against God’s True Church? How do you expect to attain heaven and to escape perdition when you rebel against God’s True Church, assuming the Church of Rome is God’s True Church? And if Rome leads people to perdition, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then Roman Catholics are heretics, and Paul told the saints to give the silent treatment to heretics, to excommunicate them, to deny them the Eucharist, and to shun them. And, of course, we know that one will be fired from one’s job, and economic chaos will result for one’s family, if one makes a practice at work of shunning and refusing to speak to Christians who do not share one’s own Christian religious views, if one makes a practice of shunning those who one considers to be heretics. So, there is a strong monetary reason to ignore Paul’s doctrine on the issue of giving the silent treatment to heretics, even though Galatians 1. 8-12 says what it says, you know, you’re damned if you alter Paul’s doctrine, doctrine which he received directly from Christ. So, to recap. The prophecies explained in Revelation 18 transpire. Then people ask themselves: was the economic system which prevailed just before the events in Revelation 18 transpired an economic system consistent with the Gospel / True Faith? Or was it an economic system which stood in opposition to the True Faith? When the events described in Revelation 18 transpire, people will be inspired to adopt an economic system which emphasizes sharing. People always look for their own self-interest! It’s just that, if it is in your self-interest to push for an economic system which emphasizes sharing, and you also get an economic system which has not fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore it does not lead people to perdition, then that is what’s called a win-win economic system! It gives you security in this life, and it does not lead your soul to perdition in the afterlife. So that’s a good deal for you. That’s the economic system you want to adopt.

So, about this economic system currently used by people under the sign of the cross, does it lead people to heaven because it is consistent with the Gospel / True Faith? Or does it lead people to perdition, because it is an economic system which stands in opposition to the Gospel / True Faith? Do you think your attitude might change after the events described in Revelation 18 transpire? Or do you think you they won’t change? There is no reason for you to change if you are now on a course which will lead you to heaven. But, on the other hand, if you are now on a course which will lead your soul to perdition, then, as you might imagine, there is a good reason for you to change!

All of my books preach the doctrine that the falling away from the True Faith mentioned by Paul in 2 Thess 2 happened many centuries ago. Every sect under the sign of the cross has fallen away from the True Faith. Therefore, every sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition. Therefore, every sect under the sign of the cross is malevolent, therefore every sect under the cross is, more or less, satanic, because it is satanic to lead people away from heaven and to perdition.

So, these last ideas really irritated the woman who calls herself `Old Protestant Lady’. She was going on and on about how I am an ARROGANT COMMIE ASS#[email protected]% for suggesting that thousands of Protestant Doctors of Divinity did not know how to read the New Testament. And she was going on and on about how I am a HALF-WIT and a CORRUPT BASTARD for dropping all these hints saying Protestants under the sign of the cross are going to perdition because they have fallen away from the True Faith on the issue of economic systems and other matters. I was telling her earlier about Revelation 18 and its words about economic collapse and famine, and how Christians will have to learn the hard way about sharing, and about what the New Testament teaches about sharing, but the Old Protestant Lady along with the audience, and the audience was now 100% behind her on this matter regarding economic systems, were screaming words like: ARROGANT HALF-WIT! [email protected]#king CORRUPT BASTARD at me, and then these three fat guys in the front row were taunting me, saying I was a [email protected]#king half-wit for saying every church under the sign of the cross leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition. I let them chant their stupid chants. Then this guy in the audience stands up and tells me he has a `personal relationship with his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ’, and then he informs me that I will go to hell unless`I get a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.’ Then I respond with a little scenario which ran like this: suppose a porn star insists that she has a personal relationship with Jesus, and suppose this porn star says that she knows that Jesus approves of her lifestyle, because, `she has a personal relationship with Christ’ – so that’s how she knows Christ approves of her porn career – because she has a personal relationship with Christ. So the audience agrees with me that the porn star is whacked out and is preaching heresy, because, as everyone knows, Jesus is not in favor of the porn industry, and everyone knows Jesus does not want good Christians working in the porn industry. And I don’t get any arguments from the audience when I announce that a heroin dealer who says that he is a good Christian, who says that he upholds the True Faith, because Jesus supports heroin trafficking, is just an idiot who corrupts the True Faith with his heresy. Then I was saying that Christians who support the economic systems used under the sign of the cross for the last 1,700 years are just as bad as a heroin dealer who insists that getting people addicted to heroin and destroying families are things which are supported by the True Faith. And this really drew the wrath of Rock Island Protestants down on my head. I was saying that, over the last 1,700 years, the economic systems used by kings, nobles, priests and other people under the sign of the cross made life hell for millions of men, women and children, whereas life would not have been hell for these millions of men, women and children if there was no falling away from the True Faith, if there was no falling away from the principles stated in Acts 2. 44-5 and Acts 4. 32. If you are a kid, and if your family is destroyed because your parents are heroin junkies, or if your family is destroyed because you live under an economic system which refuses to comply with the principles expressed in the New Testament, then, either way, your family is destroyed. And in your eyes the people who advocate malevolent economic systems are no better or brighter than people who insist the True Faith supports heroin trafficking. People can say they are good Christians bound for heaven, but if they support evil things which destroy families and which make life hell for millions of people, if they corrupt the True Faith in the process and thereby they lead people away from heaven and straight to perdition, though they insist they don’t corrupt the True Faith and don’t lead people to perdition, then you know they are not good Christians, rather, you know they are devil-dogs bound for hell! That last bit of news got the people in the audience to start shouting nasty things about me, saying I am a [email protected]$king ass*@#$, saying that I am a [email protected]$king shithead who will go to hell. When the volume of their abuse got really loud, well, what can you do with such brainless idiots?

 

 

We’ll get to the precise reasons for coming here later, but, suffice it to say, for now, I am trying to preach the message that the True Faith is something simple to understand. Picking up on Jeremiah 31. 31-34 and that line in that scripture about how even the least of God’s people will have the True Faith written on their hearts, I am trying to explain that even mentally retarded people can understand the True Faith. The True Faith is simple. It is easy to understand. This news went over with the audience of Protestants here in Rock Island smoothly enough. And there wasn’t any trouble when I began explaining the foundations of Protestantism. I was explaining how if both the Church of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lead people to perdition, because both have fallen away from the True Faith, because neither one is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then, obviously, a Christian would naturally turn to the Protestant sects in search of the True Church, in search of that Church which Christ founded on a rock, in search of the Church which has not fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore it leads people to heaven not to perdition. But if either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy lead people to heaven, if either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy has not fallen away from the True Faith, if either the Church of Rome or the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then, obviously, there is no reason for Protestantism to exist. And this logic went over smoothly enough with the Protestant audience. But trouble began when I criticized Calvin and Luther. Luther wanted Anabaptists executed and Calvin wanted the execution of Christians who opposed the idea that God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And I was saying that both Luther and Calvin fell away from the True Faith, both were heretics who led people to perdition, because the True Faith is hostile to the idea of executing people on the basis of their religion. You don’t murder or execute somebody because he disagrees with you on religious matters! But, you see, in the Middle Ages, kings and nobles and even priests grew accustomed to executing people, executing them in often very barbaric ways, should these people have religious ideas which didn’t agree with the religious ideas of the kings, nobles and priests. And Calvin and Luther were influenced by these evil examples. It was Atheists and Deists, that is, it was non-Christians, who were the people most instrumental in ending savage punishments in Christendom: death via lingering torture, the rack, the stake, the scavenger’s daughter, the iron maiden, boiling people in oil, pressing them to death etc. Cruel tortures had, for many centuries, the blessing of the Christian establishment, you see, and you were seen as a foul heretic bound for hell if you put yourself in opposition to the Christian establishment. The Christian establishment were `God’s anointed ones’. And you were seen as a foul heretic bound for hell if you opposed God’s `anointed ones’. And this subject led into the topic of how Protestants have become heretics, how Protestants have fallen away from the True Faith, how Protestants are led to perdition, because they have indeed fallen away from the True Faith.

Bill Etem – `My books deal with the scriptures which tell us there is a True Church and a True Faith. John 14. 23-26 tells us that those who love Christ keep His words. If one loves Christ then one will keep the words Christ spoke in Matthew 16. 13-19, which is the famous scripture where Christ announces that He has founded His Church on a rock and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. These aren’t the only two scriptures which tell us there is a True Church! Revelation 20. 15 deals with the Last Judgment. Those who don’t make the cut are cast into a lake of fire. These are the people who don’t have their names written in the Book of Life. If you have your name written in the Book of Life then you are in the True Church. John 15. 6 and 2 Thess 1. 8 are similar to Revelation 20. 15. They mention fire for those who are damned. If you are not damned, if you are a saint, if you are one of the elect, then you are in the True Church. The idea that there is a True Faith is found on many pages of scripture. Recall Christ’s words at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for the forgiveness of sins of many.’ The first mention of a new covenant in the Bible, a New Law to amend the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is found in Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Here God says He will write His new law on the hearts of His people. This Divine Law / new covenant, also known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is therefore the True Faith, and the people who have God’s new law written on their hearts are the True Church. 2 Thess 2 mentions a son of perdition, a man of sin. He is someone who exalts himself, such that he sees himself as God. It’s seems plausible to suppose this son of perdition / man of sin is none other than the Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 3. 18, and both are one and the same as this `beast’ mentioned in Revelation 19. 19. 2 Thess 2 also mentions a falling away prior to the Second Coming of Christ. A church or a person has either fallen away from the True Faith or else he hasn’t fallen away. Two pretty clear cut alternatives. Logic says that a church, any church, either leads people to heaven or it leads people to perdition. If you do what that church asks you to do, it will either lead you to heaven or it will lead you to perdition. Those are the two options. There’s heaven and there’s `not heaven’ – aka perdition. We’re looking for the True Church and the True Faith. We’re looking for this Church which Christ founded on a rock. We’re looking for this New Law which God writes on the hearts of His people, recalling again Jeremiah 31. 31-34. The Church of Rome either leads souls to heaven, because Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else the Church of Rome lead people to perdition, because Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore Rome leads people to perdition.

`Protestantism is founded on the logic which says both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away from the True Faith – they both lead people to perdition – because they have both fallen away, because neither one of those two churches is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. When we use the term `satanic’ we generally don’t mean merely `incompetent’. The word `satanic’ implies monstrous evil: sadistic and sociopathic behavior is what is typically meant when we use the word satanic. It is easy to think of people who are more or less nice people, and therefore, if these nice people lead other nice people to perdition, it is because they are incompetent – theologically incompetent – and it is certainly not because they are sadistic fiends. In any event, if a church leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, you can still insist that church is essentially satanic. It is such a terrible thing to lead people away from heaven and to perdition – even if the cause is due to simple incompetency rather than evil. `Incompetent’ is just not a strong enough word to accurately describe the situation. People invest their hearts and souls into a church; they place all their hopes in a church hoping it will enable them to live with their departed parents, siblings, children and friends in heaven, and, then, if their church betrays them, even if it is a betrayal based on incompetency, if their church leads them away from heaven and straight to perdition, then imagine the shock and the horror of it all; imagine the pain and terror one feels when he first learn that all of his beloved family has been betrayed by their incompetent church, and they have been led, not to heaven, but to perdition, because of that incompetent church! If a church leads people away from heaven and to perdition, the word `satanic’ is simply a better word than the word `incompetent’ in describing the magnitude of the error of that church. There are lots of nice people in the world: nice Hindus, nice Buddhists, nice Jews, nice Atheists, nice Catholics, nice Protestants. But Christians who respect the Christian scriptures know that to escape perdition and attain heaven more is required than just being nice. Every page of the New Testament pertains to the theme of attaining heaven and escaping perdition. There’s quite a bit to learn. But we still have some very simple logic: Case 1 says the Church of Rome is God’s True Church. If this is true then everyone is the world must obey the Church of Rome if they wish to attain heaven and escape perdition, because Rome is God’s True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, so you must obey Rome to attain heaven and to escape perdition. And then there’s Case 2. Everyone in the world must renounce the Church of Rome, because Rome leads people to perdition, because Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

 

Me – `Hey, Moderator! I’m paying you to act as my lawyer and to defend me. So start defending me!’

Moderator – `Look, you’re paying me to summarize your books to a mass market. I’m trying to make your writing comprehensible to a mass market. Your method of operation more or less runs like the following. You tell us that the Empress Irene is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Then you tell us she had her henchmen gouge out the eyes of her son, so that he would be disqualified from inheriting the throne on Constantinople. On the one hand you’re telling us that the Eastern Orthodox Church fell away from the True Faith many centuries ago. But any retard can see that it is evil to say that a woman who gouged out the eyes of her own son is a saint. You simply have to be a retard to think she’s a saint!

 

Me – `I’m not using terms like retard and effing retard!’

 

Moderator – `And how many people have read your books? You got to liven it up.’

 

Me – `Liven it up? I either got the evidence to substantiate my argument or else I don’t. My argument says the falling away from the True Faith mentioned in 2 Thess 2 happened centuries ago. Look here. Henry Charles Lea, the pre-eminent authority on the Inquisitions, and he writes in his ‘A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages’ (Macmillan, 1922),

 

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

Me continuing – `The good Christians under the sign of the cross didn’t excommunicate the evil Christians, so the good Christians fell away from the True Faith along with the evil Christians. They all go to perdition. In the early Church the good Christians excommunicated the evil Christians. But for century after century under the sign of the cross, the good Christians held communion with the evil Christians. Christianity gives some authority to kings. Good Christians aren’t supposed to launch rebellions against kings. But a Christian is insane if he thinks every king leads people to heaven. Tiberius and Nero and no end of kings under the sign of the cross were evil kings. Christians aren’t supposed to launch rebellions against them, but a person has to be insane if he thinks every king who calls himself a Christian is a saint.’

Atheist guy – `You tell us that Durant writes in The Age of Faith that the Frankish chieftains intermarried with the remnants of the Gallo-Roman senatorial class and produced the aristocracy of France. Barbarism reigned for centuries. Assassination, torture, slaughter, treachery, adultery, fornication and incest were the expedients by which nobles and peasants relieved the ennui of medieval life. By 600 there were Jewish colonies in all the major cities of the Franks. The Merovingian Catholics persecuted the Jews with pious ferocity. King Chilperic decreed that Jews were to embrace the Catholic Church or have their eyes torn out. The Council of Toledo of 633 ruled that those Jews who had submitted to baptism, and then fell back into Judaism, were to be bereaved of their children and sold into slavery. And you think that’s evidence which says these people fell away from the True Faith? Aren’t you being an arrogant pompous fool for disagreeing with millions of Christians?’

Moderator – `So, is Etem right about the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross? Has every church under the sign of the cross fallen away from the True Faith? Does every church under the sign of the cross lead people to perdition, because all of them are satanic, because not one of them is the Church which Christ founded on a rock? Are those of us who love the cross too lost and confused to see that it is an evil symbol that reflects centuries of evil, and we commit sacrilege when we say it is sacred? Or are we right when we insist the cross – the sign of the cross and material crosses – are sacred to God? Well I’m an Episcopalian and I say the Episcopalian Church leads people to heaven! I say you can trust the Episcopalian Church when she says cross is sacred. Obviously the Church of Rome is full of devil dogs. I mean look at the facts. St. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 11: 13-15,

 

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

 

I Timothy 4. 1-3,

 

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

 

Paul Johnson writes in `A History of Christianity’, p. 273,

 

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

Moderator continues – `William Manchester, he wrote the most famous bio of Winston Churchill, told us in A World Lit only by Fire that 29 consecutive popes declared it was heresy to state that the earth revolves round the sun. You’re a dumb-ass, you’re an effing tard, you’re a brainless bastard, you’re a person who has sh*t for brain if you can’t see that the Church of Rome fell away from the True Faith many centuries ago. You have to be a retard if you can’t see that Rome fell away from the True Faith. But the Episcopalian Church has not fallen away! You have to be a retard if you can’t see that the Episcopalian church is God’s True Church! I say the sign of the cross is sacred to God! Of course, on the other hand, if every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross, indeed if every sect under the sign of the cross, led souls to perdition, if every sect under the sign of the cross has fallen away from the True Faith, if no church under the sign of the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if every church under the sign of the cross is satanic, then I suppose you might indeed burn in hell forever if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead. But try to be realistic people. Try not to be too retarded! What are the chances that God hates the sign of the cross? It’s inconceivable! I say you’ll burn in hell if you say the cross is evil! Anyway let’s take a brief recess. I gotta get some of them free turkey legs. They’re delicious and cheap too, and they’re made in the USA! They’re made right here in the USA by American workers killing American turkeys! – made right across the Mississippi from Rock Island, in Atalissa, IA. I suppose you can pretend you’re Henry VIII. – the 2nd Tudor king, the guy who murdered some of his wives – the guy who founded the Church of England – while you gnaw on them.’

Old Protestant Lady – `Yeah if you want people to read your books you got to liven it up. When you see a sh*t-head you gotta call him a sh*t-head. You gotta stop being so f&$king diplomatic – you sh*t-head.’

Me – `Well, you only fall away from the True Faith when you use that sort of language. You’ll only end up in perdition if you don’t clean up your act.’

Old Protestant Lady – `Oh go f*ck yourself.’

Me – `While the Moderator – he’s just some guy I’m paying a few bucks to serve as Moderator – while he grabs some food we might have some light chit-chit. Before the Dore Tower of Babel photo on the cover of this ebook I used a photo showing some nice-looking women in some movie where it looks like they’re caught up in a nasty cult. But I got rid of that cover for copyright reasons, plus no one was reading the book. I think the first girl in the other photo was Maria Perschy but I’m not sure. The image of the women pops up when you google her name, but it’s weird how some people look like totally different people in different photos. Like there are shots of the Olsen twins where they don’t look anything like the Olsen twins. And Joan Crawford at the beginning of the film Possessed doesn’t look the way Joan Crawford usually looks. Look at Janet Margolin, who is super-beautiful throughout Morituri, where she co-stars with Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard, I mean from every angle her face is perfect; whereas, she’s nice-looking in the shots of her on Google but you wouldn’t say she is super-beautiful, super-beautiful in the sense that she is in the same league with women like Fran Jeffries, Nathalie Delon, Angelina Jolie etc., but in Morituri she is most certainly in their league. Maria Perschy had some excellent close-up shots in a film called 5 Golden Dragons where she looks like a blonde version of Jennifer Lopez. 5 Golden Dragons had lots of big stars in it but it’s not a film that you have to immediately push to the top of your Neflix queue. The late Christopher Lee was in it, oh sorry, that’s Sir Christopher Lee – and you can’t say Joan Collins anymore either, you have to say Dame Joan Collins – and Margaret Lee was in 5 Golden Dragons – I don’t think she’s now Dame Margaret Lee but I could be wrong – she was a big name in British and Italian films back in the day. I suppose that would really piss you off if some other British actress who you were more or less just as good as was elevated to the rank of a Dame, but they didn’t see fit to make you a Dame - you might even suspect there’s some money being passed under the table – like how did some oil-rich little desert nation with basically no population get the World Cup in soccer? And Rio is like 95% slum and 5% sophisticated world-class city, but it got the Olympics over Chicago. And the metro Chicagoland area is 40% sophisticated rich world-class city, 50% presentable working-class neighborhoods, and only 10% ugly homicidal slums. How strange is that to think that Chicago, a city built on politicians putting their friends and relatives into cushy government jobs, a city built on the principal that you need to hand over some money under the table if you expect the government to help you out, couldn’t out-cheat some Brazilian basket-case of a city called Rio? And if you check out Modern Drunkard Magazine, which can be pretty funny, you’ll learn that at the Great American Beer Fest you more or less buy the prize that they give you. You could brew a beer that taste like @#$! but if you got lots of money to hand over to the judges then you’ll have no problem at the GABF. I mean I don’t know this for a fact or anything. That’s just the way Modern Drunkard Magazine paints the scene over at the GABF. And why would you immediately distrust everything in Modern Drunkard Magazine? Getting back to 5 Golden Dragons, a chain-smoking Klaus Kinski is in it – he was a real psycho by all accounts – and Dan Durea is in it – he was big in some 1950s film noir classics, and there’s George Raft, who was big in the 30s and 40s, and Sieghardt Rupp is in it. He was perhaps most famous for his role as Esteban Rojo, one of the villains in A Fistful of Dollars. That was that film where you had the evil Anglo-Saxon gangsters encamped on one side of the little town of San Miguel, and you had the evil Mexican banditos encamped down the street on the other side of San Miguel – it was The Baxters vs. the Rojos! – Anglo-Saxon Civilization vs. Latin Civilization – Protestants vs. Catholics – and you don’t want to get caught in the middle between those two warring factions. That was one of those spaghetti westerns where the Italians who made it took pseudonyms in the credits: Sergio Leonne was `Bob Robertson’, Ennio Morricone was `Dan Savio,’ Gian Maria Volente was `Johnny Wels’. Clint Eastwood comes along and greases all the Baxters because they insulted his horse, and he pretty much kills all of the Rojos as well, if memory serves. Well listen to me ramble on. Enough of this light carefree banter. As I explained in Chapter 2 of Constitutional History of the Western World, we have a huge issue with the sign of the cross and material crosses. There is a best case scenario for the sign of the cross – it is a sacred symbol – you know, sacred to the Creator of the Universe, and there is a worst case scenario: the sign of the cross and material crosses are evil – God says they are evil – and just as the evils of the Nazis are reflected in the Nazi swastika, the evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries are reflected in the sign of the cross and material crosses. So, if the sign of the cross is evil then you might well suspect it is the mark of the beast, see chapters 13 and 14 of the Book of Revelation. But if the cross is sacred to God then you might well suspect it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. So, if the cross is sacred to God, if it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, then, during the Great Tribulation, a time when economic collapse hits the earth – see Revelation 18. 1-24 – evidently people become obsessed with theology and they are no longer obsessed with money-making and other worldly pursuits during this time of trial – anyway, you would want the mark of a cross on your forehead if it is the seal of God – because it will protect you from the torments described in Revelation 9. But, on the other hand, if the sign of the cross is evil, if God says it is evil, and if it is the mark of the beast, then you don’t want the mark of a cross on your forehead – see Revelation 14.11 – which mentions eternal torture for those with the mark of the beast on their foreheads or right hands. So much depends on whether or not God is a pro-cross God or if God is an anti-cross God. It’s very important to know the True God, recall again 2 Thess 1. 8, which tells of fire for those who don’t know God and who don’t obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If one knew God then one would know where to find His True Church. So much depends on finding the Church which Christ founded on a rock! If Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock then, if you wanted to get technical, you might say that this doesn’t prove that God likes the sign of the cross, but if you knew for a fact that Rome led people to heaven, because Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you know that if you always obey Rome you will be led to heaven, and of course Rome is unambiguously pro-cross. But if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then you can’t trust Rome’s doctrine that the sign of the cross is sacred to God. How did Christians ever take it into their heads that a representation of a pagan instrument of torture, that a representation of the instrument which killed Christ, is a sacred object? Why would anyone think that such an object is sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Paul tells us that the `cross of Christ’ is holy – see Galatians 6. 14 and Phillippians 3. 18. But is the `cross of Christ’ something material? Christ’s sacrifice on a cross is sacred, but does Paul ever say the sign of the cross or material crosses are sacred to God? We are never told in the New Testament that Christ and the apostles ever used material crosses as their symbol. Is a representation of a pagan instrument of torture sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The Protestant sects are founded upon the logic which says that neither Rome nor Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Church of England is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If one of these 3 churches is the Church which Christ founded on a rock then every Protestant sect is a rebellion against God’s True Church. If Protestantism is right, if Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of England all lead people to perdition, because not one of them is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then Protestantism has a chance of making sense, whereas it has no chance of making sense if either Rome, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Church of England is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If we can find the Church which Christ founded on a rock somewhere among all of the sects under the sign of the cross then we can safely assume that the sign of the cross and material crosses are sacred to God. If the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the Church which leads people to heaven, says material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred, then you can trust that Church is right about the cross. But if all of the sects under the sign of the cross have fallen away, if they all lead people to perdition, because not one of them is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because they have all fallen away, then you can’t trust any of the churches under the sign of the cross when they insist material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to God. When you have a best case scenario for the cross which involves months of torment, and when you have a worst case scenario for the cross which involves eternal torment, you would naturally like to know what’s right and what’s wrong. Again, 2 Thess 1. 8 tells of fire for those who don’t know God. Is God pro-cross or anti-cross? Will you be tortured in hell forever if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead? Will you save yourself from the torments described in Revelation 9 if you have the mark of a cross on your forehead? You can read the Bible over and over and over and it is never going to tell you that material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to God. But if the Church which Christ founded on a rock tells you that material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred, then this is more or less the same thing as God telling you that material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred. We have to find the True Church to learn what the True Church has to say about material crosses and the sign of the cross. And, at this Symposium, we are looking among the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross for the Church which Christ founded on a rock. 2 Thess 2 deals with strong delusion. If you’re deluded, if you think you are in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, but if you are actually in a church which leads souls to perdition, then you will go to perdition, unless of course you wise up and renounce your false church and find the Church which Christ founded on a rock. We’re trying to determine at this Symposium if every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition. We’re trying to determine if no Protestant church under the sign of the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If they all lead people to perdition then you can’t trust any of the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross. You can’t trust what they teach about material crosses and the sign of the cross. Technically speaking, they might be right in their position on the cross, or they might be wrong, but you just can’t trust a church which leads souls to perdition. But if one of the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross – or more than one if that is possible – but if at least one of the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock – if at least one of them has not fallen away from the True Faith – if at least one of them leads people to heaven and not to perdition, then you can trust this Church and it’s doctrines on the sign of the cross and material crosses, and you can trust it on all other matters as well. The Church which Christ founded on a rock will lead you to heaven and will never lead you to hell or perdition. And as I say, concerning the Book of Revelation, chapter 9, if the sign of the cross is sacred, then it might well be the seal of God which saves one from torments if it is placed on one’s forehead. But if every church under the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition, including every Protestant church under the sign of the cross, then this implies the sign of the cross is malevolent, and this implies it is the mark of the beast, and if you have the mark of the beast on your forehead, as opposed to the seal of God, you will not be saved from torments but you will suffer an eternity of torment. So, if every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition, because not one of them is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because they have all fallen away, then the Protestanty sects under the sign of the cross are essentially satanic, and all Protestants under the sign of the cross need to wise up, obviously! They need to wise up and get out of their delusion. But if there is at least one Protestant sect under the sign of the cross which is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then we know material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to God – you won’t get hurt if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, and naturally you’d like to know the name of the Protestant sect which is the True Church. So, if you are in some fallen church which leads souls to perdition then you are well-positioned to make a thorough botch of things, being lost in delusion as you are, being trapped in some worthless cult which leads souls to perdition. But if you are already in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you should obey that Church, and no doubt you have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on your heart, and since you have the Divine Law written on your heart you can no doubt teach theology and ethics with the authority of the Creator of the Universe, but, of course, if you don’t have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on your heart, then you won’t be able to teach theology and ethics with the authority of the Creator of the Universe, and if you don’t have the Divine Law written on your heart then you are not in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and you need to be in this Church to attain heaven and to escape perdition, therefore you really need to make some big changes in your life, you really need to get out of your delusions! Getting back to Modern Drunkard Magazine – a periodical which stands up for your right to get falling down drunk – oh wait – there’s no time for that. The Moderator is just shoving the last slice of pizza into his mouth and washing it down with beer as he hurries back to the podium. He’s back from recess now, after satisfying those cravings which demand to be satisfied, so let’s listen in on the Moderator as he begins talking again.’

Moderator – `Let me recap Etem’s main points: To review a few of the basics, he put a photo of the Vatican on the cover of Some Practice in Learning to Recognize Satanic Cults, so that’s a little aggressive, but then the title of his latest book – The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults – is rather aggressive also. We have a Case 1 and a Case 2. Case 1 says Rome is God’s True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock – recall Matthew 16. 13-19 – and, therefore, Rome leads souls to heaven. The idea that there is a True Church relies not only on Matthew 16. 13-19 but also on Ephesians 4. 4, where the phrase: `there is one body’ means `there is one True Church’. If you accept John 14. 23-26 – and what Christian would reject John 14. 23-26? – as it says that those who love Christ keep His words, then you will accept Matthew 16. 23-26, and John 15. 6. The latter tells us, in so many words, that those who abide in Christ are the True Church, and those who don’t abide in Christ are like pieces of wood given to the flames. The Apostles’ Creed is said to date back to the apostles, and it includes the phrase `I believe in the holy catholic Church’, and if you believe in the holy catholic Church then you believe in the True Church. There’s also the logic which says the people who have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on their hearts have a name, and the name of these people is `God’s True Church’. So, Case 1 says the Church of Rome is God’s True Church. Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Rome leads souls to heaven and Rome leads no one to perdition. Case 2 says Rome is not God’s True Church: Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock: Rome has fallen away and therefore Rome leads souls to perdition – recall the info about the Antichrist and a falling away prior to the Second Coming in 2 Thess 2. Recall the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2 where St. Paul writes,

 

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

Moderator continues – `So, if Case 1 is true, everyone should join and obey the Church of Rome. Even if Rome is wrong about a few things, or wrong about many things, even if Rome says some really crazy stuff, recall the info on Capistrano, Borromeo, Pius V. etc., in Etem’s books, nevertheless, she is still God’s True Church. And you can’t lose, you can’t be led to perdition, if you could just have enough sense to understand that you will always be led to heaven if you always obey God’s True Church – the Church of Rome. But then, on the other hand, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads souls to perdition, then you’ll go to perdition if you don’t renounce Rome and find the True Church.’

Moderator – `The Muslims are very opposed to making images of Allah, but if they had an image of Allah, if the Koran said it was OK to make images of Allah, then, to judge an image of Allah, you would have to correctly answer the question: does Islam lead souls to heaven or does Islam lead souls to perdition? If Islam led souls to perdition, then every image of Allah would be the image of a false and beastly god. If Islam led souls to heaven, then the image of Allah would be an image of the True God.

The key to evaluating the Roman Catholic crucifix, and the Eastern Orthodox crucifix, and the Anglican crucifix, is to correctly identify the True Church and the True Faith. If you get some foul satanic heresy confused with the True Faith, then you’re in big trouble.

Protestantism is founded on the premise which says that the True God is not a Roman Catholic, which says that Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. There would be no reason for Protestantism to exist if Rome was the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Rome is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock or else Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If the former is true, then you would have to assume that there is nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic crucifix. If the latter is true, if the True God is an Anti-Catholic God, then Rome leads souls to perdition because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, hence the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a false god, because it is an image of a Pro-Roman Catholic god, whereas the True God in Anti-Catholic, hence the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a false god, and false gods lead souls to perdition, and therefore false gods are beastly – because it is a beastly thing to lead people away from heaven and to perdition. And whenever you think of beastly images, some verses in the Book of Revelation come to mind.

To review matters, 2 Thess 1. 8 tells us there will be some hellfire for those who don’t know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have to determine if the True God is a fan of the sign of the cross of if He is not a fan of the sign of the cross. If the True God is a Roman Catholic God, if the True God says the Church of Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then Protestantism has no chance of making sense. If Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, you would then have to assume that every Protestant sect leads souls to perdition, and therefore every Protestant sect is beastly in the eyes of God.

Revelation 13. 1- 10 paints a picture of a multi-headed best, and all of the damned, all of the people whose names are not written in the Book of Life worship this multi-headed beast. As it seems rather far-fetched to think people will literally worship a multi-headed beast, we’re looking for a figurative interpretation. Suppose Islam is a false religion, suppose Allah is non-existent, or suppose he’s some demon, in any event, if Islam is a false religion, if it leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, then, those the Muslims insist that they worship the True God, nevertheless, since their god leads them to perdition, the Muslims worship a beastly god. If you worship a god who leads you away from heaven and straight to perdition then you do not worship the True God – the Creator of the Universe – you worship a false god, and all of your assertions that you worship the True God don’t change the fact that you worship a false god, if in fact you do worship a false god, a deity who leads you to perdition. The Hindus and the Buddhists insist that they do not worship any sort of multi-headed beast. But if they worship false gods, if they are trapped in false religions which lead their souls to perdition, then a Christian will naturally tend to think that they worship this multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. Similarly, the Protestants under the sign of the cross worship a god who says the cross is sacred, but if the True God is hostile to the sign of the cross, and if the false Protestant god who loves the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition, then the Protestants under the sign of the cross worship a beastly god: he leads souls away from heaven and straight to perdition therefore he’s beastly. And of course if the True God is a big fan of the sign of the cross it is a terrible blasphemy to say the True God hates the sign of the cross, and to say that only false and beastly gods love the sign of the cross.

So we’re back to searching for the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Where is it?’

The Moderator continues – `As Bill Etem has well said, the Protestants under the sign of the cross have so many examples of people destined for perdition to get a clue from. Clearly to be seen are the vast hordes of the Asiatic heathens – billions of Chinese and Indians who sweat and toil and fight to feed themselves for decade after decade, who toil until they croak, and then they have their heathen souls shipped off to perdition, because, in their barbarous heathen ignorance, they reject Christ and Christ’s Gospel and the Church which Christ founded on a rock. You don’t get to go to heaven if you reject the True Church and the True Faith. Christ, you know God – the Creator of the Universe – John 1. 1-14 – the Divine Son didn’t come to earth to be crucified just so people could call him a phony God and a bogus Creator of the Universe. Yes, the universe was created by the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as the Son, but it makes no sense to think you can escape perdition and attain heaven if you around denouncing the Divine Son, Jesus, as a fraudulent god, if you go around saying some bogus Hindu demon-god or some Buddhist fraud god are the real things. The Protestants have the 2,000 year spectacle of the Jews who continue to this day to reject the Divine Son to take a lesson from – perdition results if you don’t behave yourselves – and then there is the manifest corruption of Rome, of Eastern Orthodoxy, of the Church of England, to enlighten the Protestants even further on the news that those who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ will go to perdition.

In this Symposium we assume still, at least for the moment, that the Protestants are right to reject Rome, and right to reject the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church, because none of these churches is the Church which Christ founded on a rock – all three have fallen away – and hence all three lead souls to perdition. Hell, if one of these 3 is the Church which Christ founded on a rock then, obviously, the Protestants are lost. But all of these instructional examples of lost, deluded people bound for perdition, damned because they are caught up in foul cults which lead souls to perdition: Hindism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism which rejects Jesus, Roman Catholicism etc., etc., set before the eyes of Protestants, will not be able to save Protestants from damnation should the Protestants insist on trampling upon the Gospel. 2 Thess 1. 8 is perfectly clear: hellfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And what are the most glaring and conspicuous examples of Protestants under the sign of the cross rebelling against the Gospel of Jesus Christ?’

Moderator – `Jew Girl – daughter of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – daughter of Sarah and Deborah, daughter of so many generations of long-suffering Hebrews, why don’t we begin with you. What wisdom and perspective can you bring to our Symposium?’

Jewish Girl – `The Protestants are retards! I mean the typical Anglo-Saxon Protestant looks at a French Catholic sunk in adultery with his mistresses as a retard! Doesn’t the French retard know he’ll go to perdition because of his adultery? Can’t the adulterous French retard understand that the worthless French custom of adultery will lead him straight to perdition? One of the Ten Commandments says keep the Sabbath Day holy, and just look at all the Protestant retards who work on the Sabbath. Wal-Mart, Target, Macy’s, MacDonalds, Taco Loco, ExxonMobil, 7-Eleven, Delta Airlines, the Greyhound Bus Company and thousands or millions of other businesses can find lots of Protestants to work for them on the Sabbath Day. Jesus said in so many words that it’s OK to rescue a lamb that fell into a pit on the Sabbath. But He didn’t say it was OK in general to labor on the Sabbath. A Protestant would have to be a retard if he thinks you obey the Gospel when you violate the Sabbath. Why can’t the Protestant retards understand that their long tradition of violating the Sabbath will lead them to perdition? Why? Why? Why? Why are the Protestant retards such big ass retards?’

Moderator – `Thank you Jew Girl for your insight and valuable contribution to this Symposium. You have a way with words which marvelously clarifies matters, such that obscure points which were once shadowy and indistinguishable become brilliantly illuminated in your penetrating analysis. That which was formerly colorless, murky and amorphous is now revealed in the boldest and brightest of colors.’

Jew Girl – `Indeed it is so.’

Catholic Man – `Jew Girl is not a complete idiot, though she blasphemes God by saying Jesus is a fraudulent Deity – but let me draw for you a much better picture of the extent of the Protestant corruption. Now if we accept the Protestant premise that the Gospel is explained in the New Testament, and if we accept the Protestant premise that both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away from the True Faith, and neither is the True Church, and therefore both lead people to perdition, then, obviously, the most blatant example of Protestants trampling upon the Gospel is found in the Protestant tradition of embracing the rich and the covetous. To review the most elementary scriptures pertaining to the rich and the covetous – let’s begin with Luke 16. 19-31,

 

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

 

Luke 13. 5? It has Jesus saying,

 

`I tell you…unless you repent you will all likewise perish.’

 

Matthew 25. 41-46,

 

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

 

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

 

Acts 4. 32 states,

 

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

 

Acts 2. 44-7,

 

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

 

St. Paul teaches in 2 Thess 2. 10 that those who refuse to work shouldn’t be given alms to allow him to eat. It’s true that we don’t read in the New Testament that equal sharing of the wealth is absolutely mandatory in the True Church. But scriptures such as Mark 12. 41-44 – the widow’s two mites – James 1. 9 – the rich man passes away – I Timothy 6. 10 – the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil – Matthew 19. 23 – easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God – Luke 16. 19-31 – parable of Lazarus and the rich man – Luke 3. 11 – John the Baptists likens the rich to a brood of vipers – I Corinthians 13 – one has nothing if one lacks charity – all point to the conclusion that in the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church which leads souls to heaven, there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work and among those unable to work. Your family will be led to destitution and hence destruction if your family is always giving its money away to the poor. The New Testament does not desire the destruction of your family. There is only one sensible conclusion – and anyone who is not deluded can see it! – in the True Church, in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work and among those who are unable to work. This Church which shares everything – recall Acts 2 and 4 – was no doubt charitable to non-Christians: it didn’t tell naked and hungry non-Christians and their children to drop dead and go to hell! The True Church extends charity to pagans but I don’t think the New Testament commands Christians to give an equal share of their wealth to both those who hate Christ and those who love Christ. There are no doubt many Protestant ministers who can understand that the scriptures tell us that there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work in the True Church. Obviously if a person works 12 hours per day, and another works 6 hours, then the former should get twice as much as the latter. In any event, no doubt many priests and ministers can understand the fact that so many evils result due to money problems. Children don’t have guidance because their parents are always working. Children face homelessness because their parents can’t find work which pays enough to let them live in homes etc., etc. But in order for a priest or minister to convince his congregation that drastic changes are required he will need to convince them that drastic changes are required because their sect has fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore it leads souls to perdition. As long as a sect is getting people to heaven there is no great urgency to make changes to that sect. And, well, it is just not possible for a priest or a minister to remain a priest or a minister over a congregation if he tells that congregation and then they tell him in reply that he is a madman for thinking such a thing. It’s just not possible for a priest or a minister to convince his congregation, at least not under normal circumstances, that, a) their church has been leading souls to perdition because it has been corrupting the gospel by not practicing the equal sharing of the wealth among those who work, therefore, b) everyone has to start handing in all of their paychecks, and then an equitable distribution of funds will be made. Now the conditions described in Revelation 18. 1-24 prevail on earth, when famine is close at hand, or when famine is right on top of us, when economic collapse is crushing the marketplaces off earth, when the Gross National Product grinds downs more or less to zero, then a priest or a minister will find it easier to sell to people the doctrine that the New Testament teaches us that, in the True Church, there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work. But, when the conditions described in Revelation 18. 1-24 do not prevail on earth, you are not going to be able to convince the typical Christian – a guy who wants to hang on to every penny he earns – that the scriptures demand equal sharing of the wealth among those who work, even though anyone who can read can understand that that is precisely what the scriptures teach. So, once again, as is usually the case, people have to learn the hard way not the easy way. Continuing on with the problems facing the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross, the Church founded by Christ and the apostles excommunicated people. If a brother or sister was not living the way a good Christians was supposed to live, the faithful gave a polite warning to him / her, and if he / she continued to sin then the faithful gave the silent treatment to the sinner. A problem here is that if Sinner A excommunicates sinner B then A is a worthless hypocrite. But, nevertheless, in the early Church, the Christians excommunicated people who needed to be excommunicated. What do you do with pro-choice Christians, with covetous Christians? With Christians who work on the Sabbath day? If you don’t excommunicate them you fall away from the True Faith. More problems with Protestants under the sign of the cross: selling religious book for money – that’s simony – Christ and the apostles didn’t sell religious info for profit. The Protestant sects are money-making operations. They would lose their tax-exempt status in the USA if they were to excommunicate various people, e.g., pro-choicers. The New Testament teaches that there is equal sharing of the wealth among those who work in the True Church. But the traditions of men – the traditions of Protestant Pharisees masquerading as Christians! – teach something else. Protestants, dispersed in their myriad of little sects, are generally Protestants because their parents were Protestants. But what is the essential reason for being a Protestant? If the Church of Rome is God’s True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock – Matthew 16. 13-19 – then there is no good reason to be a Protestant! If the Church of Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock then everyone should be Roman Catholic, and no one should be a Protestant. But if Rome has fallen away, if Rome is not God’s True Church, if Rome leads souls to perdition, because it has fallen away, then, perhaps, Eastern Orthodoxy leads souls to heaven, and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If it is then everyone should convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. But if both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away, if both of these churches have been corrupted, if both lead souls to perdition because neither one is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because both have fallen away – recall the term `the falling away in 2 Thess 2 – then, perhaps, there exists a Protestant sect, or sects, under the sign of the cross, which has not fallen away. With Islam we are confronted with two and only two easy-to-understand options. 1) Islam is True. The Creator of the Universe is someone named Allah, and, furthermore, the Koran is Trustworthy: if you want to escape the tortures of hellfire, if you want to attain paradise, then you better obey the Koran. 2) The other option for Islam says Islam is a fraud. It is a worthless cult. You’re being a dumb-ass if you believe the crap written in the Koran about Allah, about being tortured in fire if you refuse to convert to Islam. So, either the BS of Islam is not BS, in which case everyone should convert to Islam and everyone should obey what is written in the Koran – for instance, you should execute those people who seek to convert Muslims to Atheism, or to Christianity, or to any religion that is not Islam – or, in the case where Islam is a pile of BS, in option 2, you should acknowledge that Islam is a pile of BS. Why be like the Politically Correct liars who say in public that Islam is a noble religion but who say in private it is a pile of BS?’

Jew Girl – `You’re a pretty pedantic character. I would say you have your scriptures more or less straight, but if you put everyone to sleep with your boring monotone then no one will hear those scriptures. Can’t you liven it up a little? Or are you just stuck in a rut where you will remain a dreary ass for your entire life? And why can’t you stick to the topic of this Symposium? We’re talking about Protestants under the sign of the cross who are led astray by the Devil. We’re not talking about Muslims who are led astray by the Devil.’

Catholic Man – `Know the Lord, Jew girl. Do not say as you do that Jesus is a bogus deity. Jesus is the divine Son mentioned in Psalm 2, and He is the Almighty God mentioned in Isaiah 9. 6.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Etem explains that he used to have a picture for the cover of his ebook showing some nice looking women in a movie who seem to be caught up in some sort of nasty cult. Then he asks: what are some examples from real life of nice people caught up in nasty cults, he asks? Then he tells us that every religion which rejects Christ is nasty cult. OK I agree with that. I mean it has to be a nasty cult because every religion which rejects Christ, you know, which rejects Jesus, which rejects the Divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit leads people straight to perdition. That’s just elementary Christianity which any kid in Sunday school knows. But when Etem says that every sect under the sign of the cross is also a nasty cult, because, every sect under the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition – well that really pisses me off.’

Catholic Man – `It’s idiotic to think the Protestants obey the Gospel. They don’t excommunicate anyone…

Old Protestant Lady – `Don’t call me an idiot you ass-%@#&!’

Catholic Man – `As I was saying, the Early Church excommunicated people. It’s insane to think Peter and Paul would share communion with someone who is pro-choice, or pro-gay marriage, or someone who is an adulterer. It’s OK to have communion with an ex-adulterer or an ex-pro-choice person. If the Protestant churches excommunicated sinners their cash flow would suffer, and that’s why the Protestant churches don’t excommunicate anyone.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Etem can’t prove that every sect under the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition. Whether he can even make a strong case remains to be seen.’

Catholic Man – `If a church doesn’t excommunicate people who need to be excommunicated then it eats the bread and drinks the wine in an unworthy manner – and St. Paul said it is a very serious sin to partake of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, recall 1 Corinthians 11.27.’

Protestant Fundamentalist Mom – `Well I’ll be damned. I guess I learn something new every day. But you know what…’

Atheist Guy – `Let me jump in here, Protestant Fundamentalist Mom, to review some stuff. I graciously accepted the invitation to attend this Symposium but when I get to the Quad Cities I’m then told I have to assume that the premise that there is a True Church and a True Faith are true. I’m told I have to assume that Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away. I’m told I have to look for the True Church and the True Faith only among the Protestant sects. I’m told that I am not permitted to argue in favor of Atheism, so this makes me feel like a f#$king two-year-old sort of. But I’ll play along. I’ll play the game the way the rules go. If we assume that the Gospel / True Faith is explained in the New Testament, then if you live contrary to the New Testament you are living contrary to the Gospel, and 2 Thess 1. 8 mentions hellfire for those who don’t obey the Gospel, but this doesn’t mean 2 Thess 1. 8 means eternal or even prolonged hellfire for those who do not obey the Gospel. Anyway, the country chick Maurice was talking about might get a nice job in Peoria if she gets into the car with the dude at the bus station after he tells her he’ll get her a nice job. You can’t say it is absolutely impossible that the stranger will find her a good job. Sure, getting into the stranger’s car might turn out OK for her, but what are the odds that it won’t turn out OK for her? Why take the chance? Why risk having lots and lots of bad sh*t come your way? Just don’t get into the car with the effing stranger and you won’t get hurt. You would have to be a f$#@ing brainless idiot to not understand something this simple! So if eternal perdition and some brief hideous tormenting hellfire hit those who do not obey the Gospel, and, if the Gospel is explained in the New Testament, then, you will need to obey New Testament. Like what Catholic Man was saying about 1 Corinthians 11. 27. If you’re not supposed to give communion to certain people, then don’t give it to them. I mean, if the penalty for celebrating the Eucharist with people who you know are sinners – fornicators, adulterers, blasphemers, pro-choice people, pro-gay marriage people, etc., is eternal perdition, then you’d have to be a huge idiot to celebrate communion with those people.’

Maurice – `Sh*t man, if a preacher is damned for giving communion to a brother who he knows sleeps with a ho now and then, then that sh*t jus ain’t right, says me.’

Jew Girl – `A big problem in Christianity is there is so much disagreement about what the Gospel is. To the Roman Catholic the Gospel is the same as Roman Catholic doctrine. To the Eastern Orthodox it is Eastern Orthodox doctrine. Revelation 14. 6-7 saw,

 

`I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on earth – to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people – saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has arrived; and worship the Creator of heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.”’

 

But what is this Gospel? What is the True Faith? And what is the True Church? Sure an angel can explain these things to you, but if he tells us something that you disagree with then you’ll assume he is an angel from hell and not an angel from heaven. Suppose an angel from heaven tells the Catholics that Rome is not the True Church and that Rome has been shipping souls to perdition for many centuries now, then even though an angel from heaven is relating this info, the Catholics will think he is an angel from hell, because they don’t like what he’s saying. Or say an angel from heaven says only Rome is God’s True Church, then the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox will insist that the angel from heaven is an angel from hell. So, unless you already know what the True Faith and what the True Church are, how can you recognize that the angel from heaven is not an angel from hell?’

 

Jew Girl continues on – `Regarding Revelation 14. 6-7, and angels, you will recall that angels come in two main varieties: there are good ones and there are evil angels, aka rebel angels, aka devils. Daniel 12. 1 mentions the archangel Michael showing up at some time, and when he does show up an unprecedented time of trouble will ensue on earth. Daniel 12. 1 tells us that it’s at this time, when Michael arrives, not when the Messiah arrives, that the Jews are delivered. It’s not conclusive that this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7 is none other than Michael, but it’s more or less natural for Christians to think so. The Book of Revelation gives us some info on the Antichrist – the beast – see for instance Revelation 19. 19,

 

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

 

It’s natural to assume that the son of perdition mentioned in 2 Thess 2, and this beast mentioned in Revelation 19. 19, are one and the same as this Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 2. 18. I mean it is not 100% conclusive that they are all the same person, but it’s more or less natural to make that assumption.

 

So, if an unprecedented time of trouble hits the earth, you’ll be thinking to yourself that this trouble has resulted because 1) either the archangel Michael has shown up, or because 2) the Antichrist has shown up.

 

And of course you’ll want to make sure you don’t confuse the archangel Michael with the Antichrist.

 

We know that there is a scripture which says that Christ’s Second Coming will arrive like a thief in the night – no one knows when it will happen – and yet the Book of Revelation is perfectly clear on a few points. The Second Coming happens after the 3 angels of Revelation 14. 6-11 make their announcements, and it happens after the events described in Revelation 19. 19 transpire – again, Revelation 19. 19 describes the beast and the kings of the earth preparing to lead their evil armies into a war against Christ, who sits atop a horse, as He prepares to lead His army at the Second Coming. This whole war is rather lacking in suspense, though there’s a good deal of drama, as the beast and his followers all get slaughter by the heavenly army and then armies of hell are consigned to hellfire for an eternity of years.’

 

`So, if you don’t know what the True Gospel is – the Gospel which this angel in Revelation 14. 6-7 teaches to the world – how are you supposed to learn what the Gospel is? Well, obviously, the angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7 will explain it to you! But you have to be careful with angels, because evil angels will masquerade as good angels. Recall that 2 Corinthians 11. 14 tells us that Satan masquerades as an angel of light.’

 

`So you have to be on your guard. On the one hand, you don’t want to be daft enough to accuse the angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7 of being a devil from hell! But then, on the other hand, if Satan and / or the Antichrist are determined to play a nasty trick on you, if a beast from hell does try to pass himself off as this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7, if the Antichrist does try to lead you to perdition and not to heaven, then you want to sharp enough to be wise to his evil plot. You don’t want to be so lost and confused that you think the Antichrist is this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7. What you want to do is this: when this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7, or, for that matter, when Michael shows up, recall Daniel 12. 1, you don’t want to accusing these people – though they are probably the same person – of being the Antichrist, as that sort of slip up will no doubt land a person in hell, similarly, when the Antichrist of 1 John 2. 18 shows up – and again it is natural to assume that the beast of Revelation 19. 19, is the same person as the son of perdition described in 2 Thess 2 and is the same as this Antichrist mentioned in 1 John 2. 18 – when this beast from hell shows up – then you don’t want to be so brainless and confused upstairs that you announce that this beast from hell, that this Antichrist, is none other than the archangel Michael. That is not only a terribly stupid mistake, but it is the sort of mistake which can only lead one to no end of torment and hellfire. Common sense, and the most elementary principles of Christianity, tell us that a person will not profit in the afterlife if he confounds the Antichrist – the beast from hell! – with the archangel Michael.

 

 

Moderator – `Let me see if I got this straight. If I hear you right, you’re saying that it is wrong to get the archangel Michael confused with the Antichrist. What you want to do is recognize Michael as Michael and the Antichrist as the Antichrist. What you don’t want to do is think that Michael is the Antichrist and the Antichrist is Michael. I get all this. I don’t think we’re dealing with any sort of huge complexity here. But what is not so easy to understand is finding the correct answer to the question: what is the Gospel? If you think that some foul heresy which leads souls to perditions is the True Gospel which leads souls to heaven, and if you think the True Gospel which leads souls to heaven is some foul heresy which leads souls to perdition, then you are brainless enough to get the archangel Michael confused with the Antichrist, and vice versa.’

 

Jew Girl – `Exactly so. If you’ve decided that the sign of the cross is wonderful in the sight of God, and if you have determined that the Church which Christ founded on a rock is some Protestant sect under the sign of the cross, then, if Michael shows up and says every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, because not one of these sects is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, you’ll mostly likely get Michael confused with the Antichrist. But then on the other hand, if Michael shows up and says God loves the sign of the cross, and if he says that a particular Protestant sect or group of Protestant sects under the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you will be inclined to see Michael as the Antichrist if you are convinced he’s teaching a doctrine which leads people to perdition.’

 

 

Moderator – `Protestantism is founded on the premise – though not every Protestant knows why Protestantism exists, or what Protestantism is founded upon! – that neither Rome nor Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Church of England is the Church that Christ founded on a rock. And we want to locate this Church which Christ founded on a rock, because this is the Church which leads souls to heaven, you see. This is the Church which teaches the True Gospel.

 

 

If either Rome, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Church of England was the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then there would be no reason for any Protestant sect to exist. As we saw earlier, sometimes the Church of England is categorized as a Protestant sect, but it has a rather authoritarian creed, a creed which says the Monarch of England is the supreme leader in England of God’s True Church, and it doesn’t place very lofty moral standards on these monarchs. Recall Henry VIII. He executed many thousands of his subjects, sometimes by boiling them in oil, and of course he murdered some of his wives, and none of this evil was sufficient to result in his excommunication, according to the Church of England, which leads one to think the Church of England is worthless and corrupt, and is a church which leads souls to perdition, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If a Monarch of England was to announce that she rejects the Church of England and has decided to become a Scientologist, or a Roman Catholic, or a Mormon, then this might be enough to get her kicked out of the Church of England, but if he / she just frolics with whores, or chops the heads off his wives / her husbands, or boils people in oil, well, these sorts of things were not sufficient grounds to kick him / her out in the past! Perhaps things have improved somewhat over the centuries with the Church of England, but we’re still left with two options: obey it completely because it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or renounce it completely, because it leads souls to perdition, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. You can understand why a Monarch of England would hesitate to say that the Church of England is a false church: would hesitate to say that the Church of England leads souls to perdition, because it is simply not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. A monarch of England naturally doesn’t want to tell people: “address me as `Your Majesty’ and know this: me and my majestic ancestors have been leading people to perdition for centuries now, because the truth of the matter is the Church of England is simply not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. And you can understand why a Monarch of England would hesitate to announce: even if Henry VIII. murdered some of his wives and even if he executed people by boiling them in oil, he was still the true leader on earth of God’s True Church. But, then, if an English monarch announces the news that English monarchs – the leaders of the Church of England – are fully capable of leading people to perdition, then people lose confidence in the Church of England. The Church of England is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock or else it isn’t. We have Option A: The Church of England is God’s True Church. The Church of England is none other than the Church which Christ founded on a rock. The Church of England leads souls to heaven and it leads no one to perdition. So, if you could just have enough sense to join and obey the Church of England then your soul will go to heaven and it will not go to perdition.

 

And then there’s Option B for the Church of England. The Church of England is not God’s True Church. The Church of England is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Since it is not God’s True Church, since it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, the Church of England leads souls to perdition not to heaven. Apropos of evils under the sign of the cross, though at the moment we’re primarily interested in recent evils perpetrated by members of the Church of England, because we’re interested in the question: does the Church of England lead people to heaven because it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or does the Church of England lead souls to perdition, because it has fallen away, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock? Sir Winston Church informed us in regards to World War 1 that,

 

`All the horrors of all the ages were brought together…neither peoples nor rulers drew the line at any deed which they thought could help them to win…Every outrage against humanity or international law was repaid by reprisals – often of a greater scale and of longer duration…The wounded died between the lines: the dead mouldered into the soil. Merchant ships and neutral ships and hospital ships were sunk on the seas…Every effort was made to starve whole nations into submission without regard to age or sex. Cities and monuments were smashed by artillery. Bombs from the air were cast down indiscriminately. Poison gas in many forms stifled or seared the soldiers. Liquid fire was projected on their bodies. Men fell from the air in flames, or were smothered often slowly in the dark recesses of the sea…Europe and large parts of Asia and Africa became one vast battlefield on which after years of struggle not armies but nations broke and ran. When all was over, Torture and Cannibalism were the only two expedients that the civilized, scientific, Christian States had been able to deny themselves: and they were of doubtful utility.’

 

 

Let us suppose that the Church of Rome is God’s True Church, let us suppose that this Gospel preached by this angel in Revelation 14. 6-7 is none other than a Gospel which says: join the Church of Rome and then obey the Church of Rome, only Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, all others are corrupt outfits which lead souls to perdition. People in the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox will see this angel from heaven as an angel from hell, because he’s more or less telling them that their dearly departed friends and relatives have been led to perdition, and they will resist this information, as they don’t want to believe that such a fate has befallen their beloved friends and relatives. Well, obviously!, as any fool ought to be able to understand! – they obviously ought to do what is best for themselves and what is best for their children / grandchildren – they ought to renounce their false church and they ought to join the True Church – Rome – as we are still hypothetically assuming here that Rome is the True Church. But that’s not how the human psyche works! The human mind wants to be told that oneself, and one’s children, and ones departed mother and grandmother, and all of one’s beloved friends and relatives who have departed from the physical world, etc., etc., are all destined for heaven.

 

`Somehow, you have to exercise enough intelligence to find the True Church and the True Faith. Again, the True Church is comprised of the people who teach and obey the True Faith. In any event, you can see how it goes. If, hypothetically speak, if this angel in Revelation 14. 6-7, if this emissary from heaven, tells Roman Catholics that Rome leads souls to perdition, then Roman Catholics will see this emissary from heaven as an emissary from hell, and this sort of wretch incompetency is just compounding mistakes in a really bad way. Similarly, if this angel in Revelation 14. 6-7 is an Eastern Orthodox angel, and if this angel from heaven tells Protestants that their dearly departed relatives have all gone to perdition, because they rejected God’s True Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church – again, we’re hypothetically assuming here that the Eastern Orthodox Church is God’s True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock – then Protestants will have a very strong tendency to see this angel from heaven as an angel from hell, because he’s telling them that everyone who rebels against Eastern Orthodoxy is damned, and Protestants don’t want to hear that their dearly departed friends and relatives are damned, and, therefore they will assume that an angel must be an evil angel from hell if he is the sort of angel who insists that their dearly departed Protestant friends and relatives are damned.

 

`Well, what do you expect this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7 to announce? Yes, he explains the True Gospel but what is this? Remember now that the angel in Revelation 14. 6-7 is a good angel and he is not an evil angel from hell! Try to keep that in mind! And what is the True Gospel? Again we have these options to choose from. It’s like a smorgasbord! If you are wise you will choose sound food and good doctrines. If you are unwise you will choose corrupt food and evil doctrines.

 

`Rome is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or it isn’t.

 

`Eastern Orthodoxy is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else it isn’t.

 

`The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else it isn’t etc., etc. IF the ELCA is God’s True Church, then have enough sense to join and obey the ELCA, If, on the other hand, the ELCA is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if the ELCA is corrupt, if the ELCA has fallen away from the True Faith, if the ELCA leads souls to perdition because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because it has fallen away, then don’t insist the ELCA teaches the True Gospel!

 

So, we have some ambiguity to deal with. How do you know if the ELCA is the Church which Christ founded on a rock or not. He might crack open a book or two. You might try to educate yourself so that you can make an educated guess about the ELCA. How do you know if an angel is a bad angel of if he / she is a good angel? Again, you might try to educate yourself enough to at least make an educated guess. Somehow, you have to know what the True Faith is. But don’t assume it is a complete waste of time to read a book or two, or three! Yes, try to learn what the True Faith is. Then if some angel tries to lead you away from the True Faith, you know he / she is a bad angel, that is assuming he / she never repents and starts teaching the True Faith. But if you are lost, if you are stuck in a church which has fallen away, which is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, which leads souls to perdition, though you are convinced it leads souls to heaven, how are you are you going to get out of your delusion? Try to educate yourself! Turn off the TV and read the Bible! I was talking to some Protestants not too long ago and they were telling me that a person they knew had a dream in which she met her mother – her mother had recently passed away – and in this dream her mother told her that heaven was wonderful. These Protestants were implying that this proved she was in heaven. Now you would think these Protestants would know that the Last Judgment comes after the Millennium, and the Millennium comes after the Second Coming. Neither the Millennium nor the Second Coming have yet occurred. Therefore the Last Judgment is still in the future. Therefore it is anti-Christian to announce that someone who has recently died has gone to heaven. I mean the Last Judgment, Revelation 20. 12-15, where the souls of the dead are judged, is still in the future. So it is anti-Christian to announce that someone who is dead is a saint in heaven – of course the Roman Catholics are clueless about this as they are blinded by their tradition, tradition which is ignorant or contemptuous of so much of the Bible. Again we have two options with Rome: 1) Obey Rome because Rome is God’s True Church; she leads souls to heaven so obey Rome because you will not profit in the afterlife if you rebel against God’s True Church, or 2) get out of the Church of Rome, renounce her, because she is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and she does not teach the True Gospel, but she does teach heresies which lead people to perdition. So if you can correctly choose which of these two alternatives is correct, then you are doing OK. Suppose Rome leads souls to perdition, and suppose you get out of the Church of Rome, and suppose you then join some other false fallen church which leads souls to perdition, suppose you join some other church which is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, well, then, you are not doing OK. See the general idea is to get out of evil fallen churches but also to resist joining some other evil fallen church which leads souls to perdition. So, you have to find and join this Church which Christ founded on a rock, and we’re exploring our options as we seek for this Church.

 

The people who survive the Great Tribulation are not in danger of the Lake of Fire which awaits those who are damned at the Last Judgment. The people who don’t bear the evil mark and who do not worship the beast – the people who are martyred during the Great Tribulation – are all saints who will reign with Christ during the millennium. Revelation 20. 4 is perfectly clear on this issue. There is some ambiguity about who these people are who are led by the Devil in the rebellion at the end of the Millennium. Aren’t all of the evil people on earth slaughtered at the Second Coming? Perhaps the rebels are offspring of the saints who rule with Christ during the Millennium. Perhaps there is some other explanation. No doubt there is an explanation which explains their existence. In any event, the saints who are not led astray during the Great Tribulation won’t be judged at the Last Judgment.

 

We have these three angels mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-11. They explain the True Faith and True Church to people. This doesn’t sound so complicated, but unless you already know what the True Faith, you have no way to know if an angel is from heaven or from hell; if you don’t know what the True Faith is then you are unable to distinguish between heresies which lead souls to perdition from sound doctrine which leads souls to perdition.

 

Christ and the apostles articulated the Gospel 2,000 years ago, so you would think people would have had enough time to learn what the gospel is, but the `traditions of men’ – as they say – confuse matters – and people led astray by false teachers. If you knew what the True Faith is, then, if perhaps the Antichrist attempted an imposture, if he attempted to masquerade as Michael, or as this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7, then, if you knew what the True Faith is, then, you would recognize his imposture. But if you didn’t know what the True Faith is, then you might be led to perdition by the Devil / Antichrist when he masquerades as this angel mentioned in Revelation 14. 6-7, recall 2 Corinthians 11. 14 – `And no wonder for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.’

 

To give a synopsis of a paraphrase of the New Testament we read in John 1. 1-14, Colossians 2. 8-10 and 1 Timothy 3. 16 that Jesus is God. The New Testament teachs the doctrine that God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We don’t actually have a scripture which says the Holy Spirit is God, but that assumption is more or less just common sense. The idea that the Son is God is also give Old Testament support in psalm 2 and Isaiah 6. 9. Psalm 2 tells us that the Father begot a Son, and common sense tells us that when a father begets a son or a daughter then that son or daughter is of the same species as the father. So, if the Father is God then so is the begotten Son. So, Psalm 2 tells us the Son is God implicitly but not explicitly And then Isaiah 9. 6 tells us the Son is called Almighty God, Wonderful Counselor etc., and Isaiah 9. 6 was not written by either a Gentile or by one of the Jewish authors of the New Testament, hence it carries clout with Jews. Certainly one can be a Jew who accepts Jesus as the Divine Son, but, generally speaking, when we speak of the Jews we speak of people who reject the New Testament and the Divinity of Jesus.

 

You’ll notice how so many things in religion break down into two options. Jesus is either God or else Jesus is not God. The ELCA is either the Church which Christ founded on a rock or else the ELCA is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock. The Creator of the Universe is either a Deity named Allah or else the Creator of the Universe is not a Deity named Allah. If the Creator of the universe is a Deity named Allah, then why would you distrust anything written in the book, the Koran, which tells us the Creator of the Universe is a Deity named Allah? The Koran either leads souls to heaven or else it leads souls to `not heaven’ aka perdition. If the Koran leads souls to heaven, then, even if the Koran has some mistakes in it – who cares? All you need to know is that it leads souls to heaven. If the Koran leads souls to heaven, if the Koran is a work of non-fiction, then it makes sense to believe the scriptures in the Koran which say you will be tortured in hellfire if you reject Islam. If the Koran leads souls to perdition, if the Koran is a work of fiction, then get rid of the Koran, and don’t worry yourself about those phony scriptures in the Koran which say you will burn in hellfire if you reject Islam.

 

The Christian Bible is a little confusing, because, for one example, we read in Ezekiel 20. 25 that God gave the children of Israel bad laws. He gave them bad laws because He was angry with them because of their rebellious natures. Ezekiel 20. 25 arrives on page 532 of my copy of the New King James version. If you begin reading the Bible on page 1 you might have a tendency to believe that all laws from God must be good laws, because they originate from a benevolent Deity, but then when you finally get to page 532…

 

In Christianity we have something called the New Law, aka the New Covenant, aka the Gospel of Jesus Christ, aka the True Faith, also known as the divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34. This New Law amends the Old Law, the Mosaic Law. Now not every law in the Mosaic Law is a bad law. And the New Testament does not supply us with a precise summary of all the laws in the Mosaic Law which have been placed in abeyance. The Old Law is an eternal law, you see, but much of it is unenforced, but some of it is enforced, because some of it is consistent with the New Law. For instance, the Mosaic Law commands the Jews to use just weights and measures. There’s nothing in the New Testament which suggests this law has been placed in abeyance. All of the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, and they are all part of the New Law. If you break any of the Ten Commandments then you are not obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and, again, 2 Thess 1. 8 mentions fire for those who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Mosaic Law commands Jews to have parapets on the roofs of their houses. Under the New Law, if a house has a flat roof, and if a child has easy access to this roof, that is, if a child doesn’t have to fetch a ladder to climb up on the roof, and if a reasonable person concludes that a child could kill himself by falling off of this roof if it lacks a parapet, then, under the New Law, under these conditions, roofs must have parapets, or at least some sort of railing to give protection for kids. Malachi 3. 5 is in the Old Testament but its message is consistent with the New Testament, therefore it is part of the New Law, it is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Malachi 3. 5,

 

`And I will come near you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against sorcerers, against adulterers, against perjurers, against those who exploit wage earners and widows and the fatherless, against those who turn away an alien – because they do not fear Me,” says the LORD of Hosts.’

 

And this pertains to Protestant Fundamentalists under the sign of the cross in the USA, because these are people who want to turn away aliens from Mexico and Central America who are desperate to find work in the USA to provide for their families, and these Protestant Fundamentalists under the sign of the cross in the USA insist that they obey the Gospel, but that’s just their opinion, whereas, Malachi 3. 5 tells us you are not obeying the Gospel if you turn away aliens.

 

Things get a little complicated because a sane society needs a sane way to separate violent criminals from the rest of society. Chapter 6 of Constitutional History of the Western World begins with the premise which says: suppose Jeremiah 31. 31-34 is true. Suppose God does writes his Divine Law on the hearts of His people. Now if a person truly has this Divine Law written on his heart, then, you would think, he ought to be able to recognize that a human law is stupid or insane or evil if in fact it is stupid or insane or evil. Suppose the cops arrest some kid and suppose they scare him by saying they got evidence which can put him away for years, when in fact they don’t have that sort of evidence against him, and suppose the kid maintains his innocence, well suppose the cops offer him a plea-bargain, whereby if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge, he will only spend a few months in prison, provided he admits his guilt to this lesser crime, even though the kid knows he is innocent. So an innocent kid pleads guilty to the lesser offence, because he doesn’t want to take the risk of being put away for years in prison. Doesn’t this sort of criminal justice system seem rather unjust and anti-Christian? Anyway, Chapter 6 of Constitutional History of the Western World looks into laws which are abominations under both the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 and under sane human law. The majority of the population in the USA claim to be Protestant. So, if you can prove that the laws of the USA are the laws of a Madhouse! you might have some sort of evidence against Protestantism under the sign of the cross as it is practiced in the USA. I want to keep this book reasonably short and I don’t want to rehash what has been covered in my other books: in these other books I paint a picture showing the USA is a madhouse: I explain why it is that you lead people to perdition when you favor gay marriage; I explained that Barak Obama, when he was a state senator in Illinois, wanted to let babies who survived abortions be left alone so that they starve to death; he was elected President of a predominately Protestant nation, because, evidently, enough millions of the Protestants in the USA felt the other guy was even worse. Liberal Protestants no doubt agree with Joe Biden’s assessment: Obama is a clean, articulate African-American, and America is finally ready to make a clean, articulate African-American the prez. Liberal Protestants tend to see Conservative Protestants as either narrow-minded zealots or as rednecks who drive pick-up trucks, who wear those sleeveless T-shirts called wife-beater shirts, as hillbilly, gun-owning, tobacco-spitting Protestants - and sophisticated Liberal Protestants who listen to National Public Radio know with 100% certainty they don’t want to be associated in any way with hillbilly, gun-owning, tobacco-spitting, pick-up truck driving Protestants.

 

Getting back to the Bible, the Bible is rather startling in so many ways – recall that Isaiah 9. 6 tells us that the Son is God. This can lead us to some polytheistic thinking. Christian and Jewish theologians insist there is only one God, but, you know, if the Father is God, and if the Son is God, and if the Holy Spirit is God, then this, according to many people’s math, looks a lot like 3 Gods. But we have an Old Testament scripture which says God is one, and so Christian theologians scramble to try to explain why Christianity is not a polytheistic religion. Anyway, in Isaiah 20. 3 we learn that Isaiah walked around naked and barefoot for 3 years. In the modern world we tend to not place too much confidence in what people who walk around naked and barefoot for 3 years have to say about theology, but such is not the case with Isaiah, as he is reverenced by both Christians and Jews. Isaiah 9. 6 is terribly important in the effort to convince Jews that the Christian doctrine that the Son is God was not invented by Gentiles, and it wasn’t invented by Jews living during the time when Jesus was on the earth. It was articulated by a Jew roughly 7 centuries before Jesus was born in a manger. Isaiah 9. 6 says,

 

`For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’

 

We’re looking for the Church which Christ founded on a rock. You have to admit it sounds a little crazy to say that some little Protestant sect full of rednecks and hillbillies and only that little Protestant sect is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. And yet to deny the existence of a True Church is no reject Christianity. John 14. 23-26,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Jesus says in John 15. 6,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Christ told us at the Last Supper: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins’. The first mention of a new covenant, of a New Law to amend the Old Law, the Mosaic Law, is found in Jeremiah 31. 31-34:

 

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

Christians call this new covenant / new law / Divine Law the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Recall 2 Thess 1. 8 – helllfire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You don’t have to exaggerate matters and say that all who reject Jesus and all who rebel against the Gospel will tortured forever in hell. That’s not what 2 Thess 1. 8 says. There’s ambiguity. Still it doesn’t make any sense to think a God of is going to subject more or less decent non-Christians to prolonged torments. But though God is a God of love He can also be rather. When you are a non-Christian you are saying either explicitly or implicitly that Jesus is a fraudulent god. But if Jesus is the True God, and if the True God was once crucified, then even though God is a God of love, 2 Thess 1. 8 says what it says, though it is ambiguous – the pain of the fire might last 2 seconds or 20 seconds or maybe a little longer – I don’t know – no one except God knows – but there’s no reason to exaggerate and say that 2 Thess 1. 8 means eternal fire when it doesn’t say eternal fire! – nevertheless, if Jesus is the True God, and I’m of course insisting He is, then you can expect some hellfire torment coming your way if you say explicitly or implicitly Jesus is a fraudulent god, or if you claim to be a Christian but you don’t obey the Gospel. If one has the Divine Law written on one’s heart then one will not commit sacrilege. An example of sacrilege is saying that evil things are holy, or saying that holy things are evil.

The doctrine that cross of Christ is sacred comes from St. Paul, note Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18. We now have to determine if there is a distinction between the sacred cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 and material crosses and the sign of the cross. One argument runs as follows: the cross of Christ mentioned Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18, as well as material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to God. Another argument says: the cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is sacred but this is a spiritual thing – it refers to Christ’s heroic sacrifice on the cross – you’re just not making any sense if you insist a cross – a pagan instrument of torture – is sacred to the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – that the Creator of the Universe. Christ and the apostles never said material cross and the sign of the cross are sacred. They never used these as symbols. The outline of a fish was the first symbol used by Christians. In the general barbarism and darkness which fell upon Christendom in the 4th century the sign of the cross became seen as a holy symbol, this was at a time then it was seen as holy and righteous to torture to death Jews and other people who disagreed with the religious opinions of the Catholic Roman emperors.

With material crosses and the sign of the cross, we have a Case 1 and a Case 2.

Case 1. The sign of the cross is holy. A person commits sacrilege if he says the cross is evil. A person can’t be a True Christian: he can’t have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on his heart if he commits sacrilege.

Case 2. The sign of the cross and material crosses are not holy. They are not holy to God and therefore all of the evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries are relevant in judging the cross and the sign of the cross.

If the cross is sacred in the eyes of the Creator of the universe, then none of the evil perpetrated over the centuries by people brandishing crosses are relevant in judging the cross. But if the Deity says the material cross and the sign of the cross are not sacred, albeit the spiritual cross of Christ is sacred – recall Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 – if the Deity says you judge material crosses in the same way you judge the USSR’s hammer and sickle, or the Nazi swastika, by considering the evil perpetrated by the people brandishing those symbols, then the cross is an evil symbol, because a lot of evil was perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries. Chapters 1 and 2, and 4 and 5 of Constitutional History of the Western World hit the reader over the head with lots of info on the evils of people carrying crosses, so I don’t think it necessary to repeat too much of that info here. We have two very dramatic scenarios for the sign of the cross. The best case scenario for the cross says is sacred, and that it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. If the cross is sacred then, in the Great Tribulation, if Michael and the Antichrist are both loose upon the earth in the big showdown at the end of the age, then, if the sign of the cross is the seal of God which protects on from the tortures described in Revelation 9 then you’ll want to have the mark of a cross on your forehead, but then, on the other hand, if the sign of the cross is not sacred to the Creator of the Universe, and if the worst case scenario for the cross is true: the cross is the mark of the beast, then you will want to remember what is written in Revelation 14. 11 – one burns in hell forever and if one puts the mark of a cross on one’s forehead or right hand.

We have this angel in Revelation 14. 6-7 preaching the Gospel to the world. You have to know what the Gospel is in order to know if some angel is a good angel, a good angel who is preaching the True Gospel, the Gospel which leads souls to heaven, or if he is some foul beast Antichrist from hell who is preaching an evil heresy which lead souls to perdition. So, if you understood the True Gospel then you would know how to correctly assess material crosses and the sign of the cross, you would know if the cross was an evil symbol which leads souls to perdition or if it was a sacred symbol which led souls to heaven.

Assuming a person has stumbled upon on the right doctrine about the sign of the cross, assuming he doesn’t commit sacrilege by insisting that something which is evil is holy – or if you prefer, assuming he doesn’t commit sacrilege by insisting that something which is sacred is evil – nevertheless, if he is in a false church which leads souls to perdition, if he is not in the Church which Christ founded on a rock, he will be led to perdition, even if he has the correct doctrine on the sign of the cross. There are lots of issues besides the sign of the cross.

Constitutional History of the Western World bombards the reader with info saying Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy and the Church of England have all fallen away, none of these three is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, and therefore all three of them lead souls to perdition. For instance I take a look at St. John of Capistrano. Roman Catholics are ordered by their church to venerate him as a saint, and Rome says you commit blasphemy if you direct abusive language at him. Capistrano tortured Jews and accused them of the blood libel – which involves a black magic ritual having Jews stealing a Eucharistic host and murdering a Christian child – a libel which over the centuries inflamed lots of Christian hatred of Jews, which led to no end of Christian persecution of Jews; then St. Carlo Borromeo burned lots of women at the stake he had accused of witchcraft – lots of innocent women were tortured until they confessed to something they didn’t do in order to put an end to their torment. Suppose Rome is God’s True Church. If Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock then one must be an enemy of God if one refuses to see that the Church of Rome is the true and legitimate ruler of the world – it’s authority is like the sun, whereas the authority of presidents and parliaments and supreme courts and kings /queens is like the moon. But if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads souls to perdition, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then one is an enemy of God if one insists that Rome is God’s True Church. We have two options with Rome, or with any church for that matter, either it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, in which case everyone should obey Rome’s official doctrines, even her most controversial official doctrines, or else one should renounce Rome. The Cafeteria Catholic position makes no sense. You either obey Rome’s doctrines because Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else you renounce the Roman Catholic Church, because Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, or else you admit you’re confused and don’t know what to think about Rome. The Cafeteria Catholics don’t do any of these three things! The most common sort of Cafeteria Catholic is one who opposes Rome’s stand on abortion and birth-control. The pro-choice philosophy is simply neo-paganism. A Christian who supports the pro-choice position is a neo-pagan sort of Christian. A Roman Catholic will remain a Roman Catholic if he is confident that Rome is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. For a Roman Catholic, for someone who believes Rome is God’s True Church, to say Rome is wrong about abortion, to say that God’s True Church needs to get with the times and adopt a neo-pagan view of abortion, seems crazy to me. If you want to adopt Neo-Paganism why do it while remaining in the Roman Catholic Church?

If you’re conversing Episcopalians or with people who are members of the ELCA – the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – both of which are pro-gay marriage – then, if you say these churches lead souls to perdition – then people will be offended when they hear you saying, more or less, that their dearly departed parents / spouses have gone to perdition. But what can you do? If you say that God and the Gospel are OK with guys having oral sex and anal sex with each other, provided it is done within the bonds of `holy gay matrimony,’ then you descend into madness and you lead people to perdition, which means you’ll go to perdition. Paul is very clear in 1 Corinthians 6. 9-10. A word to the wise. Heads-up on this one! Watch out when you inform people, that, since their dearly departed parents / spouse / siblings etc., belonged to a church which has fallen away – recall the falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2 – those dearly departed people will absolutely end up in perdition. The Last Judgment is far in the future, and it’s always risky to pass judgment on someone even if they are members of a fallen church which led people to perdition. Simply put, there’s nothing wrong with looking for the Church which Christ founded on a rock; there’s nothing wrong with helping parents think a little straighter so that they do not commit the terrible sin of leading their children to perdition. Everyone wants their names written in the book of Life. Everyone wants to go to heaven. So there is nothing wrong with conducting a thorough investigation in search for the True Faith and the True Church. There is nothing wrong with wanting full disclosure of information, full disclosure of both the negative and the positive facts pertaining to the many churches which compete for the title of being the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

John 15. 6 is quite clear: you either abide in Christ or else you are damned. Who are these people who have their names written in the Book of Like – recall Revelation 20. 15? And where is the Church which Christ founded on a rock? 2 Thess 1. 8 is also quite clear: if you don’t obey the Gospel you get some hellfire. And what is the Gospel? Can’t we at least agree that the Gospel is opposed to both sodomy and simony? Conservative Protestants will agree with me that the ELCA and the Episcopalians lead people to perdition, because, among other things, they both teach the doctrine that God is OK with sodomy as long as long as it is confined within `holy gay marriage’. A big problem with Conservative Protestants is their support of simony – the buying and selling of Christianity – the buying and selling of Christian books, Bibles etc. Whether we’re talking about sodomy or simony, we’re dealing in both cases with mortal sins which lead people straight to perdition. Christ and the apostles never sold their religious material. Peter and Paul didn’t go round peddling their epistles. As soon as you put a price tag on the Bible, or as soon as you buy someone’s analysis of the Gospel, regardless if the money goes to a church or not – you’ve committed simony. Both the buyer and the seller are guilty of the sin. Of course the Christian Book Publishing industry doesn’t agree with this! What would you expect? They’re in business to make money off of Christianity. They could always publish other sorts of book: novels, travel books, biographies etc., and then redirect some of their profits into publishing Bibles and works of Christian theology free of charge. But that sort of operation wouldn’t maximize their profits, you see. You can read the Bible from cover to cover and never find a single instance of a prophet or an apostle putting a price tag on his prophecy / epistle. The people who sell Christianity are like the magician in Acts 8. 19-20.

If a Protestant is convinced his sect leads people to heaven then there is no incentive on his part to change that sect. If there is no incentive to change a sect which blatantly violates the Gospel and therefore leads people to perdition then we have a huge problem with that sect. Isn’t the buying and selling of Christianity, isn’t simony as damnable as sodomy? It is not difficult to find evidence which says Protestants under the sign of the cross think nothing of violating the Sabbath. The Conservative Protestants under the sign of the cross don’t ex-communicate anyone, such as pro-choicers or pro-gay-marriage people, or Sabbath violaters? We know what 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says.

Imagine some clergyman who reads this and becomes convinced he has spent his entire life leading people to perdition. Well now is the time to change! You have to admit the profession of a clergyman is different than the profession of a doctor, or an engineer, or an airline pilot etc., etc. If a doctor makes a botch of things then gets immediate news that he blew it – there’s the dead body on the operating table – there’s the guy he turned into a corpse – the lifeless body which resulted when he botched the operation. Or when a bridge collapses and kills lots of people because an engineer used steel I-beams which weren’t hefty enough, well, then, that engineer will be wiser in the future, and he will probably not try to save a few extra pennies by going with the cheaper and flimsier I-beams. Or when an airline pilot does something which results in a crash and lots of death, then other pilots can learn from his mistake, so that they don’t make that mistake. But clergymen don’t get that sort of info. They are not told who is damned and who is redeemed. They have no 100% sure-fire way of knowing if the people in their flock are being led to slaughter, that is to perdition, or if they are being led to heaven. The Last Judgment is very far in the future, you see. You can’t know for a 100% fact who is damned and who is saved until after the Last Judgment. If doctors never received any info on whether their treatments worked or not, then doctors would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. So, if a clergyman was to take it into his head that he has been leading people to perdition, for some years now, because he is the clergyman of a church under the sign of the cross, and all sects under the sign of the cross lead people to perdition, then, he will no doubt be distressed at this, but, nevertheless, there’s no sense crying over spilt milk, all he can do is make the necessary changes - the changes which will lead people to heaven and which will put a stop to those practices which led people to perdition.

I’m certainly supporting Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18, which tell us the cross of Christ is sacred. I take this to mean Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is heroic and sacred. I don’t take it to mean that representations of a cross, that representations of a pagan instrument of torture and murder are sacred to God.

Somehow, one must determine if the evils perpetrated by people brandishing crosses over the centuries are relevant in judging the cross, rather as the evils of the Nazis are relevant in judging the Nazi swastika, or, if the evils committed by people under the sign of the cross over the centuries are irrelevant in judging the cross, because, a Deity exists and because this Deity – the Creator of the Universe no less – says these evils are irrelevant in judging the cross, because the Creator of the Universe says the cross is sacred, and hence the cross is divorced from any sort of evil. How do you get to the bottom of this mystery? As I believe I’ve mentioned, it would be wonderful to locate the Church which Christ founded on a rock. And it would be wonderful if one was in the True Church, if one had this Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on one’s heart. If you had the Divine Law inscribed on one’s heart, then you simply could not end up burning in hell. If merely one sect under the cross led souls to heaven, if merely one sect – Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church of England, or merely one of the many Protestants sects, if just one of these sects is Church which Christ founded on a rock, then you can be confident they are right when they tell you material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to God. But if every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition – and we’ve been over how it is that the Protestants don’t obey the Sabbath, they don’t excommunicate pro-choicers, they don’t excommunicate pro-gay marriage people – they don’t excommunicate anyone! – and we know what 1 Corinthians 11. 27 says about those who partake of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner – we’ve been over how it is that the Protestants under the sign of the cross don’t obey the New Testament’s teachings on money matters etc., etc., – in any event – if every church under the sign of the cross leads souls to perdition, because not one of these churches is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because they have all fallen away, then the sign of the cross certainly seems to be the symbol, not of the True Faith, but of the falling away from the True Faith, to recall 2 Thess 2 again. If you could find just one church under the sign of the cross that led people to heaven, if just one church under the sign of the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then this would prove that the cross is sacred to God, and hence it couldn’t hurt, but it could only help one escape torments, to put the mark of a cross on ones forehead, should apocalyptic events such as those described in Revelation 9 begin to unfold. But if every sect under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, if Rome, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Church of England, and if every Protestant sect under the sign of the cross are Satanic cults – you know, beastly false churches which claim to lead people to heaven but which actually lead people to perdition – then a Christian would have to suspect that the mark of the cross is the evil mark of the beast, which causes people to suffer the torture of eternal hellfire should they have it on their foreheads or right hands during the apocalyptic hour, recall again Revelation 14. 11.

We have various simple creeds, various options, which compete to be this New Law which is concise enough and simple enough to be written on the hearts of God’s people. There’s, 1 – Always obey the Church of Rome; 2 – Always obey the Eastern Orthodox Church; 3 – Always obey the New Testament etc., etc. If 3 is true, then one of the problems we have is that it seems as if it is impossible to obey the New Testament, rather as it was impossible to obey the Old Law, the Mosaic Law. But one of the lessons from the Old Testament is that even if you it is impossible to obey all of the Mosaic Law, at least obey the most important parts of: don’t have any graven images, don’t chase after false gods, don’t oppress the poor, don’t murder and steal, at least obey all of the Ten Commandments etc. If you forget a wave offering or a grain offering, if one forget to do some minor thing commanded by the Mosaic Law then you violate the Mosaic Law, but none of the terrible punishments – the Babylonian Captivity for instance – would have hit the Jews if they had simply obeyed the most important parts of the Mosaic Law. But when they worshipped false gods, and took graven images, and murdered and oppressed the poor, then they really got punished hard. Now under the New Law, which damns covetous thoughts and lustful thoughts and angry thoughts and jealous thoughts, unforgiving thoughts etc., etc., you wonder how anyone who is not God could ever free himself from every sinful thought or action. If it is impossible to completely obey the Gospel / New Law then you don’t want to conclude that there is no sense in obey the most important parts of the Gospel! But if you can at least obey the most important parts of the New Law – you know – love covers a multitude of sins; forgive people their trespasses against you and God will forgive your trespasses – love God and love your neighbor etc., then this ought to work to your advantage. Still, we’re running up against some implacable logic. I mean there would be no sane reason for anyone to reject the Church of Rome if Rome is God’s True Church. Now if Rome fell away, if Rome leads souls to perdition because she fell away, then this changes things. Recall those centuries when Rome tortured people via the Inquisitions, recall Rome’s endorsement of the enslavement of Africans – for century after century Rome and Eastern Orthodox and Church of England clerics authorized laymen to use cruel and inhuman punishments during judicial proceedings – the only sane reason for the Protestant sects to exist is the reason which says neither Rome nor Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Church of England lead souls to heaven, because none of these 3 is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because they have all fallen away. In a decree by Pope Innocent VIII. in the 15th century Rome authorized the lay Catholic authorities to torture a woman who had a wart on her body, as this was considered sufficient evidence to suspect she was a witch, and having sufficient grounds for suspicion was sufficient reason to torture a women in judicial proceedings in the 15th century to determine if indeed she was a witch. So if the True God says that Rome is His True Church, then it is evil to rebel against Rome! But if the True God says Rome has fallen away and leads souls to perdition, then get away from Rome, and understand a few of the basics: if the True God / True Jesus says Rome leads souls to perdition, then the Roman Catholic crucifix – an image of a Pro-Roman Catholic god / a Pro-Roman Catholic version of Jesus – is an image of false version of God / Jesus, and a false version of God / Jesus who leads people to perdition is a beastly version. And beastly images lead one to recall scruiptures in the Book of Revelation which pertain to `an image of the beast’ – such as Revelation 14. 11.

 

So we’re back to the question: what is the Gospel and what is the New Law? What church is God’s True Church? If Rome is God’s True Church, then everyone must obey Rome if they want to go to heaven and escape perdition, obviously! But if Rome has fallen away, if Rome leads people to perdition, then what is the evidence which says Rome was fallen away? Well Paul said a bishop must be a man of one wife, whereas Rome says a bishop must have no wife. Paul said men must pray with their heads uncovered. Christ said: `call no man father’. Rome says call every priest father. Rome no longer burns women at the stake, but Rome still insists that you venerate people Rome calls saints who did burn them at the stake, and she still insists the Inquisition – the `Holy Office’ – is holy, and Rome still insists the Dogma of Papal Infallibility is true, and that Dogma anathematizes – damns – those who reject that Dogma: Rome maintains to this day that she has always been God’s True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, even when she was burning women at the stake. Charles Mackay wrote in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London, 1841),

 

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

In any event, we’re trying to determine if the evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries are reflected in material crosses, because material crosses are not sacred to God, and they are evil, because they reflect evil, or if the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross are not reflected in material crosses, because the material cross is sacred to God. Obviously, if one had the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 written on one’s heart, one would not commit sacrilege: one would not call evil things holy, and one would not call holy things evil.

To review maters, if every church under the sign of the cross leads people to perdition, if no church under the sign of the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then this is damning evidence against the cross. But if at least one church under the sign of the cross leads people to heaven, if at least one church under the sign of the cross is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then this looks like proof that material crosses are sacred to God. If there is a Protestant sect under the sign of the cross that leads souls to heaven, then it is super mega evil to say or imply that people will burn in hell forever if they have the mark of a cross on their foreheads or right hands. But if the sign of the cross is evil, if indeed the sign of the cross is the mark of the beast, then every church under the sign of the cross is satanic, everyone of them leads people to perdition, because none of then can possibly be the Church which Christ founded on a rock – the Church which leads people to heaven – one would have to be insane to think the True Church would ever lead people to think the mark of the beast is sacred! Fallen churches, satanic churches would do that, but the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock would never do that.

 

Jules Michelet writes in his ‘History of France,’ translated by Walter K. Kelley,

 

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

 

Henry Thomas Buckle wrote in `History of Civilization in England’,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Frederic Harrison informed us in ‘The Meaning of History’ (Macmillian, 1896):

 

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

 

Me – `The former cover off this ebook showed some nice-looking women in a movie who seem to be caught up in a nasty cult. What are some names of some nice people, in real life, who have gotten themselves mixed up in nasty cults? A seemingly respectable religion, respectable to outward appearances at least, but a religion which leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition would qualify as a nasty Satanic cult. In this book we take a long look at the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross.

All of my religious books pertain to 2 Thess 2, which deals with 3 key topics: 1) a falling away from the True Faith prior to the Second Coming of Christ, 2) strong delusion, and, 3) the Antichrist. When teaching the History of Christianity to people one might begin with the Gospels and with the Evidence for Christianity. Or you can summarize the differences in the sects which divide Christianity. In Matthew 16. 13-19, Christ announced that He has founded His Church on a rock. Christians call this Church the True Church. When you are evaluating the Roman Catholic Church you mustn’t get lost in millions of tangential details. The key question is: is the Roman Catholic Church the Church which Christ founded on a rock? Either it is or it isn’t! If the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads people to heaven, then it is malevolent to insist Rome is a false church. You could even say it is satanic to rebel against the Church of Rome, provided the Church of Rome is God’s True Church. Conversely, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, if Rome is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, then Rome is satanic. Naturally people don’t want to get into nasty fights full of vicious insults with other people over religious issues. You try to be logical, and you try to be diplomatic, but, as you might imagine, people will take offense if you say their church is satanic! In any event, there would be no reason for any Protestant sect to exist – and there would be no reason for any religion other than Roman Catholicism to exist! – if the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If Rome is the Church Christ founded on a rock, if Rome leads souls to heaven, and if the Protestant sects lead souls to perdition, then it is obvious that the Protestant sects are satanic. You might get into nasty religious arguments if you pursue this sort of logic with people, but that doesn’t mean the logic is wrong!

All of my religious books either imply or come right out and say that the Church of Rome, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Church of England all lead souls to perdition, because none of them is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because all three of them have fallen away from the True Faith – to recall the `falling away’ mentioned in 2 Thess 2 – and I present evidence to try to substantiate my argument, evidence showing people in these sects being cruel or corrupt. If a church excommunicates a person who does evil then you can’t blame the church for the evil. But if a church refuses to excommunicate evil people, then that church unites itself with evil.

If, for instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church leads people to heaven, then it is more or less satanic to say it leads people to perdition, as I do, but then, on the other hand, if the Eastern Orthodox Church leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, because it has fallen away, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then it is satanic to insist that the Eastern Orthodox Church leads people to heaven, to insist that it has not fallen away, and to insist that it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. We tend to get lost in a thousand details when we consider the Protestant Reformation. We try to recall when Luther first railed against papal indulgence peddling, and we try to recall a few of his points in these 95 points that he once posted. But you mustn’t lose sight of the essential meaning of the Protestant Reformation I mean there is no sane reason to rebel against either Rome (or Eastern Orthodoxy) if it leads souls to heaven, if it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. The essential premise behind Protestantism says both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy have fallen away: they are corrupt: they lead souls away from heaven and straight to perdition because neither one is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Since they lead souls away from heaven and straight to perdition they are satanic. If the premise is sound the conclusion is also sound. If the premise is unsound then so is the conclusion.

Protestantism begins with the assertion which says that Christianity is true but the Church of Rome, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Church of England have all fallen away, and all three lead souls to perdition, because none of these three churches is the Church which Christ founded on a rock. Sometimes the Church of England is classified as a Protestant sect. One is free to consider it a Protestant sect, and free to not consider it a Protestant sect. If the Church of England has fallen away from the True Faith, if it leads souls away from heaven and to perdition, then the Church of England is satanic. On the other hand, if the Church of England leads people to heaven, if it is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then it would be satanic to insist, as I do, that the Church of England leads souls to perdition, because it has fallen away, because it is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock.

If you begin with the premise that the Protestants are right to reject Rome, and right to reject Eastern Orthodoxy, and right to reject the Church of England, because they all 3 lead people to perdition, because none of these 3 is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, because all three are satanic, then what is the name of the Protestant sect under the sign of the cross which is the Church which Christ founded on a rock?

Of course Atheists are of the opinion that there is no heaven. But if there is a heaven, and if a sect leads souls away from heaven and straight to perdition, then that sect can be categorized as a nasty satanic cult. Even if a sect presents a very respectable outward appearance, even if many pillars of society – judges, lawyers, doctors, statesmen, generals, admirals etc. belong to that sect, if that sect is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if it is a sect which leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition, then it is a satanic and beastly cult, even though it presents a respectable outward appearance.

The aim in this book is to try to make the narrative livelier than my other religious works of non-fiction, as well as to focus attention on the evidence against the Protestant sects under the sign of the cross. To clarify a few points, this book, or books such as William Stearns Davis Life on a Medieval Barony, are categorized as non-fiction even though they contain material which is straight out of some author’s imagination. Davis was making a re-creation of the Middle Ages, and I suppose you could insist he therefore wrote a work of fiction, because it contains events which he invented: it is not strictly factual. Nevertheless these sorts of books are put in the non-fiction section of libraries. In any event, I feel I need to liven things up to attract readers. I got tired of looking at Introduction to Dumb-Ass Theory, and more or less gave up trying to revise it. I suppose I should have used imaginary characters in it exclusively, as that would have made it more readable.

 

Apropos of this `falling away’ mentioned in 2 Thess 2, Bury states in ‘History of the Later Roman Empire’ (vol. i. p. 12) that the Catholic emperors in Constantinople, following the example of the pagan Emperors, took the epithets `sacred’ and `divine’ and insisted that these be applied to themselves. Bury writes, p. 15:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Still on this theme of this falling away mentioned in 2 Thess 2, for centuries the civilization under the sign of the cross was divided into peasants and a privileged class of nobles who oppressed the peasants; this civilization subjected the accused to `the question,’ that is to preliminary torture in criminal investigations; the civilization under the sign of the cross punished people by breaking them on the wheel – here an iron bar was used to break the bones of the felon – burying alive, burning alive, flaying alive – all of these punishments had the blessing of the church and state. Popes and Protestants blessed the African slave trade. Slave owners would separate children from their parents and of course they would whip the slaves to force them to work for no wages. In the Middle Ages peasants were tortured by the nobles to learn where the peasants had hidden their money. The peasants would starve during the lean years but the nobles knew how to hoard and steal enough food to survive. In the early Church, Christians didn’t perpetrate these sorts of evils. There were always heretics and false brethren, but in the first, second and third centuries Christians didn’t torture people on the rack or burn anyone at the stake. Everything went to hell, so to speak, beginning in the mid to late 4th century. Gibbon described the malevolence of the laws of the Roman Empire under the Catholic Emperors,

 

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

 

Guido Kisch writes in his `The Jews in Medieval Germany’ (The University of Chicago Press, 1949):

 

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

 

Charles Dickens informed us of 18th century conditions in Catholic France on the first page of ‘A Tale of Two Cities:’

 

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

 

Gibbon writes of the 4th century Catholic Emperor Valentinian and his judges,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It doesn’t take too much mental effort to see that Constantine did not know the True God. If he knew God then he would not have been pouring molten lead down people’s throats, because, we might assume – the True God hates that sort of thing.

 

Did Luther know God? Luther wanted Anabaptists executed. Did God want them executed? Is executing Anabaptists an integral part of the Divine Law? Calvin didn’t want Servetus burned alive, but Calvin still wanted him executed for the sin of denying the Trinity. Is execution of Anabaptists and Unitarians an integral part of the Divine Law? Paul Johnson in his `History of Christianity’ tells us that Theodore Beza, a 16th century Protestant `intellectual’ – a Professor of Greek at Lausanne – wanted the most ferocious tortures inflicted on people who were heretics – people, for example, who rejected the Trinity. Evidently the god Beza worshipped delighted in the screams of tortured Unitarians. In `A History of the Christian Church’ the authors – Walker, Richardson, Pauck and Handy tell us, p. 357, that Beza was a man of a more conciliatory spirit and gentler ways than Calvin. Who do you trust Johnson or Walker? I suspect that academics whitewash the crimes of people like Beza because if they didn’t whitewash the crimes of theologians their books would be filled with endless accounts of atrocities committed by theologians, and writers know that readers will eventually get bored with books filled with endless accounts of atrocities. If Rome fell away from the True Faith, then, if the Protestant reformers were just as cruel and as barbaric as the Catholics, then the cruel and barbaric Protestant reformers also fell away from the Faith established by the Christ and the apostles: they led souls to perdition; Protestant academics will naturally be inclined to whitewash crimes which would lead people to believe that the Protestant reformers led souls to perdition. If Rome was to announce in 2013 that the Inquisition, `Holy Office’ was unholy, Rome would only have more problems answering her critics. If Rome declared unholy something which she had declared holy for centuries, then Rome would be admitting she committed sacrilege for centuries. As things now stand Rome continues to admit that she continues to worship a god who sees the `Holy Office’ as holy, so, those people who say the Inquisition is evil will observe that the Roman Catholics worship a god who supports the evil Inquisition, and therefore the Roman Catholic god can not be the Creator of the Universe, because the Creator of the Universe does not say the Inquisition is a `Holy Office’. If one knew God one would know what God thinks of the Inquisition. Of course we recall what 2 Thess 1. 8 says about those who do not know God – fire for those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of Jesus Christ. Your medieval theologian reasoned that since God tortured sinners in hellfire, therefore God’s True Church has the right to torture sinners – and worst sort of sinner in the eyes of your medieval theologian was someone who disagreed with him. But we don’t read in the New Testament that Christ and the apostles wanted the True Church to torture and murder people; there is lots of advice on loving and praying for your enemies in the New Testament, but the New Testament never advises anyone to torture and murder anyone. So, when you are looking for evidence of a falling away from the True Faith, then you begin your search in the 4th century, because this is when people under the sign of the cross began to torture and murder people because of religious disagreements.

 

Paul Johnson, a Roman Catholic, doesn’t whitewash any Protestant evils. He tells us that George Fox, the founder of the Quakers, supported slavery (presumably the African slave trade) and that John Wesley – the founder of Methodism – supported burning `witches’. The quotation marks are used because `witches’ were usually innocent women slandered as witches. Does it make any sense to say Fox and Wesley understood the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34? In former centuries, Catholics and Lutherans subjected the Anabaptists to the most frightful tortures. Therefore, these Catholics and Lutherans envisioned God to be the sort of God who wanted the Anabaptists subjected to the most frightful tortured, which might lead you to believe that these Catholics and Lutherans, though they insisted they worshipped the Creator of the Universe, actually worshipped evil deities, such as the dragon and the beast mentioned in Revelation 13. 1-8.

 

Protestantism rests on the logic that both Rome and Eastern Orthodox have fallen away from the True Faith, and neither is the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. If either Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy was the True Church, then, there would be no reason for any Protestant sect to exist. For century after century, when Christians fell to their knees to worship God, they envisioned God to be a deity who smiled upon the cruel jurisprudence of the Middle Ages, who smiled upon the African slave trade, who threw His full support behind the Inquisition, who approved the oppression of the peasantry by the nobles, who wanted women accused of witchcraft tortured to determine if in fact they were witches etc., etc. Therefore, one would think, that millions of intelligent 21st century Christians ought be able to understand that these barbarous Christians of former centuries worshipped things with evil attributes: they claimed to worship the True God, but, in fact, they worshipped evil things.

 

Rome says that Jesus is a Roman Catholic Deity. Rome says, that God says, that the Inquisition, the `Holy Office’, is indeed holy. Rome says, that God says, that Rome and only Rome is the True Church. Protestants say, that God says, that Rome has fallen away from the True Faith. Protestants say, that God says, the Inquisition was evil not holy.

 

So, you see, though Protestants and Catholics both claim to worship the Christian God, nevertheless, they don’t worship the same God.

 

It’s a paradox but the evils committed by people under the sign of the cross is evidence of fulfilled New Testament prophecies, and hence is evidence in favor of Christianity. The evils committed by people under the sign of the cross are, of course, not conclusive proof that Christianity is true! But these evils do corroborate some Christian prophecies. We’ve seen above that in 2 Thess 2 St. Paul made a prophecy that there would be a falling away from the True Faith. St. Paul states in Acts 20: 28-31,

 

`The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure fierce wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch and remember that over the course of three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.’

 

Again, suppose the True God is hostile to the sign of the cross and suppose the True God also supports 2 Thess 1. 8 – you’re damned if you don’t know God and if you don’t obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ – then if you worship a god who is pro-cross you worship a false god, because the True God is anti-cross. Recall that worshipping a false gods will lead you perdition. A false god who leads people to perdition is a beastly god. So, if the True God is a Christian God who is anti-cross, but if you worship a god who is pro-cross, then you worship a false god, hence you are bound for perdition. As we’ve seen, the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a Roman Catholic version of Jesus. If the True Jesus / True God says the Church of Rome leads souls to perdition, then the Roman Catholic crucifix is the image of a false god who leads souls to perdition. Whenever people fall to their knees and worship a false god, a false god that leads souls to perdition, then they can be said to be worshipping a beastly god, as it is beastly to lead people to perdition. When Christians think of all of the people in the world who worship false gods they might think of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, everyone who rejects Christianity. But if the True God / True Jesus is hostile to every Christian sect under the sign of the cross, then, when you worship a false god who is pro-cross, you worship a false and beastly god who leads souls to perdition. Apropos of these people who are led to perdition because they worship false and beastly gods, recall the multi-headed beast described in Revelation 13. 1-8,

 

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

 

 

 

The End

 

 

We’ve been over these things a thousand times, but let’s not throw our hands up and quit, at least not just yet. Try to remember Jeremiah 31. 31-34. Try to remember that you’re supposed to have a Divine Law written on your hearts. Try to remember that if you have the Divine Law written on your hearts then you will be able to teach religion and ethics with the authority of the Creator of the Universe. Try to remember that if you continue to think like half-wits then this is 100% proof that you don’t have the Divine Law written on your hearts, and therefore you are not True Christians, and therefore you are Phony Christians, and therefore you fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore you are heading towards damnation, towards perdition. An ignoramus can’t be a True Christian. And a True Christian can’t be an ignoramus, OK?

 

The End

 

We’ve been over and over and over the scriptures which tell us there is a True Church. But let’s do it again. Ephesians 5. 5. There is `one body’. Paul means there is one True Church. John 14. 23-26 says that those who love Christ keep His words. So, if you love Christ you will keep what He said in Matthew 16. 13-19, you know, that’s where Christ said He has founded His Church on a rock and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. This Church, which Christ founded on a rock, is the True Church. How many times have we been over Christ’s words at the Last Supper? Christ said: `This cup is My blood of the new covenant which is shed for the remission of sins of many.’ Christ’s words here are founded upon Jeremiah 31. 31-34, where God says He will write His new covenant on the hearts of His people. The people who have the new covenant written on their hearts are the True Church. Revelation 20. 15 mentions a Book of Life. If your name is written in the Book of Life then you are a member of the True Church. When a Christian says that there is no True Church then that Christian becomes like Judas. He betrays Christ and Christianity! To spit on John 14. 23-26, Matthew 16. 13-19, Ephesians 5. 5, Jeremiah 31. 31-34, to spit on Matthew 26. 28, Mark 14. 24 and Luke 22. 20 is to spit on Christianity. If you’re a baptized Christian who spits on Christianity then you’re a Judas, a son of perdition, a betrayer of Christ and Christianity. So, there is one True Church, OK? Got it? So, either the Roman Catholic Church is the True Church or else the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church. Is that so difficult to understand? If Rome is God’s True Church, then Rome leads souls to heaven, and everyone in the world should covert to Roman Catholicism and everyone in the world should obey Rome, obey the Pope, the bishop of Rome, and obey and the bishops in communion with the Pope. But if the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church, if Rome is a false church, not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has been corrupted, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, recall the `falling away’ mentioned in 2 Thess 2 – then Rome leads souls to perdition, in which case no one in the world should be a Roman Catholic. The same sort of logic applies to Eastern Orthodoxy, or to any other church for that matter. Protestantism can only make sense provided neither Rome nor Eastern Orthodoxy is the True Church. If both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy lead souls to perdition, if both have fallen away, if neither one is the Church which Christ founded on a rock, then, perhaps, Protestantism, or at least some sect, or sects, within Protestantism, is the True Church which leads souls to heaven. Let’s review some of the basics about the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. To this day Rome calls the Inquisition the `Holy Office’. It’s a sacrilege to say that evil things are holy, in case you weren’t aware of that. We read in The Jewish Encyclopedia,

 

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

 

If Rome is God’s True Church then venerate Capistrano as a saint. If the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church, is not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, if Rome has fallen away from the True Faith, and therefore Rome leads people to perdition, then have enough sense to renounce the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Protestantism is founded upon the premise which says neither the Church of Rome nor the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church which Christ founded on a rock: both have fallen away from the True Faith therefore both lead people to perdition. If you are someone who uses mediums to converse with the dead, and you conclude these dead people are in heaven, let me remind you that the Last Judgment comes after the Millenium, which comes after the Second Coming. We don’t know if these dead people you converse with will be damned or redeemed until the Last Judgment. But we try to make an educated guess. What is the True Faith? Who has fallen away from the True Faith?

Paul Johnson informed us in `A History of Christianity’,

 

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

 

So, obviously, this is evidence of a falling away from the True Faith. And the nice Christians under the sign of the cross who failed for century after century to excommunicate the evil Christians under the sign of the cross also fell away from the True Faith, because goods Christians are supposed to excommunicate evil Christians according to the True Faith.

And then you have to determine if the evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries are reflected in the sign of the cross, or, if the evils perpetrated by people carrying crosses over the centuries are divorced from the cross, because God says so, because God says the cross is pure and holy and sacred.

We know the New Testament says the cross of Christ is sacred. But this sacred cross of Christ is something spiritual. It is not material. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but to insist, to dogmatically insist, that a pagan instrument of torture, or a representation of one, to insist that a material cross is sacred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, when Christ and the apostles never took crosses as their symbols, and they never said material crosses were sacred, is insanity! Now you people come back at me and you say I’m insane. You say I’m a satanic ass. You say I teach people to commit sacrilege, and therefore you say I lead people to perdition, and this makes me a satanic ass….We all seem to agree that it is sacrilege when you declare that things which God says are evil are holy, or when you announce that things which God says are sacred are evil. Atheists excluded, we all seem to agree that the sin of sacrilege leads people straight to perdition.

Suppose a church tells you the cross is sacred, and suppose it tells you that you have nothing to fear if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, presumably to save yourself from the torments described in Revelation 9. But, then, if you end up burning in hell – burning in hell forever and ever! – because, it turns out, the cross is the mark of the beast, and not the seal of God, then, in this circumstance, we know that the church which told you the cross is sacred – the church which advised you to take the steps which would lead you to burn in hell forever! – is obviously a false church, yes obviously. The True Church never leads anyone to hell or perdition. The True Church can make some mistakes but she never makes the mistake of leading anyone to hell or perdition. If you end up burning in hell, because some church told you the cross is sacred, then you know that church is a false church, and you know it is not the True Church, and since it is a false church it is a church which leads people to perdition.

On the other hand, you might argue, if the cross is the seal of God, and if the sign of the cross / the seal of God, when placed on one’s forehead, saves one from the torments described in Revelation 9, then, obviously, any church or any person who tries to dissuade you from putting the mark of a cross on your forehead is diabolical!

So much depends on learning what exactly God thinks about the cross. So much depends on finding the True Church. Those people who have the Divine Law mentioned in Jeremiah 31. 31-34 inscribed on their hearts will know what to think about the cross. These people form the True Church! And, obviously, the members of the True Church will go to heaven, and they will not be led to perdition by heretics / false churches preaching false doctrines.

What are the chances that, should you put the mark of a cross on your forehead, or right hand, you will burn in hell forever? What are the chances that the mark of a cross is mark of the beast? And what are the chances that the mark of the cross is the seal of God? What are the chances that having the mark of a cross on your forehead will save you from the torments described in Revelation 9?’

Moderator – `Yeah, yeah, you’re repeating yourself. You do that a lot. We get it. You’re saying the Church of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy and every other church under the sign of the cross lead people to perdition and are therefore satanic. You’re saying the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a pro-Roman Catholic version of God / Jesus, therefore it is an image of a false version of Jesus – it’s the image of a version of Jesus who says Rome is the True Church and Rome upholds the True Faith – when in fact the True God / True Jesus says Rome has fallen away from the True Faith. We get all that. So let’s wrap this up. If the material cross is evil in the sight of God, if it is the mark of the beast, then you will burn in hell forever if you put the mark of a cross on your forehead or right hand. But if the cross is sacred to God, if it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, then, if you have the mark of a cross on your forehead you will save yourself from months of torment, as described in Revelation 9.’

`All right let’s get out of here. I gotta stop at this coffee bar across town to see this chick I met the other day. She’s only semi-good-looking but I rate her personality in the 9.5 to 9.7 range. Perhaps she has an outside shot at being a 10.0 but I doubt it. OK. Thanks, Protestants in Rock Island, thanks for showing up for the big 1st annual extravaganza:

The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults

I’ll give you people this much: at least you people in Illinois are not like those jackasses across the river in Iowa who made those retarded men slave for decade after decade in that hellish turkey processing plant in Atalissa. Or maybe some of you are responsible for that. Hell, I’m just the Moderator here. What do I know about you people? What do I know about your possible involvement in foul filthy satanic crimes against God and humanity?’

The End


The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults unde

The book deals with the True Faith and the falling away from the True Faith - 2 Thess 2. Christ said at the Last Supper: 'This cup is My blood of the new covenant...'. This refers to Jeremiah 31. 31-34, Isaiah 59. 20-21 and Ezekiel 36. 24-28. The new covenant, the new law, the Divine Law, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the True Faith are all different names for the same thing, at least IMHO. Those creeds which have fallen away from the True Faith, those philosophies / theologies which lead people away from heaven and to perdition can rightly be called malevolent and satanic. So what is the True Faith, and what has fallen away from the True Faith? What leads people to heaven? And what leads people to perdition?

  • Author: Bill Etem
  • Published: 2016-03-13 00:05:09
  • Words: 56246
The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults unde The Rock Island Symposium: Topics in Deviltry: The Satanic Protestant Cults unde