Pontius Pilate Vetoed Christianity

[Flanders]

Presidents should stay away from moralizing, and popes should stay away from economic pronouncements. Straying from their job descriptions always ends badly. Barack Taqiyya did his best to sell himself as the country’s moral compass and look how that turned out.

Popes must know that a politician, Pontius Pilate, crucified Jesus Christ for making political statements. Like all good politicians Pilate denied responsibility. Looking at the Crucifixion in political terms you might say that Pilate vetoed Christianity. History shows that his followers overrode the veto. History also shows that separating church and state is the only way to deal with this eternal truth:

Government and organized religion will always plague mankind.

America’s Founders codified a way to minimize the inherent evil in both; limit the government and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

The First Amendment guarded against any one Christian sect dominating the others. I like to think that America’s Founding Fathers also saw the First Amendment as a barrier against the priestly personality. At least one Founding Father expressed his understanding of the totalitarian nature of priests:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson

I think Jefferson would agree that today’s America is ridden with Socialist priests.

There’s never been a cleric of any stripe that did not believe in totalitarian government. If priests can’t have a theocracy similar to the partnerships between church and state that existed throughout history they settle for a junior partnership with government until they can take over. That’s why the First Amendment is every priesthood’s deadliest enemy. If every priest, mullah, rabbi, minister, and monk came together with the power to erase one concept from mankind’s psyche they would start with these 16 words:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .

Popes are priests. In the case of Pope Francis he spouted Marxist economics to attack the First Amendment. El Rushbo has it exactly right:

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is scorching the leader of the Roman Catholic Church for criticizing unfettered capitalism, saying, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.”

“You know the pope, Pope Francis has issued an official papal proclamation, and it’s sad,” Limbaugh said on his national broadcast Wednesday. “It’s actually unbelievable. It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth.”

Notice that Francis’ flirtation with Karl Marx cleverly makes the leap from “Thou shalt not” to Socialism’s “Thou shalt.”

Pope Francis called upon politicians to provide “dignified work, education and health care” to all citizens.

The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life,” wrote the pope. “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”

Click on the link to listen to a brief audio of Rush’s comments:

Rush Limbaugh scorches Pope Francis
'Very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about'
Published: 1 day ago
KATHY SHAIDLE

Rush Limbaugh scorches Pope Francis

Pope Francis is not in a position to legislate love. Sad to say he is committed to neutering the First Amendment by encouraging Socialists to do what he can’t do.

I am puzzled by this:

The Obama administration, in what’s been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See — a free-standing facility — and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy.

XXXXX​

It’s a “massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties,” said former U.S. Ambassador James Nicholson in the National Catholic Reporter. “It’s turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy. The Holy See is a pivot point for international affairs and a major listening post for the United States, and … [it’s] an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican.”

Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics
By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Obama?s call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics - Washington Times​

I’m not sure moving the embassy for whatever reason is an insult. Barack Taqiyya cannot be angry at the pope for stealing his thunder by preaching Marxist economics. Let’s be fair. Turnabout is fair play. Taqiyya was moralizing before Francis became pope.

The only thing I can figure is that Taqiyya is telling Catholics and Muslims that he prefers Islam’s brand of theocracy over the pope’s.

Finally, non-Catholic Americans should not give a rat’s ass about the pope’s economic opinions while every American, including Roman Catholics, should be afraid of a blossoming romance between the Vatican and America’s Socialist priesthood.

 

[Flanders]

I expected a vigorous defense of the Pope Francis’ economics. This article is one such defense:

December 1, 2013
What the Pope Really Said
By Gene M. Van Son

Articles: What the Pope Really Said

Capitalism operating in America’s original form of severely limited government did the most for the most people in the shortest period of time than did any other government in history. Compared to the government established by Colonial Americans it’s difficult to see a practical application of the pope’s beliefs. Indeed, which form of government is the pope offering? He doesn’t say.

As near as I can determine, based on his philosophical statements, he is offering a half-assed Christian theocracy with elements of Socialism thrown in to make it all palatable. That’s not even original.

At the beginning of the Cold War the folks on the Left said “Capitalism and Communism will meet in the middle and everything will be fine.” That idiocy qualifies as the most successful lie they ever told —— mainly because they said an economic system would meet a form of government in the middle. The primary problem among many is that equal distribution of the wealth stood in the way of the two meeting anywhere.

Incidentally, Judi McLeod over at Canada Free Press did a great piece that basically details religious fanatics behaving the way fanatics always behave:

“With flags and symbols of anarchistic and Left-extremist groups from the Spanish Civil War, youth attacked the school. With loud speakers the attackers shouted anti-Church slogans: “Where are the priests? We want to burn them at the stake!” “More public schools, less crosses.” The faculty of the Catholic school were insulted as “fascist whores”. Ten violent attackers managed to get into the school despite the efforts of teachers and security personnel.”

“Where are the priests? We want to burn them at the stake”
By Judi McLeod Sunday, December 1, 2013

?Where are the priests? We want to burn them at the stake?​

Leftist religious fanatics do not practice religious tolerance even though they are on the same page as Pope Francis:

In the 84-page document titled “Evangelii Gaudium,” which was released Tuesday, Pope Francis called upon politicians to provide “dignified work, education and health care” to all citizens.

Rush Limbaugh scorches Pope Francis​

It has taken Christian countries centuries to smooth off organized religion’s rough edges. Now Socialist/Communist fanatics and Muslim fundamentalists are hellbent on resurrecting the worst of organized religion. Frankly, if it was left up to me Socialist priests and Muslim clerics would be the ones burned at the stake.

 

[uhkilleez]

Admitting "Trickle Down" economics doesn't work ≠ Marxism.

There is no trickling down without collective bargaining, and there is no collective bargaining with government. Government either needs to limit itself to only regulating monopolies, which this country has plenty of, or it needs to keep spending to oblivion like it has been. I'd be willing to bet our leaders opt for the latter, no matter how conservative or liberal they are.

 

[WinterBorn]

I beg to differ on your assessment of Pontius Pilate. He did everything he could (short of risking a major riot) to free Jesus.

He delayed things until the holiday in which one prisoner was released, then put Jesus next to a scum criminal. Unfortunately, the crowd chose Barabas.

Pilate also showed his support for Jesus when he ordered the sign placed about Jesus' head that said "King of the Jews" (this is where the top upright portion f the modern cross comes from). The Jewish leaders wanted the sign changed to read "He said he was King of the Jews", but Pilate refused to change the sign.

 

[Flanders]

To WinterBorn: Looked at politically, I don’t see your position:

. . . Pontius Pilate, crucified Jesus Christ for making political statements. Like all good politicians Pilate denied responsibility. Looking at the Crucifixion in political terms you might say that Pilate vetoed Christianity.

Brush away the cobwebs of time and you’ll see that Pilate (Rome) had the power to stop the Crucifixion. He chose not to for political reasons.

I think you’re giving Pilate a nobility he does not deserve. Understandable when you look at what the passage of time does for villains. I can only ask if you would give a contemporary politician so lustrous a halo under equally dramatic circumstances?

In my own defense I was simply trying to get readers to evaluate the time period, the event, and the players responsible for the Crucifixion, in political terms. To my way of looking at it the Crucifixion made the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State a necessary adjunct to the First Amendment.

 

[uhkilleez]

To WinterBorn: Looked at politically, I don’t see your position:

. . . Pontius Pilate, crucified Jesus Christ for making political statements. Like all good politicians Pilate denied responsibility. Looking at the Crucifixion in political terms you might say that Pilate vetoed Christianity.

Brush away the cobwebs of time and you’ll see that Pilate (Rome) had the power to stop the Crucifixion. He chose not to for political reasons.

I think you’re giving Pilate a nobility he does not deserve. Understandable when you look at what the passage of time does for villains. I can only ask if you would give a contemporary politician so lustrous a halo under equally dramatic circumstances?

In my own defense I was simply trying to get readers to evaluate the time period, the event, and the players responsible for the Crucifixion, in political terms. To my way of looking at it the Crucifixion made the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State a necessary adjunct to the First Amendment.

In the gospels, it is very clear that Pilate was reluctant to kill Jesus and believed he did not conspire against Rome. You must remember that he served under Emperor Tiberius, and that both the people of Rome as well as the high Jewish officials were the ones whom wanted Jesus dead. The story of Pilate himself is irrelevant to your point! It was the Roman's deification of the Caesar which got Jesus into trouble for claiming himself the King of Jews.

I believe that you have a good point in that religion and government should remain separate, but it is why in which we disagree. It is our tendency to deify individual human beings which makes a coupling of the two extremely harmful. No matter the religion they follow, authoritarians always claim divine right to their power. This has been true for Judaism as well as Christianity. In all truth, it is due to the nature of man and politics, not to the nature of religion. Pilate did not veto Christianity, the Caesar and ancient Roman people did!

 

[Flanders]

In the gospels, it is very clear that Pilate was reluctant to kill Jesus and believed he did not conspire against Rome.

To uhkilleez: Are not the Gospels the foundation for believing priests?

What would you say about Pilate if you were writing the Gospels?

 

[PainefulTruth]

I beg to differ on your assessment of Pontius Pilate. He did everything he could (short of risking a major riot) to free Jesus.

He delayed things until the holiday in which one prisoner was released, then put Jesus next to a scum criminal. Unfortunately, the crowd chose Barabas.

Pilate also showed his support for Jesus when he ordered the sign placed about Jesus' head that said "King of the Jews" (this is where the top upright portion f the modern cross comes from). The Jewish leaders wanted the sign changed to read "He said he was King of the Jews", but Pilate refused to change the sign.

Pilate is viewed as one seeking justice for Jesus only by those who buy into how he's portrayed in the Bible. Paul (and others), in order to sell his Mithraic version of Christianity to Romans, cast him in a light favorable to those Romans. Other sources paint a much more brutal picture of him.

 

[uhkilleez]

In the gospels, it is very clear that Pilate was reluctant to kill Jesus and believed he did not conspire against Rome.

To uhkilleez: Are not the Gospels the foundation for believing priests?

What would you say about Pilate if you were writing the Gospels?

I wouldn't have wrote the gospels, and I don't need a priest, preacher, pastor, or any sort of organized religious figure to know God.

 

[Flanders]

Pilate is viewed as one seeking justice for Jesus only by those who buy into how he's portrayed in the Bible. Paul (and others), in order to sell his Mithraic version of Christianity to Romans, cast him in a light favorable to those Romans. Other sources paint a much more brutal picture of him.

To PainefulTruth: I always interpreted Pilate by asking myself how he would have handled the Crucifixion if he was running for reelection? My answer is always the same: Exactly as he did handle it.

I wouldn't have wrote the gospels, and I don't need a priest, preacher, pastor, or any sort of organized religious figure to know God.

To uhkilleez: Exactly so.

I am curious about your take on multiple gods. See the OP in this thread for some thoughts on the topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/251202-the-man-with-the-gun.html

 

[Flanders]

Defending the pope is heating up among the offended. Here’s another:

Of course, the term “trickle down” is politically charged in the United States, and while that term may be an adequate translation for the original Spanish term that Francis used (some suggest that it is not), it should not be understood in the same political manner that it might be used in an American magazine. In reality, the pope here is saying that even if free markets lead to economic growth, that by itself will not provide for the poor and needy. Catholics know this. They know that compassion, charity, and the rule of law are all prerequisites for justice and equity. The pope knows that too.

XXXXX​

Here, the leader of the Catholic Church is encouraging members of that church to avoid worshiping money, to feel compassion for the poor, and to engage in charity. His warnings about greed and materialism relate to constant temptations, and most people need to hear them on a regular basis. Catholics also believe that their religion requires good works. “Faith alone” is not a Catholic concept. Catholics are always urged to work for a more moral and just society.

XXXXX​

. . . the same paragraph in which the pope calls for a “better distribution of income”, he also derides the “simple welfare mentality.”

In paragraph 205, Francis most clearly sets forth his view that there is no inherent problem with business or economic development, provided that charity is also an important principal. The pope demands that Catholics work to find a better way to help the poor, but he stops short of saying how to do that. In the final analysis, it is left to the laity, through elected officials, to find resolutions to these problems. In this same paragraph he calls on those elected officials to turn to God as they seek just answers.

I’m not going to play catchup in the pope’s ballpark. Everything I read about the controversy indicates that Francis called for the government and businesses to do more for the poor. In short: Coerced charity. I would be less skeptical if the pope cited the Good Samaritan.

Note that businesses take a tax deduction for their charitable giving; so it amounts to coerced charity once removed when it passes through government hands.

Pope Francis unintentionally unleashed the philosophical conflict between coerced charity and the Good Samaritan. I’ll wager that he never saw that one coming. Frances, indeed all priests, favor coerced charity. Tax dollar tithing is the gentler phrase.

For the record. Jesus Christ was in the Good Samaritan’s corner.

This final excerpt lays down half-truths:

It should go without saying that Francis is a good Catholic. It is also certain that he is not a socialist.

Rush Limbaugh and the Pope
By Ronald J. Rychlak Monday, December 2, 2013

Rush Limbaugh and the Pope​

Popes are good Catholic totalitarians. Surely, Francis and his advisors looked at the success Socialist priests are enjoying in telling Americans how to behave, what to purchase, which parasites they must support, and so on. Envying the “success” of a rival priesthood dusted off this truism —— Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Francis appears to have a found a way to disguise the form of government he would like to imitate.

Is Francis a Socialist? I would not go that far.

Those who read my messages know that I recently said I was going to use the upper case S when I wrote Socialist, Socialism, etc., because every other religion is capitalized. Catholicism; Islam; Buddhism, and so on. Whether or not one accepts Socialism/Communism as a religion Pope Francis is closer to Socialism than he is to limited government.

 

[uhkilleez]

Pilate is viewed as one seeking justice for Jesus only by those who buy into how he's portrayed in the Bible. Paul (and others), in order to sell his Mithraic version of Christianity to Romans, cast him in a light favorable to those Romans. Other sources paint a much more brutal picture of him.

To PainefulTruth: I always interpreted Pilate by asking myself how he would have handled the Crucifixion if he was running for reelection? My answer is always the same: Exactly as he did handle it.

I wouldn't have wrote the gospels, and I don't need a priest, preacher, pastor, or any sort of organized religious figure to know God.

To uhkilleez: Exactly so.

I am curious about your take on multiple gods. See the OP in this thread for some thoughts on the topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/251202-the-man-with-the-gun.html

I think that a multiple Gods theory holds credence, but in a difficult sort of way. Upon the birth of this universe, all forces of nature were woven into one. This force is known as the Superforce, which comprises of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak nuclear force, and Strong nuclear force. At the beginning of the Planck Era, the Superforce was intact, matter and energy were as one, and space-time was bent and folded onto itself to fit within a singularity. By 10(-35 [this is a negative exponent]) seconds into the life of the universe, the Superforce had broken up, matter and energy became distinct, and space-time had unfolded and began to expand faster than the speed of light. Quantum physics had began to operate, and everything evolved into what it was destined to be, decided at the moment of the awakening. It was at this time, one supreme God split itself into multiple Gods.

When it comes to the pagan past of our ancestors, I will have to disagree with you on both points. You mentioned Greek mythology in your post as example, so I will use this instance to prove my point to you. Agamemnon was the Greek "King of Kings" whom identified himself with Zeus. He called himself "King of Kings" because of his conquests among the kingdoms of Greece, just as Zeus was the "God of Gods". Agamemnon went so far as to put Zeus into his own Genealogy, being that Tantalus was said, probably by Agamemnon himself, to be a son of Zeus and the nymph Plouto. The Trojans and their King Priam were worshipers of Apollo, the Sun God. This was only among many other differences between their cultures which created an "Us vs. Them" mentality, although it was ultimately Paris taking Helen of Sparta home with him which was the excuse for war. The point of it all is this; No matter the excuse for war and violence, the true motivator is power. The theocratic leaders of Muslims do not truly care about Islam being the one true religion, it is merely platform for them to base the violence on. At its heart, the true motive is conquest for power and domination. It is a very human attribute, and no matter what other endeavors we attempt to blame our wide scale violence on, it always comes down to power and domination. Whether we seek land, money, or slaves; these are all derivatives of power.

 

[editec]

If I was looking for advice about human dignity and freedom?

The FATHER of the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the guy I'd trust.

Anybody can SAY nice words, and most of us do, too

Talk is cheap.

 

[Flanders]

I think that a multiple Gods theory holds credence, but in a difficult sort of way. Upon the birth of this universe, all forces of nature were woven into one. This force is known as the Superforce, which comprises of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak nuclear force, and Strong nuclear force. At the beginning of the Planck Era, the Superforce was intact, matter and energy were as one, and space-time was bent and folded onto itself to fit within a singularity. By 10(-35 [this is a negative exponent]) seconds into the life of the universe, the Superforce had broken up, matter and energy became distinct, and space-time had unfolded and began to expand faster than the speed of light. Quantum physics had began to operate, and everything evolved into what it was destined to be, decided at the moment of the awakening. It was at this time, one supreme God split itself into multiple Gods.

When it comes to the pagan past of our ancestors, I will have to disagree with you on both points. You mentioned Greek mythology in your post as example, so I will use this instance to prove my point to you. Agamemnon was the Greek "King of Kings" whom identified himself with Zeus. He called himself "King of Kings" because of his conquests among the kingdoms of Greece, just as Zeus was the "God of Gods". Agamemnon went so far as to put Zeus into his own Genealogy, being that Tantalus was said, probably by Agamemnon himself, to be a son of Zeus and the nymph Plouto. The Trojans and their King Priam were worshipers of Apollo, the Sun God. This was only among many other differences between their cultures which created an "Us vs. Them" mentality, although it was ultimately Paris taking Helen of Sparta home with him which was the excuse for war. The point of it all is this; No matter the excuse for war and violence, the true motivator is power. The theocratic leaders of Muslims do not truly care about Islam being the one true religion, it is merely platform for them to base the violence on. At its heart, the true motive is conquest for power and domination. It is a very human attribute, and no matter what other endeavors we attempt to blame our wide scale violence on, it always comes down to power and domination. Whether we seek land, money, or slaves; these are all derivatives of power.

To uhkilleez: Whatever!

If I was looking for advice about human dignity and freedom?

The FATHER of the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the guy I'd trust.

Anybody can SAY nice words, and most of us do, too

Talk is cheap.

To editec: Coming from you I fear that it means you will look to the Socialist priesthood instead of looking inside yourself.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Pilate is viewed as one seeking justice for Jesus only by those who buy into how he's portrayed in the Bible. Paul (and others), in order to sell his Mithraic version of Christianity to Romans, cast him in a light favorable to those Romans. Other sources paint a much more brutal picture of him.

To PainefulTruth: I always interpreted Pilate by asking myself how he would have handled the Crucifixion if he was running for reelection? My answer is always the same: Exactly as he did handle it.

Roman procurators/governors etc. as a group felt pretty well insulated from the results of their everyday decisions the further they were from Rome. And they weren't always chosen for their intelligence (just look at our leaders today who are continually in a worldwide spotlight).

In any case, he wasn't running for re-election. Though it's almost certainly the Roman appointed priesthood were the ones that wanted him executed*, painting Pilate as giving a tinker's damn about anything but a Roman citizen is beyond credibility. He and all such rulers would have viewed displaying any kind of compassion as a sign of weakness--and from what we do know about him, he was almost certainly incapable of it in the first place.

*After Jesus' failure at the Temple, many of his followers would have felt duped and probably wanted him dead as well; or at least withdrew their support.

 

[theword]

Presidents should stay away from moralizing, and popes should stay away from economic pronouncements. Straying from their job descriptions always ends badly. Barack Taqiyya did his best to sell himself as the country’s moral compass and look how that turned out.

Popes must know that a politician, Pontius Pilate, crucified Jesus Christ for making political statements. Like all good politicians Pilate denied responsibility. Looking at the Crucifixion in political terms you might say that Pilate vetoed Christianity. History shows that his followers overrode the veto. History also shows that separating church and state is the only way to deal with this eternal truth:

Government and organized religion will always plague mankind.

America’s Founders codified a way to minimize the inherent evil in both; limit the government and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

The First Amendment guarded against any one Christian sect dominating the others. I like to think that America’s Founding Fathers also saw the First Amendment as a barrier against the priestly personality. At least one Founding Father expressed his understanding of the totalitarian nature of priests:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thomas Jefferson

I think Jefferson would agree that today’s America is ridden with Socialist priests.

There’s never been a cleric of any stripe that did not believe in totalitarian government. If priests can’t have a theocracy similar to the partnerships between church and state that existed throughout history they settle for a junior partnership with government until they can take over. That’s why the First Amendment is every priesthood’s deadliest enemy. If every priest, mullah, rabbi, minister, and monk came together with the power to erase one concept from mankind’s psyche they would start with these 16 words:



Popes are priests. In the case of Pope Francis he spouted Marxist economics to attack the First Amendment. El Rushbo has it exactly right:



Notice that Francis’ flirtation with Karl Marx cleverly makes the leap from “Thou shalt not” to Socialism’s “Thou shalt.”



Click on the link to listen to a brief audio of Rush’s comments:

Rush Limbaugh scorches Pope Francis
'Very clear he doesn't know what he's talking about'
Published: 1 day ago
KATHY SHAIDLE

Rush Limbaugh scorches Pope Francis

Pope Francis is not in a position to legislate love. Sad to say he is committed to neutering the First Amendment by encouraging Socialists to do what he can’t do.

I am puzzled by this:

The Obama administration, in what’s been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See — a free-standing facility — and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy.

XXXXX​

It’s a “massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties,” said former U.S. Ambassador James Nicholson in the National Catholic Reporter. “It’s turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy. The Holy See is a pivot point for international affairs and a major listening post for the United States, and … [it’s] an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican.”

Obama’s call to close Vatican embassy is ‘slap in the face’ to Roman Catholics
By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Obama?s call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics - Washington Times​

I’m not sure moving the embassy for whatever reason is an insult. Barack Taqiyya cannot be angry at the pope for stealing his thunder by preaching Marxist economics. Let’s be fair. Turnabout is fair play. Taqiyya was moralizing before Francis became pope.

The only thing I can figure is that Taqiyya is telling Catholics and Muslims that he prefers Islam’s brand of theocracy over the pope’s.

Finally, non-Catholic Americans should not give a rat’s ass about the pope’s economic opinions while every American, including Roman Catholics, should be afraid of a blossoming romance between the Vatican and America’s Socialist priesthood.

All governments and religions came from God's plan called the beast. Through the beast, God taught man how to build things until we had the latest technology in place today to help us understand our invisible existence as energy. This is the Heavenly Kingdom that God's saints spoke about.

 

[daws101]

to the op why are all your posts bold face?
do you have eye trouble or is it for some imagined dramatic effect?

 

[Flanders]

All governments and religions came from God's plan called the beast. Through the beast, God taught man how to build things until we had the latest technology in place today to help us understand our invisible existence as energy. This is the Heavenly Kingdom that God's saints spoke about.

To theword: I have no idea what in hell you’re talking about —— and I don’t want to know.

why are all your posts bold face?

To daws101: So assholes like you will stop reading my messages.

 

[daws101]

All governments and religions came from God's plan called the beast. Through the beast, God taught man how to build things until we had the latest technology in place today to help us understand our invisible existence as energy. This is the Heavenly Kingdom that God's saints spoke about.

To theword: I have no idea what in hell you’re talking about —— and I don’t want to know.

why are all your posts bold face?

To daws101: So assholes like you will stop reading my messages.

well, it's having the opposite effect, look who's an asshole now....

 

[uhkilleez]

I think that a multiple Gods theory holds credence, but in a difficult sort of way. Upon the birth of this universe, all forces of nature were woven into one. This force is known as the Superforce, which comprises of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak nuclear force, and Strong nuclear force. At the beginning of the Planck Era, the Superforce was intact, matter and energy were as one, and space-time was bent and folded onto itself to fit within a singularity. By 10(-35 [this is a negative exponent]) seconds into the life of the universe, the Superforce had broken up, matter and energy became distinct, and space-time had unfolded and began to expand faster than the speed of light. Quantum physics had began to operate, and everything evolved into what it was destined to be, decided at the moment of the awakening. It was at this time, one supreme God split itself into multiple Gods.

When it comes to the pagan past of our ancestors, I will have to disagree with you on both points. You mentioned Greek mythology in your post as example, so I will use this instance to prove my point to you. Agamemnon was the Greek "King of Kings" whom identified himself with Zeus. He called himself "King of Kings" because of his conquests among the kingdoms of Greece, just as Zeus was the "God of Gods". Agamemnon went so far as to put Zeus into his own Genealogy, being that Tantalus was said, probably by Agamemnon himself, to be a son of Zeus and the nymph Plouto. The Trojans and their King Priam were worshipers of Apollo, the Sun God. This was only among many other differences between their cultures which created an "Us vs. Them" mentality, although it was ultimately Paris taking Helen of Sparta home with him which was the excuse for war. The point of it all is this; No matter the excuse for war and violence, the true motivator is power. The theocratic leaders of Muslims do not truly care about Islam being the one true religion, it is merely platform for them to base the violence on. At its heart, the true motive is conquest for power and domination. It is a very human attribute, and no matter what other endeavors we attempt to blame our wide scale violence on, it always comes down to power and domination. Whether we seek land, money, or slaves; these are all derivatives of power.

To uhkilleez: Whatever!

What an eloquent and enlightened response...