Saturday, November 24, 2007

to learn to love: my 1st book

I, GERRY LINDGREN, THE AUTHOR, GRANT PERMISSION FOR MY REVISED BOOK TO BE REPRINTED IN WHOLE AS LONG AS APPROPRIATE CREDITS ARE GIVEN:
TO LEARN TO LOVE


BY


GERRY ALAN LINDGREN


574-52-0295




CONTENTS
Foreword
1. To Learn to Love
2. Freedom
3. Leadership
4. Morals and Values
5. The U.S.A.: Constitutional and Civil Rights-21st Century
6. Switzerland: The Leading Land of Human Rights?
7. A Look at Leviticus
8. What is Sin?
9. The Biblical Truth of Sodom and Gomorrah
10. Saul of Tarsus VS. Jesus’ 12 Apostles
11. Infant Baptism: What did Jesus believe?
12. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Brief Synopsis
13. The Solution to Terrorism
14. Social Evolution or Social Revolution
15. Auspices of Armageddon
16. Freeing Ourselves from Ourselves
Acknowledgments
Notes



1
FOREWARD
The meaning of life is a question that was once asked of me from an unknown person via a computer personal ad. It took several weeks for me to meditate upon the answer and after much prayer, meditation, and thought, an answer came to me and the response was: To learn to love and to realize the interconnectedness of all living things. Subsequently, that is the main theme of this book. To be able to achieve this, a person must become connected with the cosmos in the sense that the whole universe is made of many parts, yet from the galaxies galore to leptons and quarks, we are all part of "the one" which in theology is Creation and in others is Evolution.
To me, Evolution is a part of the Creative Process begun by a higher power and seems the most logical scenario. The imperative of this book is not; I repeat, not to change any person’s ideology (set of ideas) whether they are political, economic, educational, religious (spiritual) or any others. Rather, the purpose is to attempt to have people critically examine their personal reality and look for consistencies and inconsistencies in their individual ideologies and within their complete set of ideologies to reach a higher level of awareness and self-actualization on a personal level and as part of "the one". In no way whatsoever is the motive to force anyone to change any belief system(s) that they have unless they themselves wish so. Indeed this book will discuss controversial issues and challenge already accepted ideologies from a Western Cultural viewpoint.
The reason for this is being a person from Western Culture and attempting to rise to a higher level of consciousness, I had to look inside myself, pray, meditate, and examine what I accepted as truth and to critically analyze the logic and love of how I viewed myself, other people, the world, and the universe and to understand how my personal ideologies were creating my individual reality.
I had to realize this in order to acknowledge how illusionary a reality may be for every specific individual who has ever lived and who ever will live. The illusionary reality of a person veils insight and mixes the objective, dimensional aspects of reality with that of an individual’s complete set of ideologies that are very subjective. To reach a more sacred level, one must realize this most basic fact and adjust accordingly. It is very difficult to accomplish this, yet possible for every single individual, group and Nation. There are moments of pain and happiness in becoming more enlightened and illuminated to what is truly occurring within one’s reality and the society and world in which one lives. Nevertheless, this achievement of an individual(s) is the greatest gift a person may give themselves as they now have freed themselves from themselves due to the unveiling of ideologies from reality.
When a person has accomplished this mission, it is as if a blind person has seen for the first time. Reality has now been revealed. The topics in this book will affect different people in different ways from profound to contempt due to how open an individual’s mind is. There is no greater dignity and love than saving a human beings life and this may be done through multiple methods, one being the gift of knowledge, and that is what this gift is for.
To reach the sacred, a person must understand the profane in order to see the difference. An example of this is when people reach the point of death and have a few moments of reflection; they realize for the first time that the main purpose in life is love, yet, how tragic it took so long to see this most important concept of life. Hopefully, this book will assist people to reach this level of self-actualization much sooner and the selective topics were specifically chosen for this most basic of reasons, freedom from the distorted realities that people create for themselves by having their specific ideologies block them from objective realities. Ideologies have always existed and always will in human history and have their appropriate positions in human beings lives, yet love is the only true ideology and that is the motive for this whole book.
NOTE: ALL BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES CITED IN THIS BOOK ARE SUMMARIZATIONS OF ALL BIBLES AND ANY DIFFERENCES ARE MINIMAL AND SPECIFIC TO THE RELIGION THAT PUBLISHES SUCH SPECIFIC BIBLE.
ALL REFERENCES ARE FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org
ALL QUOTATIONS ARE TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING SITE:
http://www.quotationspage.com/about.html#disclaimer
Disclaimer: To the best of our knowledge, all quotations included here fall under the fair use or public domain guidelines of copyright law in the United States. If you believe that any quotation violates a copyright you hold or represent, we will immediately remove it upon notification pending good-faith resolution of any dispute.
1
TO LEARN TO LOVE
The meaning of life is so simple and is able to bring people a perspicacious understanding of why we the peoples are here. This is the answer: To learn to love and to realize the interconnectedness of all living things. This includes inanimate objects that although appearing inert, have atoms in infinite dynamic motion. Incredulously, the meaning of life is rejected by many people, especially ones in hierarchal political and religious positions (the Pulpit of Power) that utilize the human creations of ideologies (as previously stated: sets of ideas) to delude and stratify people to believe the illusion that we are different from one another in order for the people in the Pulpit of Power to retain power and control in all forms: political, economics, education and religious (spirituality).
The Pulpit of Power’s objective is to create insalubrious schisms among the populace in order to maintain their titles with the money, social status, power, and ego in a delicate balance so that the people who are oppressed by their policies and susceptible to social injustices do not fulminate or rebel.
There is a fine line that the Pulpit of Power walks and when they eventually oppress too many people (as they historically have always done), then revolution occurs. Revolution only multiplies and increases the social injustices that the Pulpit of Power procures due to overreactions by the oppressed to the oppressors. This is a concentric paradigm that perpetuates itself throughout history and all societies at every level. This is not an acrimonious discussion on any specific ideology; rather, the imperative is to bring people to an awareness, enlightenment, illumination, understanding, and the truth that life is not inscrutable and that the most profound answers that we seek are already here and easy to see if we break free from the ideologies that we have been taught from previous generations.
To break free from ideologies does not imply nor suggest that we should not have beliefs in ideas; instead, this means to put aside our own individual and cultural ideologies when treating other people, animals, all forms of life, and the earth. We the peoples must allow the freedom that we all desire, including the freedom not to be free, to be obtainable for every other individual, group and every form of life that exists. This will be a cogent, veracious, salubrious, and succinct evaluation about learning to love and realizing that even though we are all individuals, we are, if you will, one with the universe. Love is summarily defined as a deep preference and affection for someone. To do something for someone a person has a deep preference for without expecting anything in return. Yet, to love at the highest and most sacred level involves doing something for somebody one has no affection for without expecting anything in return. To know the meaning of the term "love" is not the same as learning to love. Human Beings are creatures that immensely learn from observation of others in addition to biological influences.
To learn to love requires effort and a complete openness to others. If we the peoples choose to learn to love then the solutions to most, if not all of the worlds major problems will be solved. Most all our knowledge today is the culmination of hundreds, thousands, if not millions of years of human history and has consistently changed, especially in the past century. This knowledge for the most part come from people who are now deceased from this plane of existence; therefore, a course of wisdom is to critically examine our knowledge of today in order to come to a more realistic perspective of what it means to love by an in-depth examination of the sociological and historical perspectives of the people who preceded us, thereby teaching us "their" knowledge. Ironically, this probably involves going back into human history during the historic period of time when tribal people lived according to the philosophy that each individual was a part of the earth themselves and the spirit of Animism (all objects, living and non-living, in essence, nature, have a living soul, exists, and is separate from matter) and Reciprocity (sacred summarization: the way we live and treat living and non-living beings and objects spiritually returns equally to people good and bad in this profane existence). All life was important for them in this profane existence so that when they reached the sacred, they would have a smooth travel through the spiritual realm.
Loving other people, animals, the earth, and oneself is indomitable. First, an individual must learn to love oneself and then that opens the door to the greatest love of all, loving other people and the planet, and that is what spirituality truly is. If one can accept what happens to a person whom they do not know halfway across the world to their most beloved, then one has learned to love and attained credibility, dignity, honour, and respect. However, the inchoate, adroit individual and/or group that teaches and encourages people to be unloving, insidious, insouciant, fatuous, arrogant, full of malice, and promote these treacherous, diseased beliefs to others by means of blithering, vituperative, loquacious, and invective propaganda, rhetoric, deceit and duplicity will eventually succumb to defeat and powerlessness simply by people loving one another.
The perfect example of this is the “man” who existed over 2,000 years ago, at being the man named Jesus. Whether one believes that Jesus is God, the Son of God, a Great Prophet, just a man, or (atrociously) a heretic, everyone must remember this: The majority of the society at the time of Jesus’ life on earth approved of his trail, mocking, torture, and murder (Luke Chapter 23). If a society at any given time may do that to someone with no credibility issues due to political and religious ideologies, then this identical scenario is possible for anyone and everyone who ever lives in any society at any historic period of time. Nevertheless, eventually love still conquered hate in respect to the person of Jesus and his teaching of love as the greatest commandment of why we the peoples are here.
This teaching of love is common throughout all religions and their great leaders who have previously existed such as: Siddhartha (Buddha), Mohammed, Mahatma Gandhi, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to name a few. Even if one has another form of spirituality, love is still the main theme that we all share and should emulate.
The current perversion of spirituality by hierarchal religious and political organizations are the subsequent result of the followers of the previous mentioned great religious leaders distorting and manipulating what they were taught in order to achieve power and control over other people and is not love in any true sense whatsoever. When some people see an opportunity to have power and control over other people, they usually misuse religion to "morally" justify their objectives. Loving one another involves the knowledge and freedom of knowing the "power of one" and the domino effect that it will have upon the rest of society. This takes so much courage and strength as the first few who realize that we are free and stand up to the pernicious policies of the Pulpit of Power will face extreme opposition and must be strong enough to withstand their fury until enough people can see the distinction between love and hate. Despite the vicissitudes of societies and pertinacious people, the only ideology that prevails over all others and can not be discredited is love. The reason for this is that love brings freedom, efficaciousness, tranquillity, equanimity, and epiphanies. From the microcosmic motion of atoms to the macrocosmic motion of the universe, we have always and will always be one. How we treat one another, the animals, the earth, and all forms of life near and far will reveal what is in our hearts and how much we have progressed as a human species in addition to the natural reciprocity that is achieved. We are all connected to one another by means that we currently scientifically understand and in ways that will someday be revealed to us.
When one sees the beautiful blue circle of the earth from space, there are no boundaries except for geographical ones. Astronauts who have been in space and returned usually come to a clearer, more complete and comprehensive understanding of the oneness and interconnectedness of all the species here on the earth. The milieu of today’s political, economic; education and religious (spirituality) world are divisive and destructive. A pensive awareness that what is permitted to happen to one or a group at any time due to any form of ideology is frightening as the effects will reverberate to every single form of life in one way or another, indirectly or directly, until people become so disillusioned that they become effete to stand up for what is right. Instead, they only stand up for what is convenient due to societal pressures.
Like dropping a pebble into a pond, what society as a whole does has a ripple effect upon each and every one of us as well as the globe in which our survival as a species is dependent on. The pollution of our fresh water supply is an example of how we the peoples are living in a devastating manner due to not realizing the consequences of being unaware of the intricate interconnectedness of all living things; therefore, we are leading ourselves on a path of self-destruction.

The reciprocity of how we live and treat other beings in this profane existence of life on this planet is more powerful than most people currently see. The problem is that most people are linear thinkers due to the world's education systems set up to teach people to perpetuate the systems currently in place that inoculate and ingrain into our minds as youths ideologies specific to such specific Nation State before we have attained the cognitive abilities to critically examine what we are being taught . Therefore, most people see only with their eyes. To completely see with clarity, we must see with our heart, soul, spirit, and mind.
Additionally, we must have empathy, and hopefully, sympathy for other people and other forms of life exponentially increasing love to greater levels. This is because love multiplies love to depths of understanding that eventually will lead us to the sacred.
Subsequently, to learn to love and to realize the interconnectedness of all living things is the simple answer to all the questions of significance that a person of any political, economic, education and religious (spirituality) ideologies is required before the world ever sees the actualization of peace, security, harmony, and equality.

An example of this is to summarize Jesus Christ’s "golden rule" in Matthew 7:12 of doing unto others as we would like done upon ourselves. We must love others and know that what happens to that person halfway across the world that we do not know does affect us as part of the "one" even in the most indirect possible way. Loving ourselves is the first step and we are free to do so if we break free from all egregious ideology and to know that each of us has the power to do so. Egregious ideology is any ideology that infringes on another’s freedom and harms anything on the planet.
The amazing truth is that we are free to be ourselves if we choose to understand that the morals, values, ethics, and truth of today have evolved and been modified throughout history. This is due to the dynamics of the political, economic, educational and religious (spirituality) ideologies that originated from people hundreds, thousands, and millions of years ago through oral tradition that was written down at least decades later. Once we choose to realize how these "truths" came to be, then we ourselves as individuals and as part of "the one" become free.
These ideologies were taught in order for the Pulpit of Power to have power and control over the populace in order to delude them into a sense of powerlessness and devastating distinctiveness so that they would not unify in love and against inequality. Then, to re-emphasize a very critical point, the Pulpit of Power misuses religion to "moralize" their power, control and dominance. Nevertheless, the power and application of love by the populace is something that even the most powerful of people and groups cannot stop and is a freedom that words alone are incapable of describing. To love ourselves, other peoples, ones whom we do not understand, as well as the animal kingdom and the earth’s eco-system, simultaneously realizing that we are all interconnected brings self-actualization and an in-depth understanding of our purpose in this profane existence.
This awareness and application will be taught to other people through observation and education and will have a positive ripple effect upon the rest of the world that will never be impeded upon by any individual and/or group. Rather than the truculent Pulpit of Power and people that are supercilious towards others, we will have what is inside of all of our hearts and that is love, if we choose to be free. Today, that will require courage, dignity, integrity, and honour as well as contempt for the ones who repudiate love. Nevertheless, this chapter is a prolegomena to the answers that we all seek.
Let us individually and collectively learn to love and to realize the interconnectedness of all living things and teach that to others by the means of example, observation and education. Most people desire to know this and to be comforted with support by others and will eventually realize this most basic truth, although frequently it takes until one reaches the point of death to finally accept that the main purpose of life is love.
Eventually, love will conquer hate as it always has. If the majorities of people attain, accept, and apply this wonderful knowledge, then it becomes inexorable and indissoluble. We the peoples will then be truly free and will be able to achieve the sacred here upon the earth.





2
FREEDOM
Freedom is something that the majority of peoples have sought, fought, and died for throughout history. All societies and cultures in their historic periods of time have desired freedom even if they were prevented from seeing its actualization. Freedom can be summarized by this: the right of being afforded the opportunities to make any and all choices without oppression, control, interference, and influence from an individual or group, powerful or powerless. This includes actions, speech, and any form of expression that a person chooses to exercise in the peoples’ right to the "free will" that most of the world believes that GOD Himself has gifted to humanity and what the rest of the people of the world considers a universal right. A right is factual truth. Civil Rights are legal entitlements of every citizen.
A right would subsequently be just. The definition of Just is something true and/or correct, or even to make something wrong correct. This leads us to two other terms that are critical for this chapter, liberty and democracy. Liberty is freedom. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing. This includes political and religious freedoms. In the United States of America (U.S.A.), freedoms are protected by the Bill of Rights, a section of the U.S.A. Constitution.

Listed below is the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
DOES THIS 4th AMENDMENT SOUND LIKE "THE PATRIOT ACT" IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL?
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States , than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Prepared by Gerald Murphy (Cleveland Free-Net - aa300). Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN). Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National Public Telecomputing Network.
Democracy is government by the subjects of such government that has the freedom and right to vote and elect people as representatives of their particular area. This is majority rule subsequently resulting in that whoever receives more votes in a particular area will be the designated authority in government for all the people of the region, whether they voted for that person or not. The most important aspect to remember about a democracy is that it comes from the common people who truly have all the power if they are not stuporous to the Machiavellian Pulpit of Power techniques and utilize their power to vote for veracious people as leaders.
The common people are defined as the following for this discussion: bourgeois=middle class and proletariat=working class. The bourgeois and proletariat of any given society must unify and reject the divisiveness and distinctiveness that the Pulpit of Power (political, economics, education and religious (spirituality) utilizes and then misuses religion to "morally" justify their oppressive polices and objectives that usually harm them. The Pulpit of Power’s malodorous, selfish, and predilection to legislating and enforcing laws that primarily benefit the elite who already have money, power, affluence, social status and control is pernicious, indeed. Therefore, with that as a basic assumption, the peoples must unify against the vituperative, supercilious, invective, and psychotic people in the Pulpit of Power to exercise their right to vote instead of indolence in order for us to achieve efficaciousness so that we all become inexorably free.
In 1912, former United States of America President Woodrow Wilson had this to say about liberty; therefore, the primary element of democracy:
"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental powers, not the increase of it."
Former President Wilson’s wonderful words imply that we the peoples must unify against distinctiveness and divisiveness and realize that the fight for freedom of one group of people includes the fight for freedom for all groups of people. Why would that be so? Well, read this quote from an unknown person who was oppressed by Hitler (who was half Jewish and half Austrian: a fascinating psychological point that will be further discussed in the next paragraph) and the small, but radical and powerful Nazi regime:
"First the Nazi's came for the Jews, but I did not speak up for I was not a Jew. Next they came for the Unionists, and again I did not speak up, for I was not in a Union. Then they came for the Communists, and still I did not speak up. Finally when they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me".
This is what the quote was referring to:
The Jewish Holocaust: (1938-1948 A.D.) Hitler and his small (the reason the term “small” is used will be explained later in this book) group of extremist Nazis "morally" justified their evil tortuous, imprisonment, and murderous policies towards the Israeli people, political dissidents, religious dissidents, homosexuals, and others based upon his misuse, lies, distortions, manipulations and gross misinterpretations of Biblical teachings for his political objectives. One of these is in his belief that the 3rd Reich would last 1,000 years. This is identical to what is written in the Bible book of Revelation where Christ would return and rule the Earth for 1,000 years.
(A NOTE ON HITLER: COULD HIS LIKELY FEELING OF REJECTION BY HIS JEWISH FATHER AT A YOUNG AGE FROM HIS AUSTRIAN MOTHER, HIS EARLY ADULT LIFE REJECTION BY ARTISTS AS A PAINTER, AND HIS EARLY ADULT LIFE POLITICAL REJECTION WHEN HE WROTE "MEIN KAMPF" WHILE IMPRISIONED HAD ANY CONSCIOUS AND/OR SUBCONSCIOUS AFFECT UPON HIS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY ONCE HE BECAME POWERFUL?)
NOTE: ADOLF HITLER, AFTER BECOMING CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY, OBVIOUSLY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DESTROY THE PROOF OF HIS JEWISH ANCESTRY ON HIS PATRILINEAL LINEAGE AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING FOR HIS JEWISH-AUSTRIAN ETHNICITY TO BE REVEALED WHILE PROMOTING A PROGANDA EFFORT AGAINST THE ISRAELI PEOPLE WITH THE PRE-EXISTING ANTI-SEMITISM IN GERMANY (INCLUDING THE GERMAN PUBLIC’S DISGUST WITH THE TREATY OF VERSILLES THAT FORCED GERMANY TO TAKE MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORLD WAR 1 AFTER THEIR DEFEAT BY THE ALLIES). IN FACT, HITLER, BEING AUSTRIAN, HAD TO BE GRANTED GERMAN CITIZENSHIP TO EVEN BE POLITICALLY ELECTED INTO OFFICE THAT HE EVENTUALLY TRANSFORMED INTO A DICTATORSHIP.

There are far more people in a society that are oppressed by the Pulpit of Power than are free from their policies and objectives. Subsequently, if the majority of the people who are oppressed by the treacherous and occasionally diseased, opaque agenda of the Pulpit of Power by realizing that one person or group’s fight for freedom is the same fight for freedom for all persons and groups will lead to true freedom, liberty, equality, and rights for all. This redundancy is essential until we the peoples understand this most basic concept that will lead to true harmony upon the human species despite our slight differences.
The Pulpit of Power attempts to retain power and control through divisive and egregious tactics (rhetoric and propaganda) that we are different races (how strange since many religions teach that we all descend from 1 original pair of human beings), sexes (how strange since it takes a male and female to complete conception of a human being), sexual orientations (how strange since most scientists now believe this is genetic and can be traced to a specific gene in the human genome), social status’ (how strange since in most situations, this is only the luck of the draw) and ideologies (how strange since these are sets of ideas that are derived from human social creations) that restrain people from freedom in order for the bourgeois and proletariat to unify against inequality by realizing that we share the most basic of all things, biology, despite our geographic, social, and economic status’. As stated above and worth repeating, according to most religions of the world, we all descend from the same original human pair, therefore, according to those ideological and theological beliefs; we are all part of one world-wide family.
If the bourgeois and proletariat collectively realize that we are far more powerful than the Pulpit of Power, then we will unify, period. True power comes from knowledge and exercising this knowledge through action. In a Democracy, this means voting for people who will continue to correct what is wrong in a specific society to bring equality for every single citizen while simultaneously maintaining the aspects of such society that are good. Unfortunately, this does not imply that there will not be differences in economics and social status’ unless we the peoples are governed by the sacred. What this means is that freedom and liberty will be actualized in a Democracy if the bourgeois and proletariat elect loving ones who become part of the Pulpit of Power and legislate laws affording all citizens equality and opportunities in life. A result of freedom and liberty that Democracy will bring about if the bourgeois and proletariat exercise their authority to vote raises the statistical probability of maintaining freedom and to keep improving our society and eventually assisting other Nations of the world to achieve similar results.
This brings us back to what freedom truly is and how difficult it is to maintain if the bourgeois and proletariat become effete to the Pulpit of Power and allows them to effectively take away our rights one by one via fear tactics, propaganda, rhetoric, and media control. When the freedom of people is threatened and attacked through depredation and deceit by the Pulpit of Power, then the bourgeois and proletariat must act for the common good of all people. Instead of being obsequious to ones whom we may erroneously feel inferior to within the Pulpit of Power, we must act in a collective effort to correct what is wrong pertaining to social injustice if the Pulpit of Power is inactive in order to bring back the freedom that we all deserve. The Pulpit of Power’s authority is derived from the bourgeois and proletariat. Therefore, the bourgeois and proletariat are cumulatively more powerful than the Pulpit of Power if they exercise their right to vote for justice and not be divided through illusionary tactics that we are different from one another.
Listed below will be 7 examples in U.S.A. history that emphasizes how precious freedom is. To fight for freedom is much more the historical record because it is rarely given to people as can easily be seen just by these few examples, and that if freedom is taken away from one American, despite our differences, than it sets a legal precedent to happen to any American. Perhaps it may relate to a corrupt authority figure within the Pulpit of Power at any level who is having a divorce from their husband or wife and are fighting for custody of their children. Perhaps the motive is business. Perhaps the motive is political. Or perhaps the motive is an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend among heterosexuals or homosexuals. The motive could even be religious, or perhaps the motive is jealousy and revenge. There are an endless possibility of motives for corruption (or any human action, good or bad, powerful or powerless, and if we the peoples do not recognize that what happens to even one single American citizen may come back to us, even being “different" from the other one, then we are doomed to lose civil rights and civil liberties forever and for everyone).
The most important point is that even if we are “different”, in the U.S.A., we are all Americans and fall under the same laws and what happens to an American could happen to any other American. To prove the points just given, think about these issues and their brief synopsis:
ALL REFERENCES ARE FROM:
http://EN.WIKEPEDIA.ORG
1) The U.S.A. Revolutionary War (1775-1783) The British Empire (U.K.), under King George III, versus the 13 British Colonies, later named the United States of America (U.S.A.), the “rebels”, who fought for freedom from the U.K. and with the help of the French Government, and primarily the assistance of the French navy and other Nations, eventually defeated the British under the command of General George Washington. This war ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris where the U.K. and King George III recognized the 13 Colonies as Independent (and other Nation States) and this was ratified by the U.S.A. Congress in 1784. In 1789, the U.S.A. Constitution was ratified and a few years later, the Bill of Rights.
2) The U.S.A. Suffrage Movement (1776-1920) The right of women to be considered equal to men and specifically, in the United States of America (U.S.A.), to have the right to vote that was then “legal” to exclude women from participating. The American Movement began in New Jersey in 1776 and did not end until 1920 when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified (mainly due to Democratic President Woodrow Wilson’s political influences) when women first had the opportunity to vote in an American Presidential election. There are many female inspirations of this movement such as Susan B. Anthony.
3) The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) This was a series of events and reform movements to end racial discrimination against African-Americans in the U.S.A., mainly in Alabama and the Southern States, led by the heroic efforts of Rosa Parks that subsequently led to the successful Montgomery, Alabama Bus boycotts (1955-1956), that resulted in the emergence of the Reverend, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other similar movements led by activists such as Malcolm X. This led to “Noted achievements of the Civil Rights Movement are the legal victory in the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case that overturned the legal doctrine of "separate but equal" and made segregation legally impermissible, passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations, passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that restored voting rights, passage of the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 which dramatically changed U.S. immigration policy, and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.”
http://wikepedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement_ (1955-1968).

Numbers Chapter 12:1-15:
Moses black (Cushite) wife and God reproving Moses’ brother Aaron, a priest, and Moses’ sister Miriam with a punishment of 7 days leprosy and isolation for their racism and criticism of who Moses chose as a wife. Some people attempt to state that this is symbolic. Yet, where is the Biblical proof of what is symbolic and what is not symbolic as these same people use the “Curse on Canaan” for the same “race”?
4) Stonewall Rebellion (June 28, 1969) A series of confrontations between homosexual and transgender people versus the police and other law enforcement agencies in New York City, who initiated this discrimination and harassment of them (corruption). The police and other law enforcement agencies aggression towards the homosexual community were due to probable psychological sexual insecurities. They noticeably raided gay bars and locations starting in the 1930’s. Ironically, in the beginning few decades of the early 20th Century, homosexuality was rarely mentioned and the term “gay” meant something else. Homosexuals had much more freedom at this time in U.S.A. history until the 1930’s “religious movement” as can be seen just by viewing films in the U.S.A. movie industry portrayal of homosexuals, until the late 1960’s, when law enforcement agencies targeted and entrapped gay men and this precipitated what occurred in New York City that triggered a “Gay Rights Movement”. The Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City’s Greenwich Villiage, was specifically targeted by law enforcement, especially against “effeminate” men and arrested them. This resulted in confrontations between the homosexual community and law enforcement agencies that inspired the creation of the Gay Liberation Front and this movement spread throughout the rest of the world, especially Europe. This ideological confrontation is still strong in the U.S.A., although it is losing much of its steam and likely will continue on this path similar to what is happening in Northern and Central Europe and other parts of the world, ironically, largely due to the growth of Capitalism and Globalization where businesses become multi-national and the laws afforded to companies’ employees will be applicable in any Nation State.
5) Vietnam War Protests (1960’s-1970) The American opposition and protests to the U.S.A. government’s involvement in the Vietnam War that really began in 1945. This preceded the 1960’s, yet drew National attention, most notably, with Muslim, African-American World Boxing Champion Muhammad Ali’s opposition to go to War in 1967. This led to a legal conviction of 5 years imprisonment that was later dropped in an appeal. This involved Democratic and Republican American Presidential Administrations lying to the American and World Publics about what was occurring in this Asian area, even among their own soldiers (“Agent Orange”, “Information”, “Fragging”, etc…). In 1969, the My Lai Massacre and Cover-Up revealed by a prominent American journalist (the same one who exposed Abu Ghraib in Iraq 2006) of American military crimes against foreign civilians. The opposition escalated as a result of the May 4, 1970 Kent State, Ohio University disgrace where the Ohio National Guard opened fire and killed four students and wounded nine others who were protesting infamous Republican President Nixon’s invasion of the region on April 25, 1970. (A violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution Bill of Rights). This resulted in corrupt Republican President Nixon (who promised to end the Vietnam War, not escalate it) to absurdly justify the shootings/murders that was the beginning of his downfall (Watergate: the spying and burglaries, perhaps even murders, at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee “Watergate Hotel”, located in Washington, D.C.). This tragedy exponentially led to an increase of opposition in the American student body and population that only increased with the August 29, 1970 Anti-Vietnam War protest that tens of thousands of Mexican-Americans participated in Los Angeles and the police attacked them with weapons and killed three people, one a prominent Los Angeles Times reporter named Ruben Salazar. The Vietnam War ended with the Democratic majority Congressional “Foreign Assistance Act of 1974” that Republican Gerald Ford (who replaced disgraced Republican President Nixon who resigned over Watergate due to threats of impeachment) vetoed. Yet, President Ford’s veto was over-ruled by more than the 2/3rd’s U.S.A. Congressional majority required by U.S.A. law to over-ride a U.S.A. President’s veto, thus becoming law. The Vietnam War cost almost 60,000 U.S.A. soldiers’ lives, not including the wounded and those who suffered from exposure to “Agent Orange” chemicals that American authorities first denied and later admitted. This does not even account for the Asian casualties.
6) Rodney King (1965-) An African-American male maliciously beaten and attacked by the Los Angeles, California Police Department (L.A.P.D.) in 1992 (that was at least unnecessary, “excessive force”) that was caught on amature tape that subsequently sparked riots in pre-dominantly African-American neighbourhoods (due to the disgraceful acquittal of the “things’” disguised as “police officers”) as this is a common occurrence in Los Angeles among their law enforcement “things” attitudes towards minorities and homosexuals and these ”things” usually lie and cover-up any actions of theirs the few times that they are caught. Despite the corruption and Rodney King’s life struggles (that are irrelevant due to the training that the L.A.P.D. Police officers had and the power that they have), Rodney King still received 3.8 million dollars in a Civil Action against the city of Los Angeles that obviously, due to events since then, have not learned their lesson on abusing their authority by disregarding American Constitutional Rights and Civil Rights. Perhaps it will take a more severe economic punishment for the city of Los Angeles (and other American cities with the same problem of corruption in the legal profession, state and federal) to respect U.S.A. Constitutional and Civil Rights in their interactions with the public despite social status’ and ethnic backgrounds.
7) JOSE PADILLA IS THE MOST CRUCIAL TO UNDERSTAND
Jose Padilla (1970- ) An Hispanic American citizen from Puerto Rico who was falsely claimed by Republican President George .W. Bush’s Administration as an “enemy combat ant” (thereby not granted U.S.A. Constitutional Rights/Civil Rights due to “National Security” and this set a legal precedent that may happen to any American by one within the Pulpit of Power for a multitude of reasons) that was recently dropped by President George W. Bush due to impending U.S.A. Supreme Court intervention. (Ironically, he recently appointed two of the judges, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., thereby having a majority of Republicans). Jose Padilla was freed after 3.5 years imprisonment without charges (a violation of the 4th and 6th Amendments to the U.S.A. Bill of Rights: although charges have recently been initiated, the issue remains the same, as just because he is now going through the Judicial Process, this should have been done before incarcerating Mr. Padilla for nearly 4 years without Due Process), denied legal representation (a violation of the 6th Amendment to the U.S.A. Bill of Rights), not informed of the secret “charges” against him (A direct violation of the 6th and 8th Amendments because there was no substantiated charges) and this is why he was tortured in illegal, I repeat, illegal attempts to obtain a confession from him, right or wrong: Ask U.S.A. Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, on the failure of this “torture” technique (and others) as he was a former prisoner of war (P.O.W.) in Vietnam for many years (and personally experienced these torture techniques) and has written and spoken on this issue for years. Recently, a U.S.A. Federal Judge stated that the indictment and accusations against Mr. Padilla by the Republican President George W. Bush Administration was factually weak to say the least. Jose Padilla is an American citizen and all his rights were taken away from him. Most critical to realize, his U.S.A. Constitutional Bill of Rights and Civil Rights were eradicated, thus denied legal “DUE-PROCESS”, whether he is innocent or guilty, that this may occur to any American for any reason, legitimate or not, unless this abuse of Executive Power excuse, including the “Patriot Act” and lack of Congressional and Judicial oversight is repealed. The “terrorists” and criminals of the world do not care about laws and funnel money and information (including weapons) to one another despite American technological advantages, including satellites, as can easily be seen by the fact that Republican President George W. Bush and his Administration has not caught Osama bin Laden since the criminal September 11, 2001 attacks against America that happened under his watch. A more detailed synopsis of this will be discussed in Chapter 5: “The U.S.A.: Constitutional and Civil Rights-21st Century”.
8) G.L.- . A more detailed synopsis of this will be discussed in Chapter 5: “The U.S.A.: Constitutional and Civil Rights-21st Century” and Chapter 6: “Switzerland: The Leading Land of Human Rights?”
In most people’s religious beliefs, we are all equal in GOD’s eyes and only He Himself can decide a human being’s everlasting life. The bourgeois and proletariat are equal to the people in the Pulpit of Power in GOD’s eyes, therefore, it is imperative we the peoples understand how important that we truly are and always have been. Freedom involves not restraining other people due to our own ideological beliefs. If we do so, then we are double-standard hypocrites. We must have freedom and fight for freedom if it is being taken away from us piece by piece through fear tactics. The small, radical group of Nazi’s utilized fear tactics as can be seen by some of these quotes:

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
ADOLF HITLER
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."
"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."
"Universal educational is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."
"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."
"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category."
"Strength lies not in defence but in attack."
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
"The great strength of a totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
"Who says that I am not under the special protection of God?"

Gaius Julius Caesar:
"I came, I saw, I conquered."

Compare those quotes to some of the greatest leaders of the world:
”They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.
“Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.”
Senator Barry Goldwater. 1909-1998


“Don't be a fool and die for your country. Make the other fool die for his country.”
General George S. Patton. 1885-1945

“The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
“It is harder to preserve than to obtain liberty.”
“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
“If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”
President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826


“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.”
President James Madison. 1751-1836

Freedom is movement without restraint. This movement can be utilized in many ways, such as action, speech, art, music, theatre, and any other form of expression and behaviour. This does not imply that we should not have law and order as that is a necessity for maintaining freedom. If law and order, which sometimes is not correct and is wrong, then freedom and democracy demand that we the peoples correct that which is wrong.
What is legal is not always what is right. It used to be legal to deny freedom to women and minorities, yet that was not right. It used to be legal for people to be burned alive at the stake for having a copy of the Bible, yet that was not right. There are many other historical examples where denying people freedom was legal, yet that was not right. Nevertheless, in most of those instances, liberty came from the subjects of government as they fought for their right to freedom. It is absolutely essential that we the peoples do not disservice those who fought and died for our freedoms that we all deserve.
To restrict freedom is to restrict Democracy. To restrict freedom is to restrict liberty, justice, equality and love. To restrict freedom is to restrict the "free will" that GOD Himself (spirituality) has deemed all humans’ right. To restrict freedom is to restrict GOD. To restrict GOD is to restrict love. To restrict love is to restrict humanity. Rather than restriction, we the peoples must learn to love and realize the interconnectedness of all living things and demand our right to freedom simultaneously allowing for the freedom of all other humans’.





3
LEADERSHIP
Leadership is the ability, trust, dignity, honour, fairness, flexibility, openness to other peoples’ ideas, ability to compromise, ability to correctly prioritize issues, and accountability for that which is right and for that which is wrong when errors are made. The most critical element of leadership is the capacity to guide others as well as to be open to others’ ideas. True leadership demands the acceptance of responsibility for a leader’s actions and speech as well as the ones' appointed by the leader in important positions. No other leader in modern times is as important as the President of the U.S.A.
Harry S. Truman, a former Democratic U.S.A. President, had this colloquial, slang phrase to define leadership:
"THE BUCK STOPS HERE".
What this suggests is that he believed that a leader of true quality would not be hesitant to be accountable for his/her administration and responsible for the actions and speech of whomever he/she leads since such administration was selectively appointed by the leader to the important positions within the Pulpit of Power and was therefore amenable and culpable for all their actions and speech whether they were correct or incorrect. An example of this type of leadership involves teaching and training others by means of education is when parents train their children to do what is right, being honest, and to accept and acknowledge their errors, not putting the blame on anyone or anything. This allows for their children not to make excuses and repeat their errors and to grow and mature so that their future choices will have a higher probability of correctness that will exponentially increase their character. A good leader and/or leaders, therefore, would have policies that were right and credible. When a true leader(s) realized that something was wrong, he/she/they would not display dilatoriness, deceit, duplicity, delays, dishonesty, or blame upon anyone except themselves due to having the decency and integrity to accept responsibility for one and others whom they appointed in leadership roles.
Accepting praise for a job well done is easy for anyone. Yet, a great leadership would also accept criticism when a job is not well done and mismanaged and subsequently correct that which is wrong in whatever means specific to such specific situation. Leadership of praise would have the qualities of principle, honesty, integrity, accountability, and character and would instil these positive traits and confidence to those he/she led and/or governed and not make excuses and/or state that they were just doing their duty.
The former Nazi Regime under the command of Adolph Hitler committed evil deeds as a result of doing their duty. Wilhelm Reich in his book titled "Listen, Little Man" in-depthly analyzed this attitude and explained how dangerous this may be if leadership lacks integrity. Another person who emphasized this was the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that had this to say about a person's integrity and character, the key components of what leadership truly entails:
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

An aspect of leadership is the ability to build coalitions and alliances between allies based upon trust and respect in today’s world in which we the peoples face many dangers such as terrorism (fear tactics utilized by people for political or other causes). To be successful, people must work as a team rather than imposing one single method of force and intimidation to find the solutions to the problems that the peoples of the world faces on a daily basis. People being people, love and respect is far more effective than utilizing dominance and power except in extreme situations.
An example of this is Jesus Christ Himself who is mentioned a bit later. Jesus (in my belief system) is who He claimed to be and easily could have instantly destroyed the "things" in His historic period of time as a human being who mocked (even while being Crucified), spit in His face multiple times, hit in His face multiple times, defamed, slandered, tortured, put on trial, and murdered by both Gentiles (non-Israelites) and Israelites. At any given time, the Roman authorities could have prevented what happened to Jesus Christ as a human being by over-ruling the Israeli religious leaders in Roman occupied Israel (the 4 Gospels).
Nevertheless, Jesus exercised the highest standard of self-discipline by any human who has ever existed by restraining His power that He could have utilized if He so desired. This is an unparalleled example never to be repeated by a human being, yet is the ultimate example of discretionary use of deadly force with discipline. Why did He do this? Well, that is subjective to the individual readers’ opinions and only when (if) we see Him upon transference to the sacred, will we truly ever know by asking Him ourselves.
International alliances that respect and trust each other are an absolute necessity to success in solving international problems.
Former U.S.A. Republican President Ronald Reagan had this to say about international relations:
"Nations do not mistrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they mistrust each other."
Trust between Nations, especially allies, is the only solution to accomplishing objectives that are beneficial to the world. Trust begins at the top of any hierarchal organizations (political, economics, education and religious (spirituality) that have credible leadership down to what society considers the lower echelons of such specific society. The example that leadership displays affects the whole unit of an organization and/or Nation and trickles down upon every individual. There always have been and always will be threats to any specific Nation, especially the U.S.A., since we are now the only world super-power and we have taken the side of Israel in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Rightly or wrongly, the decision was made and people being people, it is only natural that in any conflict, when anyone has taken one particular side, the other side will not appreciate that. This reality of life must be acknowledged and dealt with accordingly as it is likely not going to change with humans governing humans due to socio-economic inequalities that create and foster the environments of social injustice, corruption, oppression, and its subsequent results of crime and terrorism .
The problems that we the peoples on the earth face today are not desultory as every decision made by the Pulpit of Power has direct and indirect effects upon our own specific Nation and all Nations. Notwithstanding that issue and the present dangers we the peoples of the earth face on a daily basis, our leadership is more than adequate to meet these challenges and threats simultaneously protecting our freedoms if they love people more than the love of money. Leadership insists that overreactions and intrusions upon Constitutional Rights, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, and Human Rights are not trampled upon or taken away despite any potential threats.
Here is a quote from Justice Arthur Goldberg that emphasizes that point:
"It is fundamental that the great powers of Congress to conduct war and to regulate the Nation’s foreign relations are subject to the constitutional requirements of due process. The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our Constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with fundamental Constitutional guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit governmental action."
Here is another quote from former U.S.A. President Woodrow Wilson on leadership:
"Once lead these people into war and they’ll forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance. To fight you must be brutal and ruthless and the spirit of ruthlessness will enter the very fiber of our national life, infecting Congress, the courts, the policeman on the beat, the man in the street."

Here are some quotes from World leaders that are applicable to this discussion:

Winston Churchill:
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

Noam Chomsky:
"It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies."
Unknown:
"A good leader inspires others with confidence in him; a great leader inspires them with confidence in themselves."

John F. Kennedy:
"Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other."

Anon:
"A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune."
These former U.S.A. and World leaders faced national and international threats, yet still firmly requested that our Republic of the U.S.A. keep the rights and freedoms that our forbearers fought and died for. Their leadership consisted of much sacrifice, ability, ability to compromise, ability to correctly prioritize social issues, principle, honesty, integrity, honour, accountability, dignity, character, fairness, openness to other people and their ideas, correct that which is wrong, maintained the good aspects of society, and instilled these traits unto those whom they guided and governed. In the U.S.A., the pledge of allegiance states "liberty and justice for all" and that is what our Nation stands for and what the "rebels" of the 13 original U.S.A. Colonies fought and died for.
To emphasis this point, the “rebels” of the original 13 U.S.A. Colonies were considered “criminals” by the U.K. Pulpit of Power (King George III), and faced extreme religious and political oppression, mostly due to being Protestants, and these evil actions done to the “rebels” were exponentially increased beginning with the inquisitions and exponentially increased via King Henry VIII until the end of the Revolutionary War and King George III. England is the only Nation State of the world that has burned down the U.S.A. White House and the sacrifices that the “rebels” made must not ever be discarded. The “rebels” were very religious people and this is why upon winning their fight for freedom, inserted into the U.S.A. Constitution the separation of Church and State, for the freedom of religion. This example may only be perpetuated by the highest level of leadership that leads not by words alone, but by example with the subsequent result affecting the rest of society and the world-wide family of Nations.

4
MORALS AND VALUES
Morals and Values are terms utilized in the topic of conversation that is prevalent among many people of various societies, cultures, social status, and is utilized by people to validate their own ideological opinions and defining the demarcation of how other people should live. Morals and values are therefore crucial terms to understand to recognize what family values truly are and the changing of morals and values in various societies and different historic periods of times. Morals and values are parts of any given society in any given historic period of time and are dynamic and evolving.
First, to know the specific definitions of the important terms for this discussion is imperative in order to come to a complete and comprehensive, in-depth understanding of morals and values and their significance, influence, control, and power on any given society:
1. society -the way in which people are organized
2. sociology- the study of society and the way in which it changes
3. morals- referring to right and wrong in human behaviour values-principles and important things in life culture-all the knowledge and values shared by a society
4. principle- a basic generalization that can be used for reasoning and conduct
5. family- a fundamental social unit consisting of one or two parents and their children. All the members of a household under one roof.
6. standard- the boundaries that are already accepted by a specific society on socially accepted behaviour and the conforming of people to such.
By the aforementioned and defined terms, morals and values are understood as the elements of a society that influences a culture and its principles that affect what a specific society sets up the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour by the people within such specific society. Therefore, sociology is the study of a given society (that includes morals and values) and the changing and evolving dynamics of what people in a specific culture considers right and wrong. This is specific to what affects the elements of a society, subsequently, modifying morals and values within a specific culture as well as any culture in any historic period of time despite the differences in politics, economics, education and religion (spirituality).
>From these definitions, it is safe to come to a generalized conclusion that a family is a social group of people among the members of a household under one roof and that a value is a principle of important things in life that involves a standard that is accepted by a specific society that sets the demarcation of socially accepted behaviour. Additionally, as previously mentioned, a principle is a basic generalization that is accepted as true.
Naturally, family values would involve the critical elements of human survival first and foremost with any addendum to that being specific to the ideological beliefs of a society with the four basic ones being: political, economics, education and religious (spirituality).
Survival is basically described as remaining alive. The critical elements basic to human survival in the world today and have always been are basically: a steady income, shelter, food/water, clothing, medical care, and education If a household is fortunate enough, it would be possible to save some of their income not just for human survival, but to enjoy some of the pleasures of life specific to the likes of the individuals of a family. If it was possible for every head of a household (despite how the members of a household are made up of) who were willing to work and/or improve their social status' in life to earn a living wage germane to one’s geographica

l location’s cost of living, marital and/or civil union status’, and number of dependent members of the household, what a wonderful world we would live in.
A living wage would include enough earnings to pay for the critical elements of human survival plus superfluous activities in order to enjoy life to its fullest rather than simply working to exist. Family values in today’s world also contain elements that originate from non-critical elements of human survival that derive from ideologies specific to a particular culture or group of people. Ideologies consist of a set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, educational, and religious (spiritual), or another system.
Also, there could be numerous more sets of ideas that a group of people in a society may have that pertain to the priority that a specific society values critical and non-critical elements of human survival. The imperative for one to come to a clear and complete comprehension of what family values truly are and to be aware of the distinction between the critical elements of human survival and those that derive from specific societal and cultural ideologies and how they should be prioritized. This is an absolute necessity to truth and understanding, not to mention human survival and existence.
Family values that are not critical to the survival of the human species are those that derive out of any and every ideology. The reason for this is that ideologies are specific to specific societies and cultures and are very dynamic. This is not to suggest that ideologies should not be a part of family values as they have their place in a structured environment. What is necessary to do is to correctly prioritize the most important aspects of the survival of the human species in this life as if there is no one left alive due to ideologies having more value than the critical elements of human survival, family values will be futile and vacuous because if no one is left alive, all non-critical ideologies to human survival among human beings become unnecessary.
Society, sociology, morals, values, culture, principle, and standards with their intricate, interconnectedness and dynamics are the key terms to this discussion and for one to be enlightened to the logical fact that family values should be prioritized according to a value’s importance to the survival of a household. Ideologies are as old as the history of humankind and therefore have a traditional purpose for many people and societies. Nevertheless, to prioritize the critical elements of the survival of the human species (income, shelter, food, water, clothing, medical care, and education, etc…) with that of the non-critical elements (ideologies) will lead to a more balanced and realistic awareness of life that will bring equanimity, equality, peace, security, harmony, and love.
This quote from H.G. Wells sums up this whole chapter:
"Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."
To prove this particular quote, a person from a "Christian" Western Cultural Society must answer these following questions derived from the Biblical account of human history:
Adam and Eve’s marriage moral?
(Most people agree to this; yet, read the following to see if this was the normal pattern and paradigm during various Biblical historic periods of time).

GENESIS 2:24 THE UNION OF TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
This scripture is utilized by many in Western Culture to define marriage. What is fascinating is that the scripture defines this as a union, not a marriage (a term that people later came up with and the correct Hebrew translation of this scripture will prove what was just written).
Adam and Eve’s children married to themselves moral? (Obviously they must have married one another with God’s approval even though God could have created other humans if He so chose. Therefore, this type of marriage at this historic period of time was accepted by God according to Biblical accounts).
GENESIS 3:20-GENESIS 5:24
Was Sampson and Delilah’s domestic partnership moral?
Their relationship is never mentioned in the Bible as an official marriage. God obviously allowed this type of marriage according to Biblical accounts.
JUDGES CHAPTER 16

Was the great Abraham having two main wives, other wives, concubines, and the possible sacrifice of his son Isaac moral?
Sarah and Hagar: even if this was to perpetuate Abraham’s seed, although Sarah did have a son named Isaac and Hagar also had a son named Ishmael. God obviously accepted this type of marriage according to Biblical accounts. Also, when Sarah had a son named Isaac, Abraham was willing to kill his son as a sacrifice to God in order to "prove" his love for God. Note: God blessed both of Abraham's sons, Ishmael the older and Isaac the younger, although the sacred blessing was to come through the lineage of Isaac according to Biblical accounts.
GENESIS 16:1, 2 GENESIS 22 GENESIS 25:1-4 5.
Was Jacob, married to at least 2 wives, Rachel whom he loved and her older sister Leah (the daughters of Laban), multiple concubines (maidservants) moral?
Jacob worked 7 years in service to Laban in order to marry Rachel, who he was in love with. Laban reneged on that promise and gave to Jacob Rachel's older sister Leah to him as a wife after the 7 years were finished, forcing Jacob to work another 7 years to Rachel since according to Jewish custom, Leah the older sister was to given away in marriage first. Jacob ended up working for Laban 21 years before departing and had multiple maidservants in order to perpetuate his seed. This happened according to Biblical accounts even though both Rachel and Leah had children from Jacob. God obviously accepted this type of marriage according to Biblical accounts.
Genesis 29:1-30:26 6.
Was King David, with multiple wives and concubines moral?
King David, most famous for his bravery of killing Goliath and writing poetry and music. King David had a loving relationship with Jonathan, the son of the first King of Israel, Saul. During his Kingship, King David had intercourse with already married Bathsheba and impregnated her. Then, King David sent Bathsheba’s husband off to war on the front lines of battle in hopes that he would be killed so he could marry her. King David was successful in his plan. Nathan the prophet corrected and disciplined David via God’s instruction, nevertheless, God obviously allowed for this type of marriage according to Biblical accounts.
1 SAMUEL 20:17; 2 SAMUEL 20:17; 2 SAMUEL 11:1-27; 2 SAMUEL 16:22 7.
King Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 Concubines moral?
The son of King David, King Solomon had 700 wives and a harem of 300 Concubines, a nice word for a group of prostitutes. King Solomon also had an interest in the African Queen of Sheba. God obviously accepted this type of marriage according to Biblical accounts.
1 KINGS 11:3
Here are 6 questions to contemplate over these few Biblical marriage examples in the Hebrew Scriptures:
1) Is it just me, or why are there no Biblical examples of women having multiple husbands and male concubines?
2) Is it just me, or do these Biblical examples seem to be written from a male perspective?
3) Is it just me, or do these Biblical examples seem to be the greatest male sexual fantasies?
4) Is it just me, or should all good Christian men have at least 1,000 wives and concubines and still be considered holy as the men of fame were. In fact, to be fair, all good Christian women should also be able to have 1,000 husbands and male concubines and still be considered holy.
5) If the Biblical men of fame were not considered “immoral” by God for having sex with multitudes of wives and concubines, then why are “religious” people so obsessed with this same issue pertaining to heterosexual females, homosexuals, and males of today?
6) Why do “religious” people selectively choose the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures for their own objectives, including teaching morals and values? Why? Because these same “religious” people do not use all of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, to teach morals and values, only the ones specific groups chose to live by.
With these few examples, a person may either conclude one or two theories on these apparent "discrepancies" on Biblical morals and values:

1. God must have different morals and values (right and wrong) for different people in different historic periods of time, in effect, selectively changing His mind on what are right and wrong specific to specific people, situations, and cultures.
2. God does not have different morals and values (right and wrong) for different people in different historic periods of time, in effect, selectively changing His mind on what are right and wrong specific to specific people, situations, and cultures.
Here are seven more questions that a person may ask themselves pertaining to Biblical morals and values:
1. How is it possible for God to create perfect celestial and human creations that would not make perfect decisions even with "free-will"?
2. Why would God need to tempt perfect human creations simultaneously allowing a more advanced life form, the powerful angel later named Satan the Devil (liar and slanderer), to do the temptation.?
3. Does this seem like an unfair advantage when angels (good or bad) interact with humans (good or bad)?
4. Why would God not start over with all Creation if rebellion began in heaven and spread to the Garden of Eden?
5. Why would the angel who later became known as Satan the Devil (perhaps one of the original 4 archangels due to having access to the first human creations, Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden) have this access since the Almighty likely already knew what was going to occur before the actual events happened? Did God pre-destine these events or can it just be justified that these perfect creations directly by God Himself abused their gift of “free-will?
6. If nakedness became a “sin”, then why are human beings still born naked and not with clothes?
7. If sex is a "sin", then why would God bless and encourage the rebellious first human pair to procreate?
GENESIS CHAPTERS 1-2:17
GENESIS 3:1-20
GENESIS 2:25
GENESIS 1:28
Thus, with some objective reasoning, it is obvious that people themselves according to their historic period of time, and culture choose what morals and values that society will accept according to what is in the Pulpit of Power’s (who write history) best interests and then imposes double standards upon the rest of the people. This inequality hardly seems Godlike and much more like human misinterpretation and distortions of guidance from a God of love.
In Matthew 23:3, Jesus condemned this type of double-standard hypocrisy. Various societies since the advent of writing from the historic period of time from the eras of Egypt , Assyria , Israeli, Asian, Mayan, Incan, American Indian, Greek, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, to that of today have had similarities and dissimilarities in morals and values. This has been very dynamic throughout human history and will continue to be so. Today’s Western Cultural morals and values are mostly derived from that of the Hebrew Scriptures that Saul of Tarsus (Apostle Paul), Augustine, the early Church Fathers (no mention of Mothers), Constantine, John Calvin and others perpetuated. Ironically, this is mostly the total opposite of what Jesus taught in the 4 Gospel accounts (the only four books of the Bible where Jesus is specifically quoted as a human being) as He claimed in Mark 2:27 that the Jewish Law was fulfilled in His arrival and that He gave people a new Law, that was to love God and other people as themselves (Matthew 22:37-40). This will be discussed further in detail in the next chapter: "A LOOK AT LEVITICUS" that evaluates the laws that the Israelites imposed upon themselves (God-given or not) and to see the logic and Biblical veracity of these laws and if they were equally applicable to every single Israeli citizen.
Therefore, with what was mentioned above, are we Paulinians’ and Augustinians’ instead of Christians? Whose morals and values are we in the Western Cultures accepting today as truth? What Biblical laws are we living according to today and are those laws Biblically, historically, sociologically, and consistent with what Jesus Christ Himself instructed us while on Earth as a human being?





5
THE U.S.A.: CONSTITUIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS-21ST CENTURY










6
SWITZERLAND: THE LEADING LAND OF HUMAN RIGHTS?










7
A LOOK AT LEVITICUS
Leviticus is the Bible book that contains parts of the Torah (The Jewish Law) that the Israeli people, Islamic people (likely due to Abraham’s son Ishmael from his wife Hagar), and most Christians of today accept as God’s instructions on how people are supposed to live. Amazingly, for Christians, this is the total opposite of what Jesus Christ taught in the four Gospel accounts (the only four Biblical books where Jesus Christ is specifically quoted as a human being) on how people should live. As already stated, in Mark 2:27, Jesus claimed that the Jewish Law was fulfilled in His arrival and that He gave people a new Law, and that was to love God and to love other people as themselves and that these two elements are the most important criteria to entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
Let us examine some Laws of Leviticus by the Bible of the readers’ choice to see how to scrutinize ourselves by the standards that were likely written down by Moses while the Israelites were living in the desert for forty years after their exodus from Egypt, obviously, with minimal water, to see how we ourselves would be considered moral in their historic period of time and if those laws are applicable for all people today. Jesus would not approve of this since He claimed to have fulfilled the Jewish Law and that no imperfect human being could possibly be clean by those standards except Himself and that His ultimate sacrificial offering for the forgiveness of sins was to relieve the rest of humankind of the burdens of the Jewish Law. To disobey any of the Laws of Leviticus and remain "unclean" meant that people were put to death, period. This seems harsh by today’s standards, yet was a reality for them.
All of their laws applied to all the people at this historic period of time (except in Israeli Biblical history, we will see exceptions to these laws for reasons only God Himself knows). We will discuss in the next chapter "What is Sin" about this inconsistency throughout Biblical history and other Christian historical events. The Israelites of this historic period of time did not have any contingencies or exceptions for the Laws of Leviticus. The Israelites did not have selective justice when it involved the Laws of Leviticus and this is clearly seen by reading the whole book itself. Scholars, theologians, historians, and others all have their own opinions on why this was so when in other Biblical and historical periods of time, even today, people selectively utilized and utilize parts of the Laws of Leviticus for their own objectives of power and control over other people. This includes the Islamic, Judaism, and Christian Cultures by these specific writings.
This selective use of sacred scripture for power and control over other people hardly seems God-like; rather, it seems more human-like and a desecration of religion/spirituality for selfish reasons. To compare that to today, if we the peoples selectively use laws specific to the Pulpit of Powers’ specific agendas, then the statistical probability of social injustice and corruption at all levels are exponentially increased due to double-standards, hypocrisy, nepotism, favouritism, and greed in order to retain power and control over other people. This only perpetuates inequality and the Pulpit of Power "moralize" these unloving schematics through this selective use of sacred scripture and repetitive propaganda and rhetoric. Now, let us examine some of the Laws of Leviticus.
THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS INCLUDES EATING PORK (BACON, PORK CHOPS, ETC…), IMAGES OF GOD, JESUS, HEAVEN, ANGELS, CROSSES, SNAILS (ESCARGOT), SOME SEAFOOD, RABBITS, PSYCHICS (HOROSCOPES), OBEYING THE SABBATH, SACRIFICIAL ANIMAL SACRIFICES TO GOD FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS, LYING IN SWORN STATEMENTS, INJUSTICE IN JUDGEMENT, ETC… AS SINS JUST THE SAME AS HOMOSEXUALITY; THUS, PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE SELECTIVELY CHOOSING BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES FOR THEIR OWN BELIEF SYSTEMS AND DO NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THEM AS THE ISRAELITES DO WITH THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES, YET WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CHRISTIANS.

All noted scripture are from the Bible book of Leviticus with only the chapters and verses cited below:
22:9; 18:29
OBEY ALL LAWS OF LEVITICUS AND REMAIN CLEAN OR BE KILLED. (JESUS QUOTED IN THE 4 GOSPELS ALLEVIATING PEOPLE FROM THE JEWISH LAW BURDEN AS MENTIONED ABOVE WITH BIBLICAL CITIATIONS).
CHAPTERS 1-11
BURN ANIMALS ALIVE TO GOD AS A SACRIFICE FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS (WE BETTER START ACQUIRING ANIMALS FOR SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS TO GOD FOR OUR SINS IF JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE JEWISH LAW).
5:1
WITNESS A CRIME AND NOT REPORT IT=BE KILLED (A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO OMIT REPORTS, STEAL AND DISCARD EVIDENCE, FRAME PEOPLE, AND LIE: "THE GOOD OLD BOYS NETWORK", ARE ENDANGERED ON THIS ONE).
5:4
LIE IN A SWORN STATEMENT=BE KILLED (A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO OMIT REPORTS, STEAL AND DISCARD EVIDENCE, FRAME PEOPLE, AND LIE: "THE GOOD OLD BOYS NETWORK", ARE ENDANGERED ON THIS ONE).
6:3
LIE=BE KILLED (A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO OMIT REPORTS, STEAL AND DISCARD EVIDENCE, FRAME PEOPLE, AND LIE: "THE GOOD OLD BOYS NETWORK", ARE ENDANGERED ON THIS ONE).
6:5
LIE IN A SWORN STATEMENT=BE KILLED (A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO OMIT REPORTS, STEAL AND DISCARD EVIDENCE, FRAME PEOPLE, AND LIE: "THE GOOD OLD BOYS NETWORK", ARE ENDANGERED ON THIS ONE).
7:27
EAT ANIMALS BLOOD=BE KILLED (DOES THAT INCLUDE BEEF STEAK TARTAR AND BLOOD SAUSAGE?).
11:4-30
EAT PIGS, SNAILS, RABBITS, ETC…=BE KILLED (DARN, THERE GOES BACON, PORK CHOPS, ESCARGOT, ETC…).
11:10-11
EAT SEAFOOD WITHOUT FINS AND SCALES=BE KILLED (SEAFOOD LOVERS, YOU ARE IN DEED IN DEEP TROUBLE).
15:25-32
HETEROSEXUAL SEX DURING WOMENS’ MENSTRUAL PERIODS=BE KILLED. CHAPTER 18 VIEW NAKEDNESS OF FAMILY MEMBERS=BE KILLED (DOES THAT INCLUDE MY MOTHER WHEN I WAS BORN AND VICE-VERSA?).
18:22
HOMOSEXUALS=BE KILLED (WHY, WHEN THERE WOULD BE MORE WOMEN FOR HETEROSEXUAL MEN AND VICE-VERSA?).
18:17-19
HETEROSEXUAL MALES VIEWING NAKEDNESS OF FEMALES RESULTS IN NO MARRIAGE ALLOWED FOR ALL PARTIES=BE KILLED (HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE SEE EACH OTHER NUDE=NO MARRIAGE).
19:11
STEAL (HANDS CUT OFF AT BEST), DECIEVE AND DEFRAUD=BE KILLED (OUR LAWS HAVE BECOME TOO SOFT).
19:13
DEFRAUD=BE KILLED (CORPORATE/BUSINESS LEADERS, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE YOU WHEN YOU MEET OUR MAKER).
19:15
INJUSTICE IN JUDGMENT=BE KILLED (THERE IS NO STATISTICAL PROBABILITY OF ERROR CONTINGENCY MENTIONED HERE).
19:16
SLANDER=BE KILLED (THERE IS NO STATISTICAL PROBABILITY OF ERROR CONTINGENCY MENTIONED HERE).
19:18 VENGEANCE=BE KILLED (THERE IS NO STATISTICAL PROBABILITY OF ERROR CONTINGENCY MENTIONED HERE).
19:30
TO NOT KEEP SABBATHS=BE KILLED (WE IMMEDIATELY NEED TO CONVERT TO JUDAISM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE JEWISH LAW).
19:35
INJUSTICE IN JUDGMENT=BE KILLED (THERE IS NO STATISTICAL PROBABILITY OF ERROR CONTINGENCY MENTIONED HERE).
20:9
CURSE PARENTS=BE KILLED (A LOT OF US ARE IN TROUBLE ON THIS ONE).
20:10
HETEROSEXUAL ADULTERY=BE KILLED (SWINGERS, LOOK OUT. AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUALS HAVING SEX WHO ARE IN EVEN MORE TROUBLE).
20:13
HOMOSEXUALS=BE KILLED (AGAIN, WHY, WHEN THERE WOULD BE MORE WOMEN FOR HETEROSEXUAL MEN AND VICE-VERSA?).
20:18
HETEROSEXUALS HAVING SEX DURING WOMENS’ MENSTRUAL PERIODS=BE KILLED (NO CONTINGENCIES MENTIONED HERE FOR HETEROSEXUALS).
20:27
SEEK GUIDANCE FROM PSYCHICS=BE KILLED (PSYCHICS AND EVERYONE WHO CALLED PSYCHICS LIKE MS. CLEO, SEE YOU IN HELL).
21:9
FEMALE PROSTITUTES=BE KILLED ALIVE BY FIRE (DOES THAT SEEM GOD-LIKE AND FORGIVING PEOPLE 77 TIMES AS JESUS INSTRUCTED? PROSTITUTES AND EVERYONE WHO HAS BEEN TO A PROSTITUTE, SEE YOU IN HELL).
21:24
HETEROSEXUAL MALES MUST MARRY VIRGIN HETEROSEXUAL FEMALES OR BE KILLED (HETEROSEXUAL MALES, NO MENTION OF HAVING TO BE VIRGINS, AND FEMALES WHO HAVE MARRIED MORE THAN ONCE AND/OR HAVE HAD SEX WITH A NON-VIRGIN, EXCEPT FOR ABRAHAM, JACOB, KING DAVID, KING SOLOMON, ETC…WHY?, SEE YOU IN HELL).
22:9
DISOBEY ALL LAWS OF LEVITICUS=BE KILLED (THAT MEANS ALL OF US IF JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS AS HE CLAIMED, SEE MOST OF YOU IN HELL).
22:16
BLASPHEMY=BE KILLED (DOES JESUS RING A BELL)?
22:17
KILL=BE KILLED (NO CONTIGENCIES EXCEPT FOR DISOBEYING THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS).
22:19
HARM PEOPLE AND THE SAME IS COMMENSURATE DONE TO THE HARMER (AN EYE FOR AN EYE, BABY, WITH GOD’S APPROVAL NO LESS).
26:1
NO IMAGE OF GOD (JESUS OR ANY "GOD" FOR THAT MATTER AS JESUS WAS NOT ALIVE AS A HUMAN BEING WHEN LEVITICUS WAS WRITTEN)=BE KILLED (EVERYONE WITH IMAGES AND ICONS OF GOD/JESUS, CROSSES, CELESTIAL CREATURES, AND HEAVEN, SEE YOU IN HELL).
HELL VERY WELL MAY BE VERY CROWDED

Naturally, these Laws of Leviticus had some grace if people cleansed themselves; however, how many people today would be alive if this small sample of laws were to be all applicable and not selectively chosen? Selectively choosing sacred scripture is lying by omission and a greater sin due to distorting the Bible.
1. COULD IT BE AS SIMPLE AS THAT THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS WERE MOSTLY FOR HEALTH REASONS (PURIFICATION) WHEN THE ISRAELITES WERE GOING TO WANDER THE DESERTS, WITH MINIMAL WATER, SANITARY SYSTEMS, ONLY "MANNA" FROM HEAVEN TO EAT, ETC...FOR 40 YEARS AS GOD LIKELY ALREADY KNEW THAT THEY WERE STILL CONSCIOUSLY AND/OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY AFFECTED BY LIVING FOR MUCH TIME IN AN IDOLATROUS NATION, EGYPT, AS SLAVES, AND THAT GOD FORESEEN WHAT MOSES WAS GOING TO SEE WITH HIS PEOPLE UPON DESCENDING MT. SINAI?
2. COULD IT BE AS SIMPLE AS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN ABOVE, THAT GOD WISHED TO PUT PEOPLE IN THEIR PROPER PLACE BY IMPOSING UPON THEM THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS THAT NO HUMAN PERSON MAY BE CLEAN BY THOSE STANDARDS IN AN EFFORT TO PUT HUMAN BEINGS IN THEIR PROPER PLACE AND THEN OFFERING RECONCILLIATION AND BLESSINGS LATER VIA JESUS CHRIST, FIRST OFFERING THIS PROMISE TO THE PEOPLE WHOM HE APPROVED OF WITH THE EVENTUAL OFFER EXTENDED TO THE REST OF THE WORLD?
Nevertheless, either all these laws of Leviticus apply, or none do. Otherwise, we are selective, double-standard hypocrites simultaneously ignoring Jesus Christ’s instructions as Christians. This is because if we call ourselves Christians, then we accept Jesus claiming that His arrival fulfilled the Jewish Law and was no longer applicable to his followers (Matthew 12:8; Matthew 22:37-39) except His instruction to love God and other people as themselves. How ironic is that? For a moment, let us just examine the Sabbath, a section of the Jewish Law, to see ourselves what JESUS is quoted as saying and doing on the Sabbath compared to what is written by Saul of Tarsus in the Pauline Epistles in the Greek Scriptures:
THE GOSPELS:
MARK 1:14-22
JESUS TEACHES ON THE SABBATH.
MARK 3:1-6
JESUS HEALS ON THE SABBATH.
LUKE CHAPTERS 13-14
JESUS HEALS ON THE SABBATH.
JOHN 5:8-9
JESUS HEALS A PARALYZED MAN ON THE SABBATH.
JOHN 5:16
JEWISH RELIGIOUS LEADERS UPSET THAT JESUS IS HEALING ON THE SABBATH.
JOHN 7:19
JESUS STATES THAT NOT 1 JEW OBEYS THE LAW. THIS APPLIES TO EVERY HUMAN BEING WHO EVER HAS AND WHO EVER WILL EXIST. JESUS WAS SPEAKING TO HIS AUDIENCE.
JOHN 7:21-24
JESUS APPROVES CIRCUMCISION AND DEEDS ON THE SABBATH.
JOHN CHAPTER 9
JESUS HEALS A BLIND MAN ON THE SABBATH.
JOHN 9:16
THE PHARISEES CLAIM THAT JESUS IS NOT FROM GOD BECAUSE HE HEALS ON THE SABBATH.
MATTHEW 12:4 -14
• JESUS STATES THAT HE IS "LORD OF THE SABBATH", IN EFFECT, CREATING THE SABBATH, FULFILLING THE SABBATH, AND IS ABOVE THE SABBATH CONTRARY TO ANY OTHER IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING WRITER IN THE BIBLE OR ELSEWHERE, AND THAT IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE FOR HIM AND HIS FOLLOWERS, AS HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO FREE HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS SINCE HE ENACTED IT (AS CHRISTIANS).
• JESUS HEALS ON THE SABBATH AND USES KING DAVID AS A SACRED LEGAL PRECEDENT ON EATING BREAD IN THE HOLY TABERNACLE THAT WAS TRADITIONALLY ONLY ALLOWED FOR THE LEVITE PRIESTS.
Matthew 5:17-19:
Jesus fulfilled the LAW (TORAH).
Matthew 24:8-25
Jesus prophecy on false "Christians."
Matthew 11:18-19
Jesus drank wine, and was falsely accused of being an alcoholic and gluttony and being with sinners.
Matthew 23:1-33
Jesus prophecy on false "Christians." JESUS was a Jew and His teachings were meant for reforming Judaism. The teachings of Jesus were rejected by the Israeli people that subsequently led to a movement that after His death was named "Christianity".
DID JESUS GO TO HELL FOR DISOBEYING THE SABBATH AND LAWS OF LEVITICUS?
Why did JESUS Himself, GOD, the Son of GOD, A Great Prophet, just a man, or (atrociously), a heretic, as people today believe not write anything down since He was literate about the exact path to heaven that we the peoples must obey? Perhaps the reason is that the scriptures that quote Him above already give us the answer. Compare those scriptures to the ones that the self-appointed Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Then, read below a synopsis of Saul of Tarsus ( Apostle Paul) and ask yourself this: Who is more of an authority on how people should live and love and what the criteria is for getting to heaven, JESUS or Saul of Tarsus?
PAULINE EPISTLES/GREEK SCRIPTURES:
HEBREWS 4:1-11 SAUL OF TARSUS INSTRUCTS JESUS FOLLOWERS TO OBEY THE SABBATH, A TOTAL CONTRADICTION OF JESUS IN THE 4 GOSPELS (MATTHEW 12:8).
ROMANS 10:4 JESUS’ FOLLOWERS BELIEVED THAT HE FULFILLED THE JEWISH LAW AND HIS FOLLOWERS WERE NO LONGER BURDENED BY SUCH:

PAULINE EPISTLES.
THESE FACTS ON SAUL OF TARSUS WILL BE MENTIONED 3 TIMES FOR EMPHASIS:
1. SAUL OF TARSUS, A FORMER PHARISEE, THAT BELIEVED IN FOLLOWING THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH LAW AND LAWS OF LEVITICUS, WAS BORN AT LEAST 30 YEARS AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST, SUBSEQUENTLY, AT LEAST 30 YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE 11 APOSTLES PERSONNALY PICKED BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH. OBVIOUSLY, A GENERATION GAP BETWEEN SAUL OF TARSUS AND THE OTHER SURVING APOSTLES EXISTED, 11 PERSONALLY CHOSEN BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING, AND SAUL OF TARSUS' EARLY LIFE ATROCITIES AGAINST THEM AND HIS SELF-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN JERUSALEM AND THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES (THAT MOSTLY CONTRADICTED JESUS CHRIST'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM), THAT THERE WAS ENMITY BETWEEN THEM AND ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. OTHERWISE, WHY DID NOT THE GLORIFIED CHRIST APPEAR BEFORE THE OTHER APOSTLES TO SUPPORT SAUL OF TARSUS' CLAIM TO REMOVE THEIR DOUBTS AS HE DID WITH APOSTLE THOMAS? (JOHN 20:24-29)
2. THIS DISCOURSE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT TO ATTACK SACRED SCRIPTURE. IF THE READER REALIZES AND READS THE BIBLE IN-DEPTHLY, ESPECIALLY COMPARING WHAT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF STATED IN THE 4 GOSPELS (MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN, 4 BIBLICAL BOOKS WITH 4 DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST) AND COMPARE THAT TO THE “DISCREPANCIES” OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES THAT IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING SAUL OF TARSUS IS GIVEN THE TITLE OF AUTHORSHIP, THEN THE READER WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER JESUS CHRIST MADE ERRORS, THEREFORE, BEING IMPERFECT AS A HUMAN BEING, COMPARED TO BEING PERFECT AS THE GLORIFIED CHRIST, BECAUSE MANY OF SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ARE DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. THUS, I EMPHATICALLY STATE, IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM, JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING WAS PERFECT AND THE JESUS CHRIST’S INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 4 GOSPELS OUTWEIGH AND DISCREDIT SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS WHO WAS NOT ALIVE WHEN JESUS CHRIST WAS ALIVE AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING WHEN HE INSTRUCTED HIS DISCIPLES.
3. IF THE READER WOULD COMPARE THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS WITH THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO SEE THE SIMILARITIES. AGAIN, SAUL OF TARSUS WAS A FORMER PHARISEE AND PERSECUTOR OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND MUCH YOUNGER THAN THE OTHER APOSTLES. JESUS CHRIST AND THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF REVELATION PROPHESIZES THAT THERE WOULD BE 12 APOSTLES WITH HIM IN HEAVEN THAT WOULD RULE WITH HIM IN HIS CELESTIAL GOVERNMENT. (MATTHEW 19:28). NOW, WE HAVE 13 APOSTLES AS THE BOZO WHO BETRAYED JESUS WAS REPLACED (THE BOOK ACTS CHAPTER 1). THEREFORE, SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE LEFT OUT OF THIS.
4. ACCORDING TO MOST SCHOLARS, THE PAULINE EPISTLES, WRITTEN BY SAUL OF TARSUS, WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE 4 GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. IF TRUE, THIS MAKES THE THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES AND SAUL OF TARSUS MORE FASCINATING AS IF ALL 4 GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN A COUPLE OF DECADES AFTER THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EFFORT BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR FOLLOWERS IN JERUSALEM TO CORRECT THE WRITINGS OF SAUL OF TARSUS BECAUSE THE MOST INTIRGUING ASPECT IS THAT THE 4 GOSPELS DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT EVEN MENTION SAUL OF TARSUS OR THE GLORIFIED JESUS (RESURRECTED CHRIST) APPEARING BEFORE HIM AS THE APOSTLES CLAIM THAT JESUS CHRIST DID FOR THEM. IF THE APOSTLES BELIEVED SAUL OF TARSUS’ CLAIM, THEN THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED HIS CLAIM TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS IF THEY BELIEVED THAT SAUL OF TARSUS HAD ANY CREDIBILITY, WHICH APPARENTLY HE DID NOT. “VIEWS ABOUT THE DATING OF ALL FOUR GOSPELS VARY GREATLY, FROM ABOUT 90 TO 115 AD, THOUGH SOME SCHOLARS ARGUE FOR AN EARLIER DATE FOR MARK (70 AD)” (
WWW.WIKEPEDIA.ORG). SAUL OF TARSUS DIED BEFORE 70 AD, THUS, THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN 11 HOLY APOSTLES AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES WITH THE SELF-APOINTED APOSTLE, SAUL OF TARSUS, AND ALL THEIR FOLLOWERS WHO LIKELY WROTE DOWN WHAT THEY WERE BEING TAUGHT BY ALL OF THEM LED TO THE DIVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE EARLY CHURCH UNTIL THE LIFE OF AUGUSTINE.
JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES WOULD NOT SEE SAUL OF TARSUS AFTER CONVERSION FOR THE MOST PART DUE TO THEIR MISTRUST OF HIM AND HIS THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING THE FOLLOWERS OF THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH, PRIMARILY DUE TO KNOWING JESUS CHRIST THEMSELVES (EXCEPT FOR THE REPLACED APOSTLE) AND PERSONALLY BEING INSTRUCTED BY OUR SAVIOUR. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WAS THE APOSTLE PETER AND LATER THAT RELATIONSHIP ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED THAT JESUS CHRIST, THE MESSIAH, WAS GOING TO RETURN IN THEIR LIFETIMES DUE TO JESUS CHRIST’S STATEMENT IN JOHN 8:51 THAT HIS BELIEVERS WOULD NEVER SEE DEATH AT ALL (JESUS CHRIST MOST LIKELY MEANT THAT HIS FOLLOWERS WOULD NEVER EXPERIENCE ETERNAL DEATH). THUS, AS THE APOSTLES BECAME OLDER AND WERE BEING EXECUTED, THE 4 GOSPELS BECAME MORE IMPERATIVE TO WRITE AND POSSIBLY TO CORRECT SAUL OF TARSUS, AS JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN APOSTLES, NOT THE SELF-APPOINTED ONE, SAUL OF TARSUS, EVENTUALLY REALIZED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DIE AND HAD THEIR YOUNGER DISCIPLES WHO COULD SPEAK AND WRITE IN GREEK THEIR THEOLOGIC BELIEFS AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH JESUS CHRIST.

Do Christians today believe that JESUS, or Saul of Tarsus is the authority pertaining to the Sabbath AND Laws of Leviticus? This brings us to the subject of sin, a term that we frequently hear and is utilized to guide people on socially accepted behaviour. Morals and values have a direct impact upon what a "sin" is and are mostly influenced by ones’ geographical places of birth. Is "sin" as easily definable as people today believe? We will now examine "sin" more in-depthly to analyze the Biblical, historical, and sociological influences on what constitutes "sin" if that is possible.











8
WHAT IS SIN?
Sin is simply defined as a bad act. Now that we understand that concept, it is critical to understand that throughout history there have been numerous human constructions of cultures, religions, governments, and ethnicities of a "society". As earlier defined, a society is an organized group of people with various morals and values specific to the specific culture and historic period of time that are very dynamic and evolving, especially during the past century. Therefore, what is "bad" is contingent upon a specific society, the specific society's cultural beliefs, morals, values and historic period of time and constantly changes throughout time. This includes all societies that have existed in human history. Thus, what constitute a "sin" are the elements and criteria that a society sets-up as the boundaries of acceptable behaviour by its people.
"Sin" is a human creation according to the variables mentioned above since so many people in all the societies that have existed claim that sacred scripture and/or God gave them their specific criteria for what a "sin" is; therefore, it is impossible to identify "one" society that is 100% creditible, as God Himself has not personally written anything down for the human species on what constitutes a "sin", only people have. Subsequently, it is imperative to have an in-depth understanding that from matriarchal societies (female dominated) that pre-existed our current patriarchal societies (male dominated), people must free themselves from ideologies in order to comprehend the variables that are involved in every society that are modified throughout history that affect what is considered "good" or "bad" by any specific society. These ideologies that influence morals and values, good or bad (in effect, "sin"), are constantly in motion and are affected by the economy that perpetuates itself by the methods of education and religious systems organized to teach and morally justify the strength that the Pulpit of Power has and wishes to retain in the form of politics.
A "sin" is not necessarily a crime in any society as it is usually utilized as a religious term to describe an act of an individual. Naturally, this varies according to the multiple societies (cultures) that consist of religions, politics, economics, and education systems. The focus here will be on what is a "sin" according to the Western Culture whose morals and values are mostly derived from the Bible. Logically, examples from the Bible in addition to historical events utilizing the Bible will be used in an attempt to see if "sin" is as easily definable as most people today believe. In the following chapters, we will examine "sin" from the definitions of all the worlds’ major religions.
First, we will comment on matriarchal societies when nomadic tribal people and their societies existed here on earth with the philosophical and theological ideologies where people shared possessions and knowledge with one another and had respect for all life and the earth. The matriarchal historic period of time was obvious before current scientific knowledge of deoxyribonucleic acid (D.N.A.); thus, the only possible way to know for a certainty the lineage of human beings was through whomever a child was born from. This matriarchal historic period of time existed from the beginning of human history until approximately 6,000 years ago when human beings switched to the patriarchal societies that we currently live in and went from nomadic tribal groups to agricultural groups that lived off the land and organized into specific areas and specific isolated family units. Patriarchal societies took control due to their recognition of the power of possessions that lead to power and control over other people.
Then, patriarchal societies passed on their possessions and power to their progeny (children) to retain power and control within their own family units. This was necessary for men to know who their children were and the use of ideologies to maintain the newly acquired power and control over other people. Men then instituted their family units in order to dominate women in order to know for more certainty the identification of who their children were in order to be sure to transfer their power and control unto their biologic heirs. This was then critical as whomever had more possessions had more power and authority over those who had less possessions.
History has obviously been written from a patriarchal perspective since writing likely began in Asia and after the switch from matriarchal societies. Additionally, “religious” people selectively chose specific Sacred Scriptures to decide what a sin (a bad act) is, rather than utilizing all Sacred Scripture, especially among Christianity. All Sacred Scriptures of the Bible apply, or none do (this also applies to other Sacred Scriptures for such specific religions). Otherwise, this is double-standard hypocrisy, period.
We will now examine people described in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Greek Scriptures, the Jesus Movement that was later named "Christianity", and some crucial events during the past 2,000 years.
HEBREW/GREEK SCRIPTURES GENESIS CHAPTERS 3-4
The powerful angel later to be known as Satan the Devil (as previously stated, perhaps one of the original 4 archangels), deceived perfect Adam and Eve into rebellion and corruption against God by eating of the tree of knowledge that God had requested that they not do out of love, loyalty, respect and worship. Adam and Eve had no physical or psychological duress as God allowed for them to have anything else that they wanted, including food. This was a much easier temptation than what Jesus Christ faced due to the following Biblical facts:

A note on perfect Jesus compared to perfect Adam and Eve.
1) Adam and Eve could eat all the food in the Garden of Eden except for one, had constant communication with God, saw God, and the temptation was for God's test of their love and loyalty to Him according to Biblical accounts. They were not under any physical duress and/or psychological duress such as hunger and were only tempted once. (GENESIS CHAPTERS 1-4).
2) Jesus was without food for 40 days before Satan the Devil appeared before Him after baptism to test Him when Jesus was very hungry and without, I repeat, without Divine protection and was tempted at least these three times and likely more. For the human body to physically go without food for such a long duration weakens the body and mind. This is why Satan the Devil sneakily and disgustingly chose to wait until the end of the 40 days when Jesus was at His greatest human physical lack of strength. Satan the Devil erroneously must have also thought that this would include psychological lack of strength and that Jesus would be more susceptible to sin. (Matthew 4:1-11).
3) Satan even mocked Jesus' response of the first temptation because Jesus utilized sacred scripture for His refusal to sin. Satan the Devil brilliantly utilized sacred scripture for the second temptation against Jesus who responded likewise and remained loyal to God. (Satan the Devil, after realizing that the second temptation did not work, used another method for the third temptation). (Matthew 4:1-11)
NOTE: Satan the Devil was not in fear of Jesus Christ as a human being (obviously he was before and after Jesus Christ’s human existence. Satan the Devil just pounced upon his only opportunity in history to attack Jesus Christ without all His heavenly power and authority). The demons were afraid of Jesus Christ as a human being as described in Matthew Chapter 8. Compare this to good heavenly angels’ dispute with Satan the Devil in Jude Chapter 9 that resulted in Michael, one of the 4 archangels, to over-power Satan the Devil. Why would it take Michael, one of the 4 most powerful angels, to over-power Satan the Devil when the other angels were unable to? Obviously, Satan the Devil is more powerful than most all other holy and demonic angels, even in his current state.
PERHAPS SOME SACRED REVELATIONS ARE TO BE REVEALED TO HUMAN BEINGS IN GOD’S APPOINTED TIME EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT STATED IN THE BIBLE.
ALSO, READ BELOW ON THE DIFFERENCE IN SATAN THE DEVIL’S APPROACH TO GOD IN THE BIBLE BOOK OF JOB IN HEAVEN AS OPPOSED TO HIS APPROACH TO JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH?
1. NOTE: IN THE BEGINNING CHAPTERS OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES SECTION BIBLICAL BOOK OF JOB, SATAN THE DEVIL STILL HAD ACCESS TO THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY AND APPEAR BEFORE GOD. (THIS HAS LIKELY BEEN REVOKED AFTER JESUS CHRIST’S CRUCIFIXION). SATAN THE DEVIL, EVEN IN HIS POWERFUL EVIL STATE, OBVIOUSLY KNEW THAT GOD HAD MORE POWER THAN HIM AS HE HAD TO ASK GOD FOR PERMISSION TO ATTACK JOB. (IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE, HE ASKED GOD IN A POLITE MANNER. DOES THIS SEEM LIKE SATAN THE DEVIL WAS IN FEAR OF GOD IN THIS FORUM?). DOES THE READER BELIEVE THAT EVIL SATAN THE DEVIL WOULD WASTE HIS TIME ASKING GOD FOR PERMISSION AND TO REMOVE THE SACRED CIRCLE OF PROTECTION IF HE COULD HAVE DONE IT HIMSELF? EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO REALIZE, SATAN THE DEVIL POLITELY ASKED GOD FOR PERMISSION TO REMOVE HIS SACRED CIRCLE OF PROTECTION OF JOB SO THAT SATAN THE DEVIL, I REPEAT, SATAN THE DEVIL, NOT GOD, COULD ATTACK JOB? IS THERE ANY DOUBT OVER WHO HAS MORE POWER BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN THE DEVIL?
2. NOTE: SINCE SATAN THE DEVIL HAD TO TWICE ASK GOD TO RESCIND HIS CIRCLE OF SACRED PROTECTION OF JOB AND TO HAVE PERMISSION TO ATTACK HIM, DID SATAN THE DEVIL HAVE TO ASK GOD FOR PERMISSION TO ENTER THE GARDEN OF EDEN TO DO HIS TEST (TEMPTATION) OF ADAM AND EVE? OR, DID THIS PERMISSION HAVE TO BE GRANTED BY GOD AFTER THE POWERFUL ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL HAVE HIS POWERS RESTRICTED BY GOD AFTER BECOMING CORRUPT AND IMPERFECT DUE TO HIS SIN OF TESTING (TEMPTATION) OF ADAM AND EVE WHO ALSO BECAME CORRUPT AND IMPERFECT WITH THE SUBSEQUENT RESULT OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND EVENTUAL DEATH EXACTLY AS GOD HAD FORWARNED THEM?

3. NOTE: WHY WOULD GOD ASK SATAN THE DEVIL WHERE HAD HE BEEN IN THE BIBLE BOOK OF JOB? DID GOD NOT KNOW WHERE SATAN THE DEVIL WAS (SATAN THE DEVIL REPLIED TO GOD ON THE EARTH), OR WAS GOD MAKING A PROFOUND SACRED STATEMENT TO SATAN THE DEVIL WITH HOLY AND DEMONIC ANGELIC EYEWITNESSES THAT HE (AND THE DEMONIC ANGELS) WERE IN REBELLION AGAINST GOD, DISREGARDING AND ABUSING THEIR AUTHORITY OF “FREE-WILL” BY NOT BEING IN THEIR APPOINTED HEAVENLY, NOT EARTHLY, POSITIONS, BY GOD?
4. NOTE: WHY WOULD GOD FIRST ASK SATAN THE DEVIL IN THE BIBLE BOOK OF JOB (BEFORE SATAN THE DEVIL MENTIONED ANYTHING), THE REASON THAT HE TARGETED IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING JOB’S LOVE AND LOYALTY TO THE ALMIGHTY? COULD IT HAVE BEEN THAT SATAN THE DEVIL ALREADY ATTEMPTED TO ATTACK JOB (OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD GOD ALREADY KNOW THIS AND SATAN THE DEVIL’S RESPONSE TO GOD THAT HE KNEW THAT GOD HAD PUT A CIRCLE OF SACRED PROTECTION AND BLESSINGS TO JOB THAT SATAN THE DEVIL WAS UNABLE TO, I REPEAT, UNABLE T0 PENETRATE?).
5. NOTE: SATAN THE DEVIL HAD TO DO THIS TWICE IN HIS CHALLENGE TO GOD ABOUT JOB’S LOVE AND LOYALTY TO GOD. THIS WAS A CHALLENGE MORE TO GOD THAN JOB IF THE READER RECOGNIZES THAT SATAN THE DEVIL’S ABSURD CHALLENGE TO GOD’S UNIVERSAL SOVREIGNTY PRIMARILY INVOLVES THE ISSUE OF GOD ALLOWING PERFECT HUMANS AND PERFECT ANGELS, ESPECIALLY PERFECT HUMANS, AND LATER IMPERFECT ONES, “FREE-WILL”. THIS IS LIKELY WHY SATAN THE DEVIL, AS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL ANGELS, TESTED EVE, NOT ADAM, FIRST, AS SHE WAS AT THAT HISTORIC PERIOD OF TIME THE LAST CREATION OF GOD AND MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BEING INTELLECTUALLY AND THEOLOGICALLY DECEIVED THAN ANY OTHER PERFECT CREATION, INCLUDING ADAM. EVE WAS THE COMPLETMENT AND EQUAL TO ADAM ACCORDING TO GOD AND PERHAPS IF ADAM HAD BEEN CREATED LAST, SATAN THE DEVIL WOULD HAVE APPROACHED HIM FIRST. (THE FACT THAT EVE WAS A FEMALE IS INSIGNIFICANT. WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT IS THAT SHE WAS THE YOUNGEST PERFECT CREATION OF GOD AND THAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY SATAN THE DEVIL APPROACHED HER, NOT ADAM) AND ANYTHING WRITTEN LATER THAN THAT IS A FALSE INTERPRETATION OF GOD’S WILL AS NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER DOES GOD HIMSELF IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES OR JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF IN THE GOSPELS IMPLY THAT FEMALES ARE INFERIOR TO MALES. THIS HAS ONLY BEEN WRITTEN BY IMPERFECT HUMAN BEINGS DURING PATRIARCHAL HISTORIC PERIODS OF TIME (INCLUDING THE ENTIRE BIBLE) THAT ONLY MEN, I REPEAT, ONLY MEN VOTED ON AS WHICH SCROLLS OF HUMANKIND WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS INSPIRED BY GOD. THIS EVIL TACTIC OF SATAN THE DEVIL WAS SO EGREGIOUS AND DISGUSTING (DOES JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING RING A BELL?) AS ALL THE CELESTIAL ANGELS OF GOD WERE GOOD AT THIS JUNCTURE AND SATAN THE DEVIL REALIZED THAT HIS ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCESSFULLY DECEIVE INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR, PERFECT ANGELIC BEINGS WAS TO HAVE “EVIDENCE” BY SUCCESSFULLY DECEIVING THE FIRST HUMAN PAIR TO “PROVE” HIS POINT IN THE HEAVENLY DEBATE TO GOD’S DECISION ON GRANTING HUMAN BEINGS “FREE-WILL”. THUS, SATAN THE DEVIL, IRONICALLY, ABUSING HIS AUTHORITY AND OWN “FREE-WILL”, MADE A POWERFUL DEBATE IN HEAVEN ABOUT THIS ISSUE DUE TO THE “EVIDENCE” OF ADAM AND EVE’S SINS AGAINST THE “FREE-WILL” THAT GOD HAD GRANTED THEM.
6. THEREFORE, THIS BECAME A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO GOD’S UNIVERSAL SOVREIGNTY. THIS GAVE SATAN THE DEVIL A LEVEL OF “CREDIBILITY” AMONG THE OTHER ANGELIC BEINGS IN LYINGLY STATING THAT GOD MADE A MISTAKE BY GRANTING “FREE-WILL” TO HUMAN BEINGS (THEREFORE, GOD DID NOT DESERVE UNIVERSAL SOVREIGNTY).
7. NOTE: SATAN THE DEVIL MUST HAVE GAINED SOME “CREDIBILITY” TO THE OTHER ANGELIC BEINGS DUE TO DECEIVING ADAM AND EVE (“EVIDENCE” OF HIS CLAIM AGAINST HUMAN BEINGS HAVING AND ABUSING THE GIFT OF GOD OF “FREE-WILL”) THAT SUBSEQUENTLY LED TO 1/3rd OF THE HOLY ANGELS TO BECOME DEMONIC (REVELATION 12:4). IN EZEKIEL 28:17, SATAN THE DEVIL IS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE AS NARCACISSTIC, IN LOVE WITH HIS OWN BEAUTY AND WISDOM, AND THIS IS WHY HE HAD THE AUDACITY TO ATTACK GOD AND VIEW HIMSELF AS SUPERIOR TO HUMAN BEINGS. THIS IS ALSO WHY SATAN THE DEVIL STILL DESPERATELY ATTEMPTS TO DO THE SAME WITH IMPERFECT HUMANS AND THE HOLY ANGELS. THIS WILL INCREASE WITH INTENSITY UNTIL ARMAGEDDON AS SATAN THE DEVIL MUST FOR SOME BIZARRE REASON BELIEVE THAT HE MAY OVER-POWER GOD BY HAVING THE MAJORITY OF CREATION SUPPORTING, THEREFORE, WORSHIPPING HIM INSTEAD OF GOD.
8. NOTE: GOD OBVIOUSLY KNEW WHAT OBJECTIVES THAT SATAN THE DEVIL HAD SINCE HE HIMSELF DIRECTLY CREATED THE POWERFUL ANGELIC BEING (ONE OF THE ORIGINAL 4 ARCHANGELS, EVEN PERHAPS THE SECOND CREATION OF GOD IF JESUS CHRIST WAS THE FIRST CREATION, IF JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD HIMSELF; NEVERTHELESS, THIS ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL WAS AT LEAST THE 2ND CREATION OF GOD) WHO BECAME “SATAN THE DEVIL” DUE TO HIS ABUSING HIS AUTHORITY AND “FREE WILL” AND GOD ALLOWED FOR THIS TO OCCUR AND PLANNED FOR IT. THIS MAY BE SEEN BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING SENT DOWN TO THE EARTH IN A PERFECT HUMAN BEING BODY WITHOUT HIS CELESTIAL POWER AND GLORY. IT WAS DONE IN THIS MANNER SO THAT SATAN THE DEVIL COULD TEST HIM JUST LIKE PERFECT HUMAN BEINGS ADAM AND EVE (AND IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING, JOB).
9. NOTE: IS IT JUST ME, OR DO THE TESTS (TEMPTATIONS) BY SATAN THE DEVIL TO JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING SEEM EXTREMELY PERSONAL? IF YOU WILL, CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD HIMSELF, THEN AS MENTIONED ABOVE, HE OBVIOUSLY WAS THE 1ST CREATION OF GOD. THEN, PERHAPS THE 2ND CREATION WAS THE POWERFUL ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL. IN MATTEW 28:18-20, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF STATED THAT ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH HAS BEEN GRANTED TO HIM BY GOD AND LIKELY WAS BEFORE HE EVEN ARRIVED AS A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH. IN MATTEW CHAPTER 4, SATAN THE DEVIL’S 3RD TEMPTATION OF JESUS CHRIST WAS FOR SATAN THE DEVIL (NOT GOD) TO GRANT JESUS CHRIST ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY ON THE EARTH (SATAN THE DEVIL ONLY TEMPORARILY HAS THIS EARTHLY POWER AND AUTHORITY UNTIL HE IS PUT IN THE ABYSS; A STATE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH, AND EVENTUALLY DESTRUCTION DIRECTLY BY GOD HIMSELF AS DESCRIBED IN REVELATION CHAPTER 20). THIS CORRESPONDS TO THE 2ND TEMPTATION, WHEN SATAN THE DEVIL LIED BY OMISSION TO JESUS CHRIST WHEN HE QUOTED PSALM 91:11-12 FOR GOD’S PROMISE OF ANGELIC PROTECTION BY THROWING HIMSELF DOWN A MOUNTAIN TO PROVE BEING THE MESSIAH (AGAIN, SATAN THE DEVIL ALREADY KNEW THIS TO BE TRUE). JESUS CHRIST SCRIPTURALLY CORRECTED SATAN THE DEVIL’S ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE HIM (WHO ALREADY KNEW THAT NO BEING, IN HEAVEN OR EARTH, IS TO TEST GOD).
THESE 2 TESTS (TEMPTATIONS) AFTER JESUS CHRIST WAS LED TO THE WILDERNESS BY THE HOLY SPIRIT AFTER BAPTISM BY JOHN THE BAPTIST, SATAN THE DEVIL TESTED JESUS CHRIST THE 1ST TIME, DUE TO BEING WITHOUT FOOD FOR 40 DAYS (THIS CORRESPONDS TO THE ISRAELITES EXODUS FROM EGYPT 40 YEARS WANDERING THE DESERT BEFORE GOING TO THE PROMISED LAND) AND TEMPTING JESUS CHRIST TO TURN A STONE INTO BREAD SINCE HE WAS VERY HUNGRY (THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A SIN DUE TO SATAN THE DEVIL’S DISGUSTING ATTEMPT TO HAVE JESUS CHRIST UTILIZE HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY, “FREE-WILL”, FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT THAT GOD HAD PROHIBITED, SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ENCOUNTER WITH SATAN THE DEVIL DUE TO ITS ETERNAL IMPORTANCE. THE TEMPATIONS WENT AS FOLLOWS (ACCORDING TO VARIOUS ACCOUNTS THAT ARE MINIMALLY DIFFERENT):
1. JESUS CHRIST TO DISOBEY GOD BY MISUSING HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY, “FREE-WILL”, FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT TURNING A STONE INTO BREAD DUE TO HAVING NO FOOD FOR 40 DAYS.
2. JESUS CHRIST TO MISUSE HIS “FREE-WILL” TO TEST GOD AND HIS PROMISE OF GOOD ANGELIC PROTECTION DUE TO SATAN THE DEVIL UTILIZING SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE BOOK OF PSALMS, YET LYING BY OMISSION ABOUT GOD’S PROTECTION, YET AS JESUS CHRIST STATED, THE SACRED CIRCLE OF GOD’S PROTECTION IS NOT TO TEST GOD (A SIN), RATHER, IT IS A GIFT OF GOD THAT IS GIVEN, NOT TEMPTING GOD, A TOTAL 180% TWISTING OF TRUTH.
3. JESUS CHRIST WAS TEMPTED BY SATAN THE DEVIL TO MISUSE HIS “FREE-WILL” TO DO AN ACT (ONE) OF WORSHIP TO SATAN THE DEVIL IN ORDER TO RECEIVE TEMPORARY (SATAN THE DEVIL AGAIN LIED BY OMITTING THIS FACT) POWER AND AUTHORITY IN THE EARTH THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS BEEN DESTINED TO HAVE ANYWAY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
PERHAPS THIS 3RD TEST OF SATAN THE DEVIL OUT OF HIS TOTAL DESPERATION AND FAILURE LED HIM TO DEPART FROM JESUS CHRIST AND PLOT THE FUTURE EVIL AND CRUCIFIXION AGAINST HOLY JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS FINAL ATTEMPTS IN HAVING JESUS CHRIST MISUSE HIS “FREE-WILL” TO DISOBEY GOD BY AVOIDING THE FUTURE PAIN, SUFFERING, DESPICABLE MURDER, ETC… AS SATAN THE DEVIL CLAIMED TO GOD THAT IMPERFECT JOB (ALL HUMAN BEINGS AND MOST LIKELY USED ADAM AND EVE AS “EVIDENCE”) WILL NOT REMAIN LOYAL AND LOVING TO GOD IF IT MEANT THE LOSS OF THEIR LIVES (THAT GOD RESTRICTED WITH JOB, YET NOT WITH JESUS CHRIST). THEREFORE, GOD GRANTED SATAN THE DEVIL THE ULTIMATE OPPORTUNITY (FREE-WILL) TO ATTEMPT TO TEST JESUS CHRIST TO MISUSE HIS OWN “FREE-WILL” TO AVOID CURCIFIXION, ETC….
JESUS CHRIST SAVED US BY NOT BEING BAITED BY SATAN THE DEVIL TO ABUSE HIS “FREE-WILL”. THIS IS CRITICAL TO REALIZE AS LIKE THE FORMER ARCHANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL, JESUS CHRIST WAS AND IS EVEN MORE POWERFUL AS AN ANGELIC SPIRITUAL BEING AND BEFORE CRUCIFIXION AND LIFE ON EARTH, NEVER SUFFERED PAIN AND CERTAINLY NOT A HUMILIATION, TORTURE, SLANDER, AND THE MOST PAINFUL DEATH IMAGINABLE. THUS, IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT EVEN JESUS CHRIST WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO EXPERIENCING THIS, HE YET STILL DID NOT ABUSE HIS AUTHORITY, "FREE-WILL", BY DISOBEYING GOD BY SINNING AND AVOIDING SATAN THE DEVIL'S WORST SINS OF ALL, AGAINST THE ONE WHO PERSONALLY CREATED HIM AND INITIALLY BLESSED HIM IN THE HEAVENS. SATAN THE DEVIL’S EVIL AGAINST JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING ARE THE MOST DIGRACEFUL ATORCITIES THAT WILL EVER BE COMMITTED AGAINST A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN BEING, OR ANY HUMAN BEING FOR THAT MATTER.
JESUS CHRIST’S LOVE AND LOYALTY TO GOD AND ALL GOOD HUMAN BEINGS PROVED THAT GOD WAS RIGHT TO GRANT “FREE-WILL” TO HUMAN BEINGS IN ADDITION TO ANGELIC BEINGS DESPITE SATAN THE DEVIL’S INITIAL SUCCESS, BUT WHO HAS NOW BEEN TOTALLY DISCREDITED WITH THE MAJORITY OF HUMAN BEINGS AND ANGELIC BEINGS.
AS EARLIER ALLUDED TO, IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT THE POWERFUL ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL WAS NEXT IN POSITION AFTER JESUS CHRIST IN HEAVENLY HIERARCHY (GOD’S GOVERNMENT) AND BECAME JEALOUS OF JESUS CHRIST DUE TO GOD (ALL ANGELIC BEINGS AND ALL HUMAN BEINGS FATHER) GRANTING JESUS CHRIST ALL HEAVENLY AND EARTHLY POWER AND AUTHORITY, (MOST CERTAINLY BEFORE SIN EVEN BECAME AN ISSUE AS GOD FORSAW THE FUTURE EVENTS AND KNOWING THE ANGELIC BEINGS AND HUMAN BEINGS, PERFECT AND IMPERFECT, MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE, OBVIOUSLY HAS A GREATER INSIGHT INTO ALL CREATIONS LIKELY ACTIONS AND THIS IS WHY HE TRUSTED VARIOUS IMPERFECT HUMAN BEINGS AGAINST A MORE POWERFUL DEMONIC ANGEL, SATAN THE DEVIL, AND CERTAINLY PERFECT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. JUST LIKE JOB, YET MORE EXCESSIVE, JESUS CHRIST, AFTER UNJUSTLY SUFFERING PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS BY SATAN THE DEVIL, HAD TO EXPERIENCE PHYSICAL TORTURE WHILE BEING MOCKED BY INFERIOR HUMAN BEINGS, THE ROMAN AUTHORITIES, AND THIS WAS WORSE THAN JOB BECAUSE AS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, JESUS CHRIST HAD NEVER SUFFERED PAIN, EVEN IN HIS PRE-EXISITING SPIRITUAL EXISITENCE. GOD’S FAVOR OF JESUS CHRIST OVER THE PERFECT POWERFUL ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL DUE TO THE INITIAL CORRUPT SIN OF HIS TEST OF EVE IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN, IS WHAT MOTIVATED SATAN THE DEVIL’S BEGINNING AND PROGRESSING OF EVIL ACTIONS, SIMILAR TO CAIN AND ABEL, YET ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL, GOD'S UNIVERSAL SOVREIGNTY AND DECISION TO GRANT ALL HIS CREATION "FREE-WILL".

GENESIS CHAPTER 4 DESCRIBES WHERE CAIN KILLED HIS RIGTHEOUS BROTHER ABEL. IT IS EERILY FAMILIAR THAT PERHAPS THESE IDENTICAL EMOTIONS AND ACTIONS (AS SATAN THE DEVIL INFLUENCED HUMAN BEINGS TO EVENTUALLY TORTURE AND KILL JESUS CHRIST AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING AFTER ALL HIS OTHER HORRIBLE TESTS FAILED) OCCURRED BETWEEN GOD’S FIRST PERFECT CELESTIAL BEINGS AND THE FIRST IMPERFECT BROTHERLY HUMAN BEINGS DIRECTLY DUE TO GOD’S FAVOR FOR ONE OVER THE OTHER. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING POSSIBILITY:
1. NOTE: ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE BOOK GENESIS, GOD LOVED ABEL MORE THAN CAIN (ADAM AND EVE’S FIRST 2 SONS), YET ALWAYS LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR CAIN BEFORE HE KILLED ABEL TO BE IN THE SAME BLESSED RELATIONSHIP.
2. NOTE: WHY DID GOD LOVE ABEL MORE? THIS WAS DUE TO ABEL’S HEART CONDITION AS HE LOVED GOD AND HE SERVED GOD WITHOUT CONDITIONS, E.G., BEING BLESSED BY GOD AND CAIN SERVED GOD EXPECTING TO BE BLESSED. IRONICALLY, GOD WOULD HAVE BLESSED THEM BOTH EQUALLY IF CAIN HAD THE RIGHT HEART CONDITION, YET BASED UPON THEIR DIFFERENT HEART CONDITIONS, LIKE ANY HUMAN BEINGS PARENTS; GOD LOVED ABEL MORE SIMPLY BECAUSE ABEL LOVED GOD.
3. REVELATION CHAPTER 20 DESCRIBES SATAN THE DEVIL'S DESTRUCTION DIRECTLY BY GOD HIMSELF AS THE LAST EVIL CREATION. TWO QUESTIONS:
A. WILL GOD DELIGHT IN DESTROYING SATAN THE DEVIL?
ANSWER: NO. THIS IS BECAUSE SATAN THE DEVIL WAS A VERY POWERFUL, PERFECT ANGELIC BEING FOR EONS DIRECTLY CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF AND ONLY BECAME IMPERFECT SATAN THE DEVIL (LIAR AND SLANDERER) ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS ABOUT THE GARDEN OF EDEN. SUBSEQUENTLY, THIS CORRUPT ANGEL IS A SON OF GOD, DIRECTLY CREATED BY GOD, NOT PROCREATED LIKE HUMAN BEINGS, AND SATAN THE DEVIL ABUSED HIS AUTHORITY AND "FREE-WILL" BY HIS CORRUPTION OF SINS AND BASICALLY, A LIFE OF CRIME AGAINST GOD. GOD, LIKE ANY PARENT, DOES NOT DELIGHT IN THE DESTRUCTION AND/OR DEATH OF ONE OF HIS CHILDREN. IN FACT, GOD TAKES NO DELIGHT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY EVIL HUMAN BEING OR ANGELIC BEING (EZEKIEL 18 AND EZEKIEL 33). GOD CERTAINLY DOES NOT DELIGHT IN DESTROYING HIS SELF-CREATED ANGELIC SON WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL. NEVERTHELESS, SATAN THE DEVIL CHOSE HIS FATE AND GOD MUST SET A SACRED LEGAL PRECEDENT AGAINST THE NEFARIOUS CHALLENGE TO HIS UNIVERSIAL SOVREIGNTY SO THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER REBELLION IN THE INFINITY OF HISTORY AND GOD'S BLESSINGS BEYOND HUMAN BEINGS COMPREHENSIONS SIMPLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE NEVER AGAIN WILL BE CORRUPTION.
B. WHY DID GOD NOT DESTROY CAIN AS DESCRIBED IN GENESIS CHAPTER 4 AFTER HE KILLED ABEL, WHOM GOD LOVED MORE, AND IN FACT, GOD STATED THAT ANYONE KILLING CAIN FOR REVENGE FOR HIS MURDER OF ABEL WOULD FACE 7 TIMES WORSE THAN CAIN?

• NOTE: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT, IF JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD HIMSELF, THAT THIS EXACT SAME SCENARIO OCCURRED IN HEAVEN BETWEEN GOD’S 2 FIRST ANGELIC CREATIONS (SONS) WITH JESUS CHRIST BEING FIRST AND JUST LIKE CAIN, THE ARCHANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL, BECAME JEALOUS OF THIS AND FALSELY ASSUMED THAT HE WAS REJECTED BY GOD BEFORE HE BECAME CORRUPT (HE STILL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE BLESSED BY GOD MORE THAN HE ALREADY HAD BEEN IF HE CHOSE VIA HIS “FREE-WILL). SATAN THE DEVIL’S LATER SINS (BEGINNING IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN) AND EVIL ATROCITIES, ESPECIALLY AGAINST JESUS CHRIST AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING, IS SIMPLY DUE TO THE MOTIVES OF JEALOUSY, REVENGE, AND IN HIS MIND, JUSTIFYING THE ATTACKS ON GOD’S UNIVERSAL SOVREIGNTY AND USING THE EASIEST ISSUE OF ALL, THE “FREE-WILL” THAT GOD GIFTED HUMAN BEINGS (ADAM AND EVE). THE HEART (SPIRITUALLY IN THIS CASE) CONDITIONS BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND THE POWERFUL ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL IS WHAT TRIGGERED THE EVENTS OF THE PAST 6,000 YEARS OF HISTORY.
NOTE: JESUS CHRIST WAS SENT TO EARTH WITHOUT HIS CELESTIAL POWER AND GLORY SO THAT WHATEVER SATAN THE DEVIL WOULD DO WOULD BE ON AT LEAST A FAIR PLAYING FIELD (OTHERWISE, SATAN THE DEVIL WOULD DECEITFULLY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CLAIM ANY UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT OF HIS WAS DUE TO THE SAME REASONS THAT HE ERRONEOUSLY CLAIMED THAT JOB WAS LOYAL AND LOVING TO GOD). IN FACT, SATAN THE DEVIL HAD THE ADVANTAGE OVER JESUS CHRIST AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING (DUE TO HAVING ALL PRE-EXISITNG HEAVENLY KNOWLEDGE THAT JESUS CHRIST RECEIVED ONLY AFTER HIS BAPTISM. THUS, A JESUS CHRIST SUCCESS AGAINST MORE EXTREME AND EXCESSIVE TESTS (MULTIPLE TESTS/TEMPTATIONS FOR HIM JUST LIKE JOB AND UNLIKE ADAM AND EVE) BY SATAN THE DEVIL, EVEN TO THE POINT OF DEATH (UNLIKE THE RESTRICTION THAT GOD PUT ON SATAN THE DEVIL PERTAINING TO JOB), WOULD TOTALLY DISCREDIT SATAN THE DEVIL’S “CREDIBILITY” WITH A PERFECT HUMAN BEING JUST AS HE WAS DISCREDITED WITH IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING JOB (AND OTHERS BEFORE AND AFTER HIM). THESE WERE MULTIPLE LOSSES FOR SATAN THE DEVIL THAT TOTALLY DESTROYED HIS CLAIMS ABOUT GOD GRANTING HUMAN BEINGS “FREE-WILL” DUE TO THE EVIL AND MURDER OF JESUS CHRIST WHO DID NOT SIN. JESUS CHRIST’S SUCCESS HAS DISCREDITED SATAN THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONIC ANGELS AND HIS SITUATION WILL ONLY BECOME WORSE FOR HIM UNTIL HE IS DESTROYED AND THAT IS WHY THE BIBLE STATES THAT HE WILL BECOME MORE AND MORE EVIL AS HIS JUDGEMENT DAY APPROACHES.
(REMEMBER: SATAN THE DEVIL AND THE DEMONIC ANGELS HAVE LIVED FOR EONS AND HAVE NEVER DIED SINCE GOD HIMSELF DIRECTLY CREATED ALL OF THEM. MOST OF SATAN THE DEVIL’S LIFE IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL, PERFECT ANGELS AND HE ONLY BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL ABOUT 6,000 YEARS AGO ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS). YET, THE EVIL THAT SATAN THE DEVIL BROUGHT TO THE EARTH AND UNIVERSE IN A CELESTIAL SHORT PERIOD OF HISTORIC TIME IS INCOMPARABLE. REMEMBER THIS, LIKE JESUS CHRIST'S PRE-EXISTENCE IN THE SACRED, SATAN THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONIC ANGELS HAVE NEVER DIED OR EXPERIENCED PAIN AND SUFFERING LIKE JESUS CHRIST DID AS A HUMAN BEING AND EVEN IN THEIR EVIL STATE, ARE FEARFUL OF THEIR IMPENDING DESTRUCTION BY GOD AND HIS HOLY ANGELIC ARMIES THAT IS APPROACHING FASTER THAN THE HUMAN SPECEIS REALIZES.
• NOTE: GOD, AFTER ARMAGEDDON, WILL ALLOW SATAN THE DEVIL TO DO THESE TESTS (TEMPTATIONS) AFTER BEING RELEASED FROM AN ABYSS (A STATE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH) FOR 1,000 YEARS WHEN HUMAN BEINGS WILL HAVE REGAINED PERFECTION AND AFTER THE DEMONIC ANGELES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY GOD (REVELATION CHAPTER 20). SATAN THE DEVIL, IF HE WOULD SUCCEED AGAINST PERFECT HUMAN BEINGS AFTER THE 1,000 YEARS, WOULD WIN AGAINST GOD AND AMONG THE HOLY ANGELS AND MAKE GOD APPEAR FOOLISH RESULTING IN TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF ALL CREATION BY GOD.

NEVERTHELESS, SACRED SCRIPTURE PROPHESIZES THAT SATAN THE DEVIL WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE SUCCESS, THEN GOD WILL DESTROY ALL REBELLIOUS HUMAN BEINGS AND ANGELIC BEINGS. MOST, HOWEVER, WILL REMAIN LOYAL TO GOD. GOD, ALLOWING SATAN THE DEVIL TO DO THESE TESTS A FINAL TIME, WILL PUT AN EXCLAMATION POINT ON HOW HUMANS AND ANGELS LIVES ARE WITHOUT GOD DUE TO THE ABUSE OF THEIR “FREE-WILL” THAT RESULTS ONLY IN CALAMITY. "FREE-WILL" IS A GIFT FROM GOD, YET ONE TO BE CONTAINED WITHIN GOD'S OWN LAWS, EVEN IN PERFECTION, AND IF DONE ACCORDINGLY, RESULTS ONLY IN BLESSINGS AND UNION WITH THE SACRED.
• NOTE: JOB REMAINED LOYAL TO GOD DESPITE EVERYONE ELSE, INCLUDING HIS WIFE, EXCEPT FOR ONE WISE YOUNG MAN, THAT FALSELY, I REPEAT, FALSELY ACCUSED JOB OF SECRET SINS AGAINST GOD (WHICH IS WHY JOB WAS GREATLY SUFFERING), AND JOB’S WIFE STATED TO HIM TO CURSE GOD AND TO DIE. SATAN THE DEVIL FAILED IN HIS DIRECT CHALLENGE TO GOD AND ALTHOUGH APPEARING DIRECT, WAS AN INDIRECT CHALLENGE TO JOB. JOB'S 3 "FRIENDS" WHO FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF SECRET SINS AGAINST GOD AND FALSELY ACCUSED GOD OF ATTACKING JOB WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY SATAN THE DEVIL WHO DID (SLANDER), WERE REBUKED BY GOD HIMSELF AND ONLY DUE TO THE PRAYERS OF JOB FOR THEM (AS GOD STATED THAT HE WOULD ONLY HEAR JOB’S PRAYERS, IN ESSENCE, ACCEPTING THEM AS GOD HEARS ALL PRAYERS (THAT IS JUST A SYMBOLIC EXPRESSION). GOD ALSO ORDERED JOB’S 3 “FRIENDS” TO OFFER SACRIFICES FOR FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SLANDER OF GOD AND JOB, SINS, TO RECEIVE GOD'S MERCY. THEY ALL DID THIS AND THAT IS WHY GOD REFRAINED FROM PUNISHING THEM. THIS ALSO INVOLVED THE RETURN TO PROSPERITY FOR JOB, DOUBLE OF WHAT HE PREVIOUSLY HAD. YET, IT WAS STILL A SACRIFICE AS SATAN THE DEVIL WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS OF JOB’S EARLIER CHILDREN, SO THESE BLESSINGS BY GOD TO JOB ARE JUST.
JOB 42: 7-17
4) As recently alluded to, Satan the Devil's unsuccessful temptations of Jesus were much more excessive, evil and intense than his successful temptation of perfect human beings Adam and Eve (due to the environments and what was just described), because of the significance and importance as Satan the Devil knew who Jesus truly is and if Satan the Devil had not failed, then who knows what would have happened to all creation, likely total destruction by God. What enormous pressure that Jesus was under as God, the holy angels, and the angelic demons were all witnessing the greatest confrontation in all of heavenly and earthly history up until Armageddon. (Matthew 4:1-11).
5) Jesus was only helped by the angels of God and with Divine protection after, I repeat, after the tests by Satan the Devil who suffered more than any other human being (imperfect and perfect) who has ever existed and who will ever exist by using “things” disguised as human beings, including the bozo who betrayed Him in attempts to have Jesus Christ Himself misuse His “free-will” that although being the greatest failure of Satan the Devil, if he had been successful, would have been his greatest success against God.
Was anything described here a sin? (Matthew Chapter 4).

REVELATION 12:4
Even more disturbing than Adam and Eve's sins, as described earlier, perhaps the focus should be that Satan the Devil deceived 1/3rd of all the perfect angels that God Himself personally created and educated into corruption after his success with Adam and Eve (who were superior to perfect, humans Adam and Eve) and certainly imperfect human beings pertaining to intellect and power, thereby becoming evil. (If this corruption is possible among perfect celestial angels in the sacred and human beings in the sacred directly created by God Himself, then this certainly occurs here in the sinful, corrupt profane world, even among authority figures, that we live in since the days when the rebellion against God began and will last until we are once again governed by God Himself).
All the perfect angels of God resided with God and saw Him and His Glory and Power. Thus, Satan the Devil (one of the most powerful angels as he obviously had the permission for a Celestial public forum) did make a profound and compelling debate against God's right to Universal Sovereignty. And specifically, he focused on God’s decision on granting perfect human beings “free-will”, and in fact, even after the sins of Satan the Devil, Adam and Eve, God still allowed for all human beings and angelic beings, good or bad, “free-will”.
Here are 10 questions to ponder:
1. GOD HIMSELF, ALONE, AN ENERGY LIFE FORM, EXISTED BEFORE ANY CELESTIAL AND EARTHLY CREATIONS, INCLUDING THE POWERFUL ANGEL THAT GOD HIMSELF DIRECTLY CREATED THAT BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL. THEREFORE, WHERE DID THE NON-VIRTUES AND MOTIVES OF EVIL, LIES, HATE, GREED, ENVY, JEALOUSY, LIES, MURDER, ETC…ORIGINATE FROM? HUMAN BEINGS LINEAR BELIEF AND IMPERFECT, LIMITED BRAINS FALSELY CLAIM THAT THESE NON-VIRTUES ORIGINATED WITH SATAN THE DEVIL. YET, WHAT ABOUT THE EONS OF TIME BEFORE THE POWERFUL ANGEL WHO GOD HIMSELF DIRECTLY CREATED BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL?

2. SINCE GOD HIMSELF DIRECTLY CREATED THIS CORRUPT ANGEL, WHERE DID THESE THOUGHTS AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS BEGIN AS THE POWERFUL ANGEL WHO BECAME SATAN THE DEVIL DID NOT CREATE HIMSELF, THEREFORE, DID NOT CREATE ANY VIRTUES, GOOD OR EVIL?

3. DID GOD CREATE ANGELIC BEINGS AND HUMAN BEINGS WITH THESE INNATE NON-VIRTUES IN ADDITION TO THE GOOD VIRTUES, SUCH AS LOVE, AND WHY BOTH?

4. ARE THESE NON-VIRTUES AND VIRTUES INNATE WITHIN GOD HIMSELF? PERHAPS THE ANSWER IS CONNECTED TO “FREE-WILL” AS IN THE FUTURE, HUMAN BEINGS WILL REGAIN THE FULL USE OF THEIR BRAINS AND PERFECTION AND LIKELY WILL BECOME FAR MORE PO

WERFUL (INCLUDING THE HOLY ANGELS) AND LIVE THROUGHOUT THE INFINITE UNIVERSE WITH DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH GOD AND THE HOLY ANGELS. THUS, PERHAPS THE ISSUE OF “FREE-WILL” THAT GOD ALLOWED FOR IS TO TEACH ALL OF HIS CREATION BY SEEING FOR THEMSELVES THE CONSEQUENCES AND EVIL THAT RESULTS FROM BECOMING CORRUPT BY MISUSING THEIR GIFT BY GOD OF “FREE-WILL” FOR THEIR OWN BENEFITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR MORE DISASTEROUS WITH THIS BEING DONE UNIVERSIALLY RATHER THAN ISOLATING THIS ISSUE WITH THE HUMAN SPECIES GENESIS HERE ON THE EARTH AND THE ANGELIC BEINGS.
5. Did God make a wise decision on granting human beings and angelic beings’ “free-will”?
6. Is it possible that God was about to make an everlasting statement by having the trust in human beings, even being imperfect, and especially perfect Jesus Christ Himself to remain loyal and love Him even after the failure of Satan the Devil, Adam and Eve? Again, Satan the Devil at first tested Eve, not any other perfect creation, human or angelic, due to being the youngest perfect creation of God and is the true reason why he did this bad act (sin).
7. Will God bless all loyal creations that loved and love Him far more in the future compared to the time-limited, unjustified sufferings that the majority have had to experience due to the minority evil creations in all imperfect human beings brief historic periods of time compared to the future of perfect, eternal lives?
8. . Once perfection has been regained in the Sacred and Profane, will human beings live on other planets, communicate with other human beings via D.N.A./R.N.A. cell activity, (as neurons and synapses do with the body and instruct cells and organs of the body among other duties), psycho-kinetic abilities as Jesus Christ did, walk on water as Jesus Christ did, read human beings’ minds as Jesus Christ did (therefore, not necessarily having to orally speak to one another), do the miracles that Jesus Christ did and predicted, travel to other parts of the Universe in an instant, time travel, have exponentially increased knowledge, have the ability of their brains unrestricted and restored to full power that was instituted after rebellion in the Garden of Eden since this will be completed with the destruction of the last evil creation, Satan the Devil)?
9. Could it be that perhaps the fruit in the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve ate from (that God prohibited) contained a type of virus that altered and corrupted their perfect D.N.A. that resulted in growing older, sicknesses, and eventual death, etc… due to altered cell processes? God had forewarned both of them of what would occur, and if fact, Eve went a step further in her reply to Satan the Devil disguised as a serpent in the beginning chapters of the Bible book of Genesis that the fruit of this single tree was not even to be touched, much less being eaten.
10. Why did God continue to allow “free-will” after the initial rebellion (sins) against Him by Satan the Devil, Adam and Eve?
Here are some thoughts to consider:
The Devil’s challenge to God’s Universal Sovereignty, specifically on the decision of God to grant “free-will” to perfect human beings (in hopes of success in order to deceive perfect angelic beings to utilize their “free-will” to join him in his rebellion and usurp God’s right alone to be worshipped) is still permitted. This is for all Creation to see for themselves the results, good and bad, of their use of their “free-will” without guidance from God, and this will never be necessary to be challenged again without the Sacred legal right to instantly destroy corrupt human beings and angelic beings, as unlike the initial rebellion, a Sacred legal precedent has been set and the issue has been permanently resolved.
God obviously knew that even some imperfect human beings, including perfect human being Jesus Christ, made a little lower than angels according to PSALM 2:9 AND OTHER BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES, would remain loyal to God such as Job, the four brothers Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel (the author of that Biblical book), and others, and as mentioned above, including perfect human being Jesus Christ (once again proving that Satan the Devil had the advantage over Jesus Christ as a human being while being tested by Satan the Devil). These examples totally discredited Satan the Devil and the demonic angels who joined him in absolute corruption, rebellion, and sins against God.
Satan the Devil and his demonic angels certainly have witnessed these events and are well aware of the repercussions due to their failures that primarily rested upon perfect Jesus Christ Himself success against Satan the Devil’s tests against Him as that success of our Saviour was much more powerful than Adam and Eve’s sins due the nature of all the circumstances involved. Thus, Satan the Devil and his angelic demons now know for a certainty that the Sacred prophesy on their destruction is imminent and these “things” will increase their attacks upon God-like people until they face God’s Justice, for revenge, retaliation and fear of God since they have never died. Their fate has already been decided by their own abuse of authority of their “free-will” and this includes all human beings and angelic beings.
Even though imperfect human beings and demonic angels have committed much evil atrocities upon the earth and people, there have been numerous examples before, during, and after the time of Jesus Christ where imperfect human beings have remained loyal and loved God by their sacrifices (sometimes their lives) and goodness that they have brought to the world. God obviously is aware that human beings are imperfect, and unlike the angelic beings, have never had an opportunity to begin life in perfection. Thus, it is likely that people of the past, people of today, and people of the future (powerful or powerless, wealthy or poor, and anything in between) are deciding for themselves their future fates due to their “free-will” and only God Himself, not imperfect human beings, I repeat, only God Himself will decide the everlasting lives issue upon imperfect human beings.
Every single perfect Creation, humans Adam and Eve, and all demonic angels, especially the one who became Satan the Devil, who rebelled, in essence, “sin”, will be destroyed. What will you do with your “free-will”?
GENESIS 19:31-38
Lot has "heterosexual" incestuous relations with his two married daughters who intoxicated him with wine. This would be considered very disturbing in modern "Christian" societies, yet hardly receives any discourse except for the story about Sodom and Gomorrah even though both stories are in the same chapter of the Bible book of Genesis. Why is this part of Lot's life not a major issue to the same people who are obsessed with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and teach morality based upon this exact same chapter? Could this be "selective" morality that people teach? What is more disturbing if not at least the same, sexual depravity of any sort, or heterosexual Lot having sex with his two married daughters under the influence of wine and impregnating them?
Was anything described here a sin?
GENESIS 25-27
Isaac (the son of Abraham) was elderly and nearly blind and sent his eldest son Esau out to prepare to receive his blessing and inheritance. Esau (who had a younger twin brother named Jacob) went out as instructed by Isaac as was traditional in their historic period of time and according to Jewish law, Esau, being the firstborn son, had the legal and traditional rights to receive the blessings and inheritance from his father according to their custom. Rebekah (Isaac's wife) came up with a plan to have Jacob (her favourite son) pretend to be Esau (Isaac's favourite son) to receive the blessings and inheritance from Isaac. Rebekah even had Jacob put on the clothes of Esau in order to deceive Isaac through smell, as he was unable to see very well. Rebekah and Jacob were successful in deceiving Isaac while Esau was away preparing to receive his blessings and inheritance as instructed from his father Isaac. There are various reasons people justify this duplicitous action of Rebekah and Jacob.
Was anything described here a sin?

GREEK SCRIPTURES JESUS HIMSELF THE 4 GOSPEL ACCOUNTS
Were the trial, torture, spitting in His face multiple times, hitting in His face multiple times, slander, libel, mocking (even while being Crucified) and murder of JESUS sins? Was what happened to JESUS the greatest irony in human history? As discussed earlier, most of the people of that historic period of time either approved of what happened to JESUS and/or were effete to stand up to the Pulpit of Power in their historic period of time for the greatest "mob" social injustice ever done. If JESUS is who He claimed to be, then He had no credibility issues and allowed the "things" disguised as human beings in his day to commit evil against Him when He Himself likely created them and could have destroyed them with just a thought.

If these "things" disguised as humans will do that to JESUS for political and religious ideologies, then this is possible to happen to anyone who ever lives in any historic period of time. If a person comes along and raises people from the dead, heals the sick, cures the blind, makes paralytics walk again, walks on water, among the too many to list miracles that Jesus did while living as a human being on the earth and that still is not enough to convince a society of a specific message, then no one will ever be able to achieve this out of love. As an emphasis, Jesus' apostles and disciples still were not 100% convinced to the point of death until after, I repeat, after He was resurrected from the dead.
This must have occurred because people being people, they do not go from being the greatest cowards to the bravest humans, even to the point of being executed by gladiators, animals, and other sadistic means of the Roman Empire unless they saw something sacred. As if all the miracles of Jesus before His crucifixion were not enough to convince them.

JESUS' WORDS
Matt. 22:36-40
Love is the path to heaven. Love your enemies.
Luke 6: 27-35
Love your enemies.
Matthew 5:43-48
Love your enemies

Matthew 22:36-40
Love your enemies and love is the path to Heaven.
Matthew 7:1
Do not judge.
Luke 6:37-41
Do not judge.
John 3:17
Do not judge.
John 8:15
Do not judge.
Luke 15:11-32
Jesus Parable about the Prodigal Son and not to judge.
Matthew 18:15-35
Jesus Parable to forgive people 77 times.

HEBREW SCRIPTURES:
EXODUS 20:8-12
THE ISRAELITES ARE UNDER THE JEWISH LAW TO KEEP THE SABBATH. JESUS IN THE 4 GOSPELS:
GREEK SCRIPTURES
MATTHEW 12:4
JESUS STATES THAT HE IS "LORD OF THE SABBATH", IN EFFECT, CREATING THE SABBATH, FULFILLING THE SABBATH, AND IS ABOVE THE SABBATH CONTRARY TO ANY OTHER IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING WRITER IN THE BIBLE OR ELSEWHERE, AND THAT IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE FOR HIM AND HIS FOLLOWERS.
MATTHEW 12:9-14
JESUS HEALS ON THE SABBATH AND USES KING DAVID AS A SACRED LEGAL PRECEDENT ON EATING BREAD IN THE HOLY TABERNACLE THAT WAS TRADITIONALLY ONLY ALLOWED FOR THE LEVITE PRIESTS.
Matthew 5:17-19:
Jesus fulfilled the LAW (TORAH).
Matthew 24:8-25
Jesus prophecy on false "Christians."
Matthew 23:1-33
Jesus prophecy on false "Christians." JESUS was a Jew and His teachings were meant for reforming Judaism. The teachings of Jesus were rejected by the Israeli people that subsequently led to a movement that after His death was named "Christianity".
Why did JESUS Himself, GOD, the Son of GOD, A Great Prophet, just a man, or (atrociously), a heretic, as people today believe not write anything down since He was literate about the exact path to heaven that we the peoples must obey? Perhaps the reason is that the scriptures that quote Him above already give us the answer. Compare those scriptures to the ones that the self-appointed Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Then, read below a synopsis of Saul of Tarsus ( Apostle Paul) and ask yourself this: Who is more of an authority on how people should live and love and what the criteria is for getting to heaven, JESUS or Saul of Tarsus?

John 4:7-27
Jesus with the Samaritan woman showing us not to judge others.
John 8:1-11
JESUS ON JUDGING OTHERS AND IF PEOPLE ARE MORE SINNERS THAN OTHERS PERTAINING TO HUMANS JUDGING HUMANS:
Luke 10:34-35
Jesus had wealthy friends.
Luke 13:14
Jesus heals on the Sabbath.
Mark 2:27
Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath.
Saul of Tarsus (Paul) (c. 3-68 A.D.) Renamed himself Paul after conversion to the early Jesus movement after claiming to have seen the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus (ACTS CHAPTER 9). Saul of Tarsus was an admitted early persecutor and murderer of people in the early Jesus movement (e.g., Stephen, the first Christian martyr mentioned in the Bible book of Acts 7:58-8:1). He arrested these pre-Christians as mentioned in Acts 8:3 (which most likely meant death) and had strained relationships with the other 12 Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 21:21) who naturally did not trust him since before conversion to the Jesus movement that he once vowed to destroy, led a privileged and free lifestyle.
1. SAUL OF TARSUS, A FORMER PHARISEE, THAT BELIEVED IN FOLLOWING THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH LAW AND LAWS OF LEVITICUS, WAS BORN AT LEAST 30 YEARS AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST, SUBSEQUENTLY, AT LEAST 30 YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE 11 APOSTLES PERSONNALY PICKED BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH. OBVIOUSLY, A GENERATION GAP BETWEEN SAUL OF TARSUS AND THE OTHER SURVING APOSTLES EXISTED, 11 PERSONALLY CHOSEN BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING, AND SAUL OF TARSUS' EARLY LIFE ATROCITIES AGAINST THEM AND HIS SELF-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN JERUSALEM AND THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES (THAT MOSTLY CONTRADICTED JESUS CHRIST'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM), THAT THERE WAS ENMITY BETWEEN THEM AND ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. OTHERWISE, WHY DID NOT THE GLORIFIED CHRIST APPEAR BEFORE THE OTHER APOSTLES TO SUPPORT SAUL OF TARSUS' CLAIM TO REMOVE THEIR DOUBTS AS HE DID WITH APOSTLE THOMAS? (JOHN 20:24-29)
2. THIS DISCOURSE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT TO ATTACK SACRED SCRIPTURE. IF THE READER REALIZES AND READS THE BIBLE IN-DEPTHLY, ESPECIALLY COMPARING WHAT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF STATED IN THE 4 GOSPELS (MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN, 4 BIBLICAL BOOKS WITH 4 DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST) AND COMPARE THAT TO THE “DISCREPANCIES” OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES THAT IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING SAUL OF TARSUS IS GIVEN THE TITLE OF AUTHORSHIP, THEN THE READER WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER JESUS CHRIST MADE ERRORS, THEREFORE, BEING IMPERFECT AS A HUMAN BEING, COMPARED TO BEING PERFECT AS THE GLORIFIED CHRIST, BECAUSE MANY OF SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ARE DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. THUS, I EMPHATICALLY STATE, IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM, JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING WAS PERFECT AND THE JESUS CHRIST’S INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 4 GOSPELS OUTWEIGH AND DISCREDIT SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS WHO WAS NOT ALIVE WHEN JESUS CHRIST WAS ALIVE AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING WHEN HE INSTRUCTED HIS DISCIPLES.
3. IF THE READER WOULD COMPARE THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS WITH THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO SEE THE SIMILARITIES. AGAIN, SAUL OF TARSUS WAS A FORMER PHARISEE AND PERSECUTOR OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND MUCH YOUNGER THAN THE OTHER APOSTLES. JESUS CHRIST AND THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF REVELATION PROPHESIZES THAT THERE WOULD BE 12 APOSTLES WITH HIM IN HEAVEN THAT WOULD RULE WITH HIM IN HIS CELESTIAL GOVERNMENT. (MATTHEW 19:28). NOW, WE HAVE 13 APOSTLES AS THE BOZO WHO BETRAYED JESUS WAS REPLACED (THE BOOK ACTS CHAPTER 1). THEREFORE, SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE LEFT OUT OF THIS.BECAUSE MANY OF SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ARE DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. THUS, I EMPHATICALLY STATE, IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM, JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING WAS PERFECT AND THE JESUS CHRIST’S INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 4 GOSPELS OUTWEIGH AND DISCREDIT SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS WHO WAS NOT ALIVE WHEN JESUS CHRIST WAS ALIVE AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING.WHEN HE INSTRUCTED HIS DISCIPLES.
4. ACCORDING TO MOST SCHOLARS, THE PAULINE EPISTLES, WRITTEN BY SAUL OF TARSUS, WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE 4 GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. IF TRUE, THIS MAKES THE THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES AND SAUL OF TARSUS MORE FASCINATING AS IF ALL 4 GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN A COUPLE OF DECADES AFTER THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EFFORT BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR FOLLOWERS IN JERUSALEM TO CORRECT THE WRITINGS OF SAUL OF TARSUS BECAUSE THE MOST INTIRGUING ASPECT IS THAT THE 4 GOSPELS DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT EVEN MENTION SAUL OF TARSUS OR THE GLORIFIED JESUS (RESURRECTED CHRIST) APPEARING BEFORE HIM AS THE APOSTLES CLAIM THAT JESUS CHRIST DID FOR THEM. IF THE APOSTLES BELIEVED SAUL OF TARSUS’ CLAIM, THEN THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED HIS CLAIM TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS IF THEY BELIEVED THAT SAUL OF TARSUS HAD ANY CREDIBILITY, WHICH APPARENTLY HE DID NOT. “VIEWS ABOUT THE DATING OF ALL FOUR GOSPELS VARY GREATLY, FROM ABOUT 90 TO 115 AD, THOUGH SOME SCHOLARS ARGUE FOR AN EARLIER DATE FOR MARK (70 AD)” (
WWW.WIKEPEDIA.ORG). SAUL OF TARSUS DIED BEFORE 70 AD, THUS, THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN 11 HOLY APOSTLES AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES WITH THE SELF-APOINTED APOSTLE, SAUL OF TARSUS, AND ALL THEIR FOLLOWERS WHO LIKELY WROTE DOWN WHAT THEY WERE BEING TAUGHT BY ALL OF THEM LED TO THE DIVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE EARLY CHURCH UNTIL THE LIFE OF AUGUSTINE.
JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES WOULD NOT SEE SAUL OF TARSUS AFTER CONVERSION FOR THE MOST PART DUE TO THEIR MISTRUST OF HIM AND HIS THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING THE FOLLOWERS OF THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH, PRIMARILY DUE TO KNOWING JESUS CHRIST THEMSELVES (EXCEPT FOR THE REPLACED APOSTLE) AND PERSONALLY BEING INSTRUCTED BY OUR SAVIOUR. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WAS THE APOSTLE PETER AND LATER THAT RELATIONSHIP ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED THAT JESUS CHRIST, THE MESSIAH, WAS GOING TO RETURN IN THEIR LIFETIMES DUE TO JESUS CHRIST’S STATEMENT IN JOHN 8:51 THAT HIS BELIEVERS WOULD NEVER SEE DEATH AT ALL (JESUS CHRIST MOST LIKELY MEANT THAT HIS FOLLOWERS WOULD NEVER EXPERIENCE ETERNAL DEATH). THUS, AS THE APOSTLES BECAME OLDER AND WERE BEING EXECUTED, THE 4 GOSPELS BECAME MORE IMPERATIVE TO WRITE AND POSSIBLY TO CORRECT SAUL OF TARSUS, AS JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN APOSTLES, NOT THE SELF-APPOINTED ONE, SAUL OF TARSUS, EVENTUALLY REALIZED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DIE AND HAD THEIR YOUNGER DISCIPLES WHO COULD SPEAK AND WRITE IN GREEK THEIR THEOLOGIC BELIEFS AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH JESUS CHRIST.
Did Jesus make errors in judgment when appointing the 12 Apostles (except for knowing ahead of time that one bozo would betray Him), or did Saul of Tarsus have a vendetta against the 12 Apostles in Jerusalem who refused to accept his self-appointed leadership role of the early Jesus movement (as seen by reading all of the Bible books that Saul of Tarsus is given the title of authorship)? Saul of Tarsus was 1 of the few Israeli people of his historic period of time who had Roman citizenship as the Romans then occupied Israel Later, Nero ordered his execution.
Was anything described here a sin?
Constantine (c. 306-337 A.D.) 1st Roman emperor who legalized Christianity circa 313 A.D. after his vision of victory in the battle of Milvian Bridge during the fight for the leadership of Rome that eventually gave him the title of Roman emperor. Constantine misused Christianity to "morally" justify his imperial and political objectives. This includes the "Christian" Constantine ordering the execution of his son Crispus in 326 A.D. There were divisions in the early Church over the Godhead and this was discussed circa 325 A.D. at the First Ecumenical Council of the Church, which was ordered by Constantine in an effort to unify the various factions of Christianity. However, this issue was not resolved until after his death circa 381-382 A.D. at the Council of Constantinople when the Nicene Creed of "Consubstantiality" (The Trinity) was voted on by men as the official Church doctrine (this will be discussed in further detail in the next example of "Augustine") and this was imposed upon all the early Churches throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa and any opposition to this belief meant isolation and/or death. After his death, the Roman Empire was divided among his 3 surviving sons who had all remaining members of their family killed.
Was anything described here a sin?
Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.) Similar to Apostle Paul, Augustine led a privileged and free lifestyle that included what he himself and what many people today consider "sinful". Augustine was involved in the "religious" debate of the late 4th Century and early 5th Century on which scrolls were accepted as inspired by God and which interpretations to accept as official Church doctrine in an intensified effort to unify all the Christian Churches who had different beliefs according to their geographic areas. Sacred scripture was voted on by the early Church fathers and only the 4 Gospels and any writings considered from Jesus' Apostles were unanimously accepted. Scriptural writings that were not voted, I repeat, not voted on as inspired by God are named the “Apocrypha”. The Apocrypha consist of these books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasses, Susanna, and perhaps others. This will be discussed in further detail in the chapter “Infant Baptism: What did Jesus believe?”
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[35] This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:
Aurelius Augustinus, Augustine of Hippo, or Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430) is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity, there considered to be one of the church fathers. In Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Communion, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church, and the patron of the Augustinian religious order. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of Reformation teaching on salvation and grace. In Orthodox Churches he is considered Blessed or even a saint by some while others are of the opinion that he is a heretic, primarily for his statements concerning what became known as the filioque clause. Born in Africa as the eldest son of Saint Monica, he was educated in Africa and baptized in Milan. His works—including The Confessions, which is often called the first Western autobiography—are still read around the world.
www.wikepedia.org
Does anyone think that all the Greek Scriptures (since the Hebrew Scriptures were already considered inspired by God) were unanimously voted for and not against being inspired by God? How often does a unanimous vote occur in the U.S.A. Congressional history? (NOTE: The Apocrypha are non-canonical, Biblical books that the early Church fathers voted on as not inspired by God and these writings are accepted and not accepted specific to such specific religions' beliefs). Augustine and his writings were the most influential in the Church accepting the Nicene Creed, morals and values that people today still believe as truth. Augustine advocated violence, even murder, in attempts to convert people to Christianity which is the exact opposite of what JESUS Himself instructed his disciples in the 4 Gospels in their missionary work.
Was anything described here a sin?

THE MIDDLE AGES
ALL REFERENCES ARE FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org
The Crusades (5-16th Centuries A.D.) The Crusades emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire subsequently resulting in feudalism (a small allocation of land from the wealthy to the poor in exchange for return of physical service that the poor were never able to re-pay, in effect, enslaving them to the wealthy). During this historic period of time, the Church burned people alive at the stake (especially literate ones) that had a copy of the Bible, which was then illegal to possess, in an obvious motive to have total power and control and to keep the people in a state of ignorance. The Church and Christians of this time were on a "mission" to convert or kill the Islamic people (and vice-versa), pagans, and heretics in the Holy Land and elsewhere until the 16th century pertaining to the Spaniards versus the Moors. Does this seem similar to what is occurring in our modern times?
Was anything described here a sin?
Sir William Wallace (1272-1305) A Scottish national hero for his attempts at fighting for freedom from the United Kingdom under King Edward I His most successful victory in the Scottish fight for freedom against England was in c. 1297 when he fought and defeated over 50,000 English soldiers at Stirling Castle. Sir William Wallace attempted to aid the imprisoned Scottish King without significant success at that historic period of time. Despite his journey to France for assistance from King Philip IV (who refused) and his courageous efforts, the following year, he eventually succumbed to King Edward I in Falkirk and was later captured. In 1305, King Edward I ordered him tortured and murdered.
Was anything described here a sin?
Joan of Arc (1412-1431 A.D.) She was burned alive at the stake by the inquisition leaders Cardinal Beaufort and the Bishop of Beauvais. Notwithstanding that, recently deceased Pope John Paul II declared her a Saint. Does this recognition absolve the Church from culpability and indemnify them from the pain and suffering from her despicable murder?
Was anything described here a sin?
Michelangelo (1475-1564 A.D.) He is most famous for his genius of sculpture (David c. 1501-1504 A.D.) and painting (The Sistine Chapel c. 1508-1512). Pope Julius II commissioned him to paint the Sistine Chapel and most likely other Christian places. Do the commissions by Pope Julius II to him to dedicate so much of his talent and life to the Church while according to their own ideological beliefs simultaneously condemning him to eternal damnation due to his likely homosexuality seem a bit ironic?
Was anything described here a sin?
King Henry the VIII (1491-1547 A.D.) In 1533, Pope Clement VII would not grant an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain) because she bore him a female child named Mary. Naturally, the fault was placed on the female in all these historic periods of time and in this situation. We now know that it is the male who decides the sex of a human being. In 1501, Catherine was first married to Arthur, the Prince of Wales, who was the older brother to Henry Tudor. Arthur died four months after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon that allowed for Henry to marry Catherine in order to maintain the political alliance between Spain and the United Kingdom through marriage agreements that were common throughout Europe for over a thousand years. After his Brother Arthur's death, Henry Tudor became King and took over the marriage to Catherine of Aragon. King Henry VIII had an interest in Anne Boleyn and wanted a son as an heir to the throne in addition to not being under the authority of the Pope in Rome as was the situation for royalty and the common people of all nations since the inception of Papal leadership over Christians. King Henry the VIII was still married to Catherine of Aragon while simultaneously interested in Anne Boleyn. He unsuccessfully requested a divorce from his wife from the Pope Clement VII. In 1534, as a result of this divorce refusal from the Pope, King Henry the VIII decreed "The Act of Supremacy" that transferred the authority of the Churches in England from the Pope to the Crown. In effect, this "legally" gave King Henry the VIII total supremacy over government and religion to further his own self-interests. "The Act of Supremacy" afforded King Henry the VIII the "legal" right to divorce Catherine of Aragon and to marry Anne Boleyn who later bore the King another female child in 1536. This upset the King so much that he had his wife beheaded. King Henry the VIII had many wives in his obsession for a son as an heir to the Crown and oppressed the Catholics and people of other religions who dared oppose his newly acquired authority of Religion (the Church of England). Hundreds of years later, King George the III later utilized this identical law to oppress the early “rebels” in the 13 Colonies of what was later named The United States of America.
Was anything described here a sin?
Servetus (1511-1553) During the Reformation, he was known for his genius in multiple fields of study: medical, theological, astrology, writing, etc…. Servetus’s medical breakthrough on the circulation of human beings’ blood and his challenge to the Nicene Creed (that exponentially incensed the dislike between him and John Calvin, one of the Reformist leaders in Geneva, Switzerland who reported Servetus’ writings to the Church authorities probably due to jealousy) , are what he is most well-known for. Servetus and John Calvin knew each other since early adulthood (where Servetus exceeded more than Calvin) and both were famous in their historic period of time. Due to John Calvin’s directions, the Church slowly burned Servetus alive to his deplorable death that lasted much longer than most people who were burned alive at the stake, due to being a “heretic.”
Was anything described here a sin?
Galileo (1564-1642 A.D.) Church opposition due to his published book "DIALOGUE CONCERNING THE TWO CHIEF SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD-PTOLEMIC AND COPERNICAN." Basically, Galileo was publicly expressing his belief that the earth rotated around the sun rather than the sun rotating around the earth. This upset the Church leaders who erroneously taught that the earth was the centre of the universe. The Church considered this belief of Galileo (scientifically correct) blasphemous, thus, Pope Urban VIII had the Inquisition put him on trial, banned his book, and ordered Galileo to life imprisonment.
Was anything described here a sin?

MODERN ERA
Slavery (1619-1865 A.D.) Slavery was "morally" justified during this historic period of time due to the Biblical "Curse on Canaan“ and the people of this historic period of time who erroneously and perniciously falsely believed that this curse was placed on African people and were therefore inferior to others. "The Curse on Canaan" (Actually, "The Curse on Ham", the father of Canaan) in Genesis 9:25 was actually a curse on the land of Canaan in addition to his descendants who may or may not of come from areas such as Ethiopia and India in addition to other areas. All of this is quite debatable and even the term "race" is a human creation as most people of the world believe that the Human Species descend from ONE original human pair.
Numbers Chapter 12:1-15:
Moses black (Cushite) wife and God reproving Moses’ brother Aaron, a priest, and Moses’ sister Miriam with a punishment of 7 days leprosy and isolation for their racism and criticism of who Moses chose as a wife. Some people attempt to state that this is symbolic. Yet, where is the Biblical proof of what is symbolic and what is not symbolic as these same people use the “Curse on Canaan” for the same “race”?
Was anything described here a sin?
Salem Witch Hunts (1692-1693 A.D.) Burning people alive at the stake that were falsely accused of being witches and under the influence of the Devil by two misguided girls (not worthy of mentioning their names) that the "mob" public participated in. The girls were likely suffering from a form of epilepsy that people falsely believed for thousands of years that this scientific disease that they did not understand was actually people being possessed by the Devil. The public went to a "mob" social injustice in torturing and murdering innocent people by blaming people whom they did not like for their likely medical conditions. Eventually, the public became aware of this sham and put an end to it.
Was anything described here a sin?
"Manifest Destiny" (c. 1830-1848 A.D.) The American Indian Holocaust. In 1830, President Andrew Jackson and the United States Congress enacted into law "The Indian Removal Act". This resulted in the "Trail of Tears" from 1838-1839 that "legally" forced the Cherokee Nation from the State of Georgia to the State of Oklahoma in order for the government to acquire (steal?) their land. This nearly decimated the entire Cherokee population and was "morally" justified by the misuse of the Bible. The "Christian" President Andrew Jackson, who gained much fame fighting Indians, as did General Sheridan who basically stated that: "the only good Indian that he ever saw was dead" is a sentiment that was very prevalent during the U.S.A. Jacksonian historic period of time and many army leaders gained much fame and political advancement to murdering innocent American Indians and, most important to realize, stealing their lands.
Was anything described here a sin?
The Industrial Revolution (c. 18th Century-20th Century A.D.) The switch from the Church (Catholicism) dominance of societies to that of Governmental dominance of societies due to the change in economics and the growth of Capitalism and Protestantism. Governments then misused religion (especially the influence of the Protestants who claimed that work ethic and compliance to superiors were the path to heaven) to "morally" justify their oppressive objectives and to legislate laws to protect Capitalistic interests who would subsequently reward the politicians of governments with monetary blessings. Then, the education systems were modified from "Catholicism" to a Protestant form of religion that encouraged total conformity to "superiors" and to sacrifice their lives for work and governments in order to please God. In reality, this only pleased the owners of the means of production as God likely has more to be interested in than the profits of business owners and corporations.
Was anything described here a sin?
The American Civil War (1861-1865) In 1861, a sectarian conflict broke out in the United States when 11 Southern slave (African-American) States attempted to secede from the American Union and formed the Confederate States of America under their President Jefferson Davis due to the free labor of slavery about to be abolished by Republican President Abraham Lincoln with the majority of his support coming from the Northern States. Slavery is obviously a gross violation of human rights and the effects of that historic period of time are still reflected to some degree in American culture now in the 21st Century. Ironically, as in most of these instances, President Lincoln, a Republican, received most of his support from the Northern States and this political sentiment in the U.S.A. has reversed as most of the public sentiment on these issues now comes from the Southern U.S.A. States. This was the bloodiest war in U.S.A. history costing nearly 1,000,000 lives, many due to diseases. The Union Northern States had an enormous advantage in multiple areas and eventually defeated the Southern rebellion. At the end of 1862, President Lincoln enacted by Executive Order (not Congressional), the Emancipation Proclamation that was to become effective January 1, 1863 that freed all the slaves and this was instituted in the Constitution in 1865 as the 13th Amendment. NOTE: MOSES HAD A BLACK WIFE, A CUSHITE NAMED ZIPPORAH, AND GOD REPROVED MOSES' SISTER AND BROTHER AARON WHO CRITICIZED HIM FOR THAT. THEREFORE, GOD HAD NO ISSUE WITH THAT. GOD PUNISHED MIRIAM FOR 7 DAYS FOR HER RACISM. OBVIOUSLY, RACISM IS FROM PEOPLE AND THE "CURSE ON CANAAN" (OR HOW ANYONE DESCRIBES IT) WAS NEVER GOD PUTTING IT ON BLACK PEOPLE AS SEEN BY THIS EXAMPLE AND THAT JESUS CHRIST IN THE GREEK SCRIPTURES NEVER MENTIONED IT.
NUMBERS CHAPTER 12.
Was anything described here a sin?
CURRENT ERA
The Jewish Holocaust: (1938-1948 A.D.) Hitler and his small group of extremist Nazis (the leaders were the “small” group who were sociological experts at influencing people for the critical elements of human survival that allowed for the people to be more easily deceived in the non-critical elements of human survival in addition to their terrorist fear tactics of torture, life, and/or death and the utilization of propaganda, rhetoric, pre-existing anti-Semitism sentiment, and the physical and emotional stimuli of lights, sounds, camaraderie and extreme Nationalism/Patriotism, etc…) "morally" justified their evil tortuous, imprisonment, and murderous policies towards the Israeli people, political dissidents, religious dissidents, homosexuals, and others based upon his misuse, lies, distortions, manipulations and gross misinterpretations of Biblical teachings for his political objectives. One of these is in his belief that the 3rd Reich would last 1,000 years. This is identical to what is written in the Bible book of Revelation where Christ would return and rule the Earth for 1,000 years. (A NOTE ON HITLER: COULD HIS LIKELY FEELING OF REJECTION BY HIS JEWISH FATHER AT A YOUNG AGE FROM HIS AUSTRIAN MOTHER, HIS EARLY ADULT LIFE REJECTION BY ARTISTS AS A PAINTER, AND HIS EARLY ADULT LIFE POLITICAL REJECTION WHEN HE WROTE "MEIN KAMPF" WHILE IMPRISIONED HAD ANY CONSCIOUS AND/OR SUBCONSCIOUS AFFECT UPON HIS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY ONCE HE BECAME POWERFUL?
NOTE: ADOLF HITLER, AFTER BECOMING CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY, OBVIOUSLY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DESTROY THE PROOF OF HIS JEWISH ANCESTRY ON HIS PATRILINEAL LINEAGE AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY EMBARRASSING FOR HIS JEWISH-AUSTRIAN ETHNICITY TO BE REVEALED WHILE PROMOTING A PROGANDA EFFORT AGAINST THE ISRAELI PEOPLE WITH THE PRE-EXISTING ANTI-SEMITISM IN GERMANY (INCLUDING THE GERMAN PUBLIC’S DISGUST WITH THE TREATY OF VERSILLES THAT FORCED GERMANY TO TAKE MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORLD WAR 1 AFTER THEIR DEFEAT BY THE ALLIES). IN FACT, HITLER, BEING AUSTRIAN, HAD TO BE GRANTED GERMAN CITIZENSHIP TO EVEN BE POLITICALLY ELECTED INTO OFFICE THAT HE EVENTUALLY TRANSFORMED INTO A DICTATORSHIP.
Was anything described here a sin?
The Switzerland Holocaust Fund (1999) In 1997, Swiss Cristoph Meili, who worked at a Swiss bank and discovered documents (that mostly were destroyed by the bank that he worked for) that proved that this specific Swiss bank had accounts of Jewish people who were tortured and murdered by the evil Hitler regime. Mr. Meili forwarded this evidence to a Jewish organization (despite his motives, if any) who reported this to the Swiss Police. The Swiss Police and Swiss Government retaliated against Mr. Meili by issuing an arrest warrant for him due to revealing “National Security” State Secrets. Eventually, Mr. Meili escaped to the U.S.A. and was granted political asylum. This conclusively proved that the Swiss Government and Swiss National Bank conspired with the German Reichsbank in the Nazi Gold Trade due to Switzerland’s political “Neutrality”. This is a total humiliation for the Swiss who proclaim themselves the leading Nation State on Human Rights due to this extreme violation of political Neutrality because much of the Nazi Gold is believed to have been stolen by the Hitler Nazi Regime from the Jewish people who were put in Concentration Camps and endured incomparable atrocities that words alone are incapable of describing. The Swiss Government paid reparations to the Allies in 1952 and in 1999, paid 1.25 Billion to a special Holocaust Fund.
Was anything described here a sin?
The 9/11 Terrorist Attacks (September 11, 2001) Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorist network hijacked 4 U.S.A. Airline flights and destroyed the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City, damaged the Pentagon’s building in Washington, D.C. (potentially the White House), and the last was brought down by the passengers fighting against the terrorists in Pennsylvania. This resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives and was “morally” justified by the terrorist “things” by the misuse of the Quran due to political and social-economic reasons. Saddam Hussein, the former leader of Iraq, had nothing to do with these evil attacks as the Bush Administration and American media initially asserted and have now recanted. Anyone may go to a computer search engine and type “9/11 photos” to see these horrific sites.
Was anything described here a sin?
The Abu Ghraib Torture/Iraqi Scandals (2003-2006) In 2003, many reports were coming out of Iraq claiming that psychological and physical torture of suspected terrorists at the notorious prison Abu Ghraib (where Saddam Hussein committed many atrocities) that even resulted in inmate deaths. In 2004, this story with graphic photos that proved the allegations against the United States military police (WITH C.I.A., “OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY”, ASSISTANCE) was reported by a prominent American journalist, newspaper, and television journalists that eventually were reported by more U.S.A. and World media outlets. These Geneva Convention Violations and total disregard for human rights was not an anomaly as other stories and convictions of some of the “things” at the prison site that is now closed. Other U.S.A. soldiers are raping Iraqi women, young girls, murdering a crippled, elderly Iraqi man, and humiliating Iraqi youths, have been convicted and/or going to trial for their crimes. Obviously, these U.S.A. military and military police atrocities, albeit a small percentage and even most of them, not all, facing Justice, are propaganda tools for Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda terrorist network to recruit more human beings who are uneducated, impoverished, and oppressed largely due to the U.S.A./Israeli alliance, therefore more susceptible to egregious ideologies to commit terrorist attacks, that the coward leaders of this terrorist political movement refuse to do themselves. These events resulted in the May 2004 video beheading of an American male by Al-Qaeda’s Abu-Musa al Zarqawi (allegedly second in command to Osama bin Laden) for retaliation (these terrorist “things” likely would have done this anyway, yet these Israeli atrocities in Palestine and American atrocities in Iraq give them excuses for their crimes) mainly for the events and photographic proof of American military police corruption at Abu Ghraib. Anyone may go to
www.antiwar.com to see these horrific sites.
Was anything described here a sin?
The 2nd Gulf War (2003) –The United States of America under the authority of Republican President George W. Bush and Republican Vice President (V.P.) Richard Cheney to remove the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein from power due to allegations that Mr. Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (W.M.D.), including nuclear, that have been proven by the 9/11 Commission to have been false. Halliburton, a multinational corporation that includes Kellogg-Brown & Root Division (K.B.R.), that U.S.A. V.P. Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive officer (C.E.O.) in 1995 (Cheney received tens of millions of dollars from this corporation. Is it possible that this influenced the multi-billion dollar “no-bid” government contracts given to his former company and its subsidiaries?) “In 1998, Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries”, which included K.B.R. This is notable due to nearly 10 million dollars that this company has had to pay to U.S.A. Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) for penalties and fines (due to the 1991 1st Gulf War) in addition to February 2003 (when Cheney was V.P.) this company being awarded a no-bid contract pertaining to Iraqi oil. As of today, Halliburton has received 13 billion in sales due to the Iraqi war contracts and K.B.R. 25 billion, 38 billion as of this printing for this same corporation and its subsidiaries, (108 million in questionable costs) according to “The Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency” (DCAA). This includes the company Bechtel, one which Republican President George W. Bush has connections, an April 2003 no-bid Iraqi post-war re-construction contract worth 680 million U.S. dollars. Ironically, the family of Osama bin Laden, the one responsible for the 9/11 attacks against America, “invested several million dollars in The Freemont Group, a private equity fund owned by the Bechtel family.” Bechtel has since been awarded other contracts by the Republican George W. Bush Administration. These 2 Gulf Wars have provided no proof of the accusations of Iraqi W.M.D. (the rationale for war). This includes the initial response of the U.S.A. to discredit the claims of U.S.A. military soldiers of an illness, Gulf War Syndrome, and the birth defects of their children due to exposure of chemicals that 30% of the 700,000 military personnel have claimed that only now is gaining more exposure due to the identical claims from many of the military personnel of the 2nd Gulf War. Is this similar to what occurred during the Vietnam War and the U.S.A. Government’s initial denial then admitting that the U.S.A. soldiers were exposed to chemicals in Vietnam that is referred to as “Agent Orange”, the U.S.A. military’s chemical warfare program?
Was anything described here a sin?

Israel’s 2006 Gaza Military Aggression (due to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that will be discussed further in detail in the chapter: “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Brief Synopsis”) were blown to pieces. The Israeli military claims that they were targeting terrorists in Beit Hanoun where they allege that the terrorists were firing rockets towards Israel and that this incident was a technological mistake. The United Nations passed a Resolution to condemn Israel for this specific attack alone without any sanctions, yet the U.S.A. was the only Nation State of the 5 with veto power on U.N. Resolutions to veto it as the others abstained. Obviously, terrorists must be dealt with accordingly; yet, even in Israeli Biblical History, the Israelites have been disciplined by God for unacceptable behaviour (e.g., God sanctioning Israel to 40 years of wandering the desert wilderness and eating only “Manna” after their Exodus from Egypt due to making a golden, calf image as a representation of God while Moses was on a mountain receiving the 10 Commandments: Exodus Chapter 32) delaying their arrival to the “Promised Land”.
Notwithstanding that, do the Islamic Nations, especially the moderates, and the World see a double-standard pertaining to U.N. Resolutions? Can this insidious attack, even if it was accidental be justified (that is debatable as Israel may have been attempting to instil fear, therefore “terrorism”, on the Palestinian public, with little children and women blown to pieces justified as “collateral damage”? Will these atrocious and discreditable attempts by Israel and the U.S.A. under Republican President George W. Bush and his former U.N. envoy, John Bolton, damage Mid-East peace efforts and all future U.N. Resolutions for the Arab Nations? Even more important, will they be able or unable to convince and justify these sins (bad acts) to God Himself upon their transference to the sacred? The United States of America (U.S.A.), Israel and those who are fighting the terrorists are not supposed to lower to that level and attempt to justify bad acts (sins) by suggesting that we are not as bad as the “terrorists” are.
That should not even be considered. We are supposed to be more sacred than that and there is no excuse for such crimes that are equally as bad as what the “terrorists” do. Ask any innocent victims on either side of this conflict or any conflict on whether terrorists or technological “mistakes” by Democratic militaries indemnify the murders and blowing up to pieces their children, women, and men of their families and friends?
Was anything described here a sin?
a. Wars and Terrorism (ON ALL SIDES).
b. The bombing of Pearl Harbor.
c. Nuclear weapons utilized in Japan with their waste by-product.
d. Depleted uranium in weapons of mass and total destruction.
e. The growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor.
Was anything described here a sin?
JESUS, Muhammad, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and all other religious leaders taught love and non-violence towards other human beings and respect for the planet that our survival as a species is dependent upon. None of these great religious leaders advocated violence and aggression towards others for any reason whatsoever. Anything else is a perversion of their teachings and easily discreditable due to economical, political, educational, and/or false religious ideologies and motives to have power and control over other people and to perpetuate inequality.
Was anything described here a sin?
We can now identify with these few examples that "sins" (bad acts) do exist and there are many historical and sociological reasons on what criteria that any society utilizes for defining "sin". In most cases, the Pulpit of Power uses the term "sin" the most in order to achieve their objectives whether they are right or wrong in order to maintain power and control over other people that prevents equality, peace, security, prosperity, and love for all. Frequently, it is the extremists of any ideology that commits the very worst "sins" and history has proven this to be true over and over again. This is why the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution demands the separation of Church and State. This was previously explained why the founding fathers of the United States demanded this law as King George the III of England (1760-1785) oppressed the early American "rebels" by utilizing what King Henry the VIII instituted by controlling both government and religion. As mentioned before, most of the early Americans were Protestants and other religions and faced extreme oppression from the Church of England that King George the III was then the figurehead. Most importantly, all religions and non-religions have their rightful place to spirituality and the "free-will" to GOD.
ADDITIONALY, NO HUMAN BEING HAS BEEN AFFORDED THE RIGHT BY GOD TO JUDGE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS ON EVERLASTING LIFE ISSUES SINCE WE ARE ALL SINNERS (DISCREDITIBLE) AND UNLESS ONE ACTS VERY EGREGIOUSLY, THAN STATING WHO IS MORE OF A SINNER THAN ANOTHER PERSON IS ONLY THE RIGHT OF GOD, NOT ANY PERSON.
If the Pulpit of Power has the love of money more than the love of people, then "sins" will always be a part of every single unequal and unbalanced society as eventually there are too many people who are oppressed and will rebel and over-react against the oppressors.
What, in effect, are the greatest "sins" that are detestable to GOD according to the Bible? Proverbs 6:16-19 states haughtiness, liars, shedding innocent blood, hearts that design evil things, feet that are quick to run to badness, a false witness who lies, and a person who attempts to divide others through lies. Is not it interesting that lies, deceit, and duplicity are directly and/or indirectly mentioned three (3) times. With these Biblical realities, would it not be wise to live by our own theological beliefs that are similar to all religions in order to balance out what is goodwill among people?
What must we the peoples do to regain societal balance? The simple answer is that we must learn to love and to realize the interconnectedness of all living things, including people with different views than ourselves. If we demand freedom for ourselves and not allow freedom for other people due to our own ideologies (right or wrong), then we are the greatest hypocrites and sinners of all.








9
THE BIBLICAL TRUTH OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH
One of the most pernicious and false interpretations of the Bible is the story (myth?) of Sodom and Gomorrah. To know the truth about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah involves the following: reading the whole Biblical story (Genesis chapters 18-19); releasing oneself of the subjective ideology that has been historical taught; understanding the sociological and historical perspective of the writer of Genesis (Moses?); and objectively evaluate and critically examine all of the above to come to a more clear and accurate understanding of the story that was written down after hundreds or thousands of years of oral tradition.
Before this discussion becomes too involved, we must realize that from our own religious theological belief system (The Bible), God created two perfect human beings and placed them in the Garden of Eden. Naturally, perfect, Celestial angels of God already existed (they were all good at this moment in time, even the powerful one later to be known as Satan the Devil and most, if not all of us, know the story). Thus, we can move on to the critical point that Adam and Eve brought “sin” and imperfection into the world as a result of Satan the Devil’s actions. It is irrelevant that Eve was deceived first because Adam certainly knew that God had created Eve from his own body (rib) and could have created another female companion for him. This is why God held them both accountable and Adam was not, I repeat, not indemnified from his actions, although not being directly deceived by Satan the Devil, rather, by the influence of his wife, Eve according to the beginning chapters of the first Bible book titled Genesis.
Subsequently, since the powerful angel Satan the Devil, Adam, and Eve brought “sin” and imperfection into the world, all people that “religious” people consider “sinners” (every human being is/was, except for Jesus Christ, according to the Bible) is a direct result of the actions of the three aforementioned former perfect creations of God Himself. The imperfections that human beings have should be correctly understood that not one person since Adam and Eve except for Jesus Christ has/had the opportunity to begin life in perfection. With that reality, justly judging human beings should be evaluated with this in mind and that any punishments inflicted upon “sinners”, verbal, psychological and/or physical should be commensurate to these theological and biological facts. It is quite likely that Adam and Eve have never and will never be resurrected by God into eternal life in heaven. Neither will the demonic angels of Satan the Devil who all will be destroyed during Armageddon by God and His good angelic armies.
This will occur to all demons except for the powerful angel Satan the Devil:
The Biblical fact that Satan the Devil and the Demons were perfect Celestial angelic creatures must never be forgotten and the images of them in art and religious icons are of their inner souls, not their spiritual bodies.
As we now know, Satan the Devil will be put in a state between life and death (an abyss) for 1,000 years and then brought back to life to once again to test perfect creation before his eternal destruction directly by God as described in Revelation Chapter 20. Satan the Devil, will be the last evil creation to be destroyed by God, are for various reasons, among them being that Satan the Devil will be permitted to attempt his last tests of perfect angels and perfect human beings loyalty and love for God. Human beings will have regained perfection during this period of 1,000 years of existence without evil influences. (Satan the Devil will succeed a little once again, yet fail for the most part). The main reasons for this are perhaps for the following profound reasons:
1. Satan the Devil will see that all evil life forms, angelic and human, will have been destroyed.
2. Satan the Devil will see a glimpse of the paradise that God originally planned for heaven and earth succeed.
4. Satan the Devil, most importantly, will see that his nefarious challenge to God’s Universal Sovereignty via the “free-will” issue among others will be a total disaster, and as earlier mentioned, since he has never died or even suffered pain, will fearfully be struggling against Jesus Christ who will over-power Satan the Devil to where God Himself will execute him. THIS IS WHY SATAN THE DEVIL WILL BE THE LAST CORRUPT BEING DESTROYED, BECAUSE HE STARTED THE CORRUPTION AND REBELLION AGAINST GOD THAT RESULTED IN MUCH PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT GOD HAD TO ALLOW FOR HUMAN BEINGS AND ANGELIC BEINGS TO SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY ABUSE THEIR "FREE-WILL" THAT CONFLICTS WITH GOD'S WILL, THEREBY, GOD'S OWN RIGHT TO UNIVERSAL SOVREIGNTY AS IF IT WERE NOT FOR GOD, THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER EXISTENCE EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT HUMAN MIND IS NOT ABLE TO FULLY COMPREHEND THIS AT THE MOMENT, YET WILL IN THE FUTURE. ON EXISTENCE AND MATTER, IT IS IRRELEVANT AS GOD HAS ALWAYS EXISTED AND BEING THE ONLY EXPERT AT SCIENCE, I AM CERTAIN THAT GOD WILL EXPLAIN THIS TO EVEN THE INTELLECTUALS AS WELL AS EVERYONE IN THE FUTURE. LIKE JOB, ALL HUMAN BEINGS WILL BE HUMBLED BY GOD IN HIS OWN APPOINTED TIME.
REVELATION CHAPTER 20.
JOB CHAPTERS 38-41-GOD SPEAKING TO JOB ABOUT WISDOM
All creation will remember this historic event and there will never, I repeat, never be another rebellion against God as all creation will fully recognize the repercussions of life without God.
One must also attempt to understand the reasons why this specific story was included in the Biblical scriptural book of Genesis. This book is considered sacred by the Israelites; however, Genesis was one of the scrolls (scriptural books) that were later voted by men (C. 367 A.D by the early Christian Church fathers as inspired by God, then receiving Papal approval C. 405 A.D.). This is still debated, yet the essential facts remain the same, only men of the early Church voted, I repeat, voted on which scrolls were to be considered Canonized, inspired by God, and which were not, the “Apocrypha” and evolved and eventually received Papal approval
The writer of the Bible book of Genesis, the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) has been intensely debated for years with most people giving Moses the title of authorship of these early scrolls of humankind. It is also critical to understand that as previously mentioned in the chapter "The Laws of Leviticus", that these Israelite Laws were written as God's initial laws against the Israeli people for sins and to benefit them health wise, I repeat, health wise, as during the nomadic historic period of time, the Israelites were wandering the deserts with minimal water, contained mostly health laws, e.g., only having one mate (males and females) This is likely why King Saul, King David, King Solomon, Abraham, Jacob and others who were not wandering the deserts were allowed this "discrepancy" in marriage (ironically, not heterosexual females and homosexuals), disposing of human waste, disposing of dead bodies, etc...to bring them into a covenant with them, and later, for punishment after making a Golden Calf to represent God while Moses was on the Mount Sinai communicating with God.
It took longer than expected in the Israelite peoples' opinions on what was taking Moses so long and they thought that perhaps Moses had perished. Thus, the Israelites insisted that Aaron, the eventual chief Levite Priest (only Levites were eventually considered priests in the Israeli religion) and the brother of Moses, made the Golden Calf. This infuriated Moses, who upon his return from the Mount Sinai, destroyed the 2 Tablets that consisted of the 10 Commandments of God that Moses claimed (since he had been alone on the Mount Sinai, his claim that God had wrote the 10 Commandments is suspect. In fact, as mentioned earlier, even Moses' brother Aaron and sister Miriam were criticizing Moses on having a black (A Cushitic) wife that God had to correct Moses' siblings on:
NUMBERS CHAPTER 12.
Yet, the most important aspect to remember is that the Laws of Leviticus were written for health purposes as even though Moses was on Mt. Sinai, God certainly was aware of their idolatry and sent Moses down to reproach the people and separate the true believers from the false believers, in effect, executing the wicked.
An important note is that these first scriptural writings were critical in "morally" justifying the subjection of women to men through the various stories (myths?) beginning with Eve in the Garden of Eden and many other examples throughout the Pentateuch that portray women as inferior to men and not as adept at making the correct choices in life. This allowed for the "moral" justification from Matriarchal societies to Patriarchal ones in the "best interest" of humanity.
It is very important to realize and to understand that Moses was living in this Patriarchal society during this historic period of time and obviously affected (consciously and/or sub-consciously due to his cultural upbringing and education as all the writers of all sacred books/scrolls, inspired by God or not). Moses, if he wrote the Pentateuch (THE FIRST 5 BOOKS OF THE BIBLE) was mostly oral tradition until the when Moses came into the picture and was likely written while the Israelites were wandering the deserts for 40 years and completed after Moses’ death due to switch in the writing styles.: One of the greatest distortions and about Sodom and Gomorrah is that these two cities were destroyed "only" due to homosexuality (absurd). We will now scripturally examine that theory by reading the Bible book of Genesis chapters 18-19. Everyone is strongly encouraged to read the Bible of their choice to truly see the reasons why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by God, according to the Bible.
In Genesis 18:20, God states that the sins of these two cities were grievous and indeed, if this story is/were true, one would likely come to the same conclusion when reading the events of that time.
Yet, which sins were grievous to God?
1) Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, even from just a Biblical description?
2) Is it true that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed only because of homosexuality as is currently taught?
3) Were there other reasons why God felt that it was necessary to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?
If there were other reasons, then should not we teach this story as accurately as possibly even from "only" a scriptural standpoint? Some background on this story in Genesis Chapter 16-17 is that Lot (who with his wife, two daughters, and two sons-in-law lived in the city of Sodom or the surrounding area.
Lot had decided with Abraham to amicably depart from one another. Lot chose the area of Sodom and Gomorrah for numerous reasons that primarily involved an improved quality of life that his family would enjoy. The land was fertile and Lot and his family were actually quite pleased to be in this location. In fact, when God told Abraham of his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 16:10-11, even Abraham was debating God if it was the wrong decision and kept questioning God on if it would be right to destroy those cities if their were other righteous people there; regardless, Abraham was questioning God’s own judgment.
A NOTE ON ABRAHAM:
1. SINCE THERE WAS NO SACRED BOOKS OF THAT TIME ACCORDING TO OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING, THEN WHO WERE ABRAHAM, NOAH AND OTHER BIBLICAL MEN OF FAME ACTUALLY TALKING TO? THIS INCLUDES MOSES SPEAKING TO GOD AT A BUSH IN FLAMES THAT WAS NOT BURNING.
2. DID THESE RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE SEE GOD MATERIALIZE INTO HUMAN FORM? (THERE IS NO MENTION OF THAT IN THE BIBLE).
3. DID THEY SEE AN APPARITION?
4. WERE THEY SPEAKING TO AND RESPONDING TO JUST A VOICE AS WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE?
5. WOULD THESE RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE BE CONSIDERED “SCHIZOPHRENIC” BY TODAY’S EXPERTS? COULD THE “EXPERTS” BE WRONG? IS GOD THE ONLY EXPERT THAT REALLY COUNTS?
6. SINCE JESUS CHRIST STATED IN MARK 10:27 THAT “NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD,” COULD THE ALMIGHTY COMMUNICATE WITH HUMAN BEINGS AS HE PREVIOUSLY DID ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE VIA VARIOUS MEANS?
Now, let us move on to Genesis chapter 19 where two angels approached Lot.
Verse 1: Lot recognizes the men as angels.
Verse 2: Lot invites the men to his house.
Verse 3: Lot has a feast for the angels and his family.
Verse 4: The residents of Sodom and Gomorrah young and old and from every quarter. The residents of Sodom and Gomorrah were people young, old, and from every quarter which suggests "females," "males," and “homosexuals” as well as "heterosexuals" according to this particular verse. In Biblical symbolism, the number four and/or quarter implies everything and everybody and would be consistent with this verse. In fact, how many cities in any culture, society, and human history have ever existed that only had "males" who were homosexuals that can be verified by scientists?
THE ANSWER IS NONE.
Verses 5-8: The residents are requesting that the guests be sent out so that they may have sex with the two "males" who were in fact angels. Lot offers the depraved residents his two virgin "female" daughters instead of the two "male" angelic guests and gives permission to the insane people to do whatever they would like to do to his two "female" daughters.
1. Does Lot offering his two virgin "female" heterosexual daughters to appease the angry, depraved mob sound like the diseased crowd consisted of

only homosexuals? The depraved crowd wanted to gang rape both "males" and "females" within Lot’s house; therefore, now we know that there were males and females, young and old, and obviously heterosexuals as well as homosexuals ("people from every quarter") just from only reading the Biblical account of this story.
2. Why would Lot even contemplate offering his two virgin "female" daughters to be gang raped by the sick crowd instead of the two "male" angels whom he obviously knew were quite capable of defending themselves as is later proved in verse 11? This seems absurd to me and obviously, with Lot offering his two virgin daughters to the crowd, not everyone there were homosexuals. If the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were all homosexuals, why would Lot waste his time offering to the deplorable crowd to do with as they please to his two "female" daughters in stead of the two "male" angelic guests?
3. If I had been Lot, the two "male" angels would have been sent out and/or myself to protect my family rather than offering my two daughters to such a vicious crowd of people. It seems bizarre to me why any parent in any culture and historic period of time would make such a ridiculous decision. Again, what is more disturbing if not at least the same, homosexual and heterosexual sexual depravity, or Lot having sex with his married daughters under the influence of wine and impregnating them?
Verse 11: The two angels protect Lot’s family from the diseased crowd.
Verse 13: The angels inform Lot’s family of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Verses 15-18: It is now the next morning and Lot and his family lingers, not wishing to leave their home.
Verse 17, The angels emphatically tell Lot and his family to escape for their lives.
Verse 18, Lot still refuses. The story has a happy ending for Lot and his family as the angels guided them to safety despite their reluctance. However, Lot’s wife (according to most other Biblical accounts) did not abide by the angels instructions to look back at Sodom and Gomorrah and instantly turned into a pillar of salt during the course of the destruction of those two cities.
Verse 24: The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed.
Verses 31-38: Lot has "heterosexual" incestuous relations with his two married daughters who intoxicated him with wine with the subsequent result being that his daughters were impregnated. This would be considered very disturbing in today’s Christian society yet hardly receives any attention in this story.
Why is this part of Lot’s life just after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah not much of an issue to people who live and teach morality based upon these exact same scriptures?
According to the Bible, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah consisted of males, females, young, old, and from every quarter. They were obviously very depraved and violent, including heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. These two cities, according to the Bible, were not destroyed simply because of heterosexual and homosexual violence and sexual depravity by both the young and old. When one accurately translates Hebrew into English (which in itself is subjective due to the many years and translations over the past 6,000 years), then solely from a Biblical understanding, the cities were destroyed for absolute depredation by "all the people" according to Genesis 19:4.
To clarify this, one must objectively understand this question: even though sins are bad, which is worse, the acts of committing "sins" or the enjoyment someone receives while committing "sins"?: To take pleasure in committing "sins" are actual biological, brain chemistry, and psychiatric processes that is defined as sadism. As regards to Sodom and Gomorrah, and perhaps even today, it was sexual sadism. Sadism defined by Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia on the internet is: "the sexual pleasure or gratification in the infliction of pain and suffering upon another person". The word is derived from the name of the Marquis de Sade, a “prolific French philosopher-writer of sadistic novels” (
www.wikepdia.org).
This will not be a discourse on actual sexual sadism or masochism; rather, the focus of this essay will be the Western Cultural psycho-sexual, emotional pleasure that people receive, from perpetuating and/or observing psychological torture upon others, including but not limited to entertainment (movies, television, sports, video games, etc…), everyday human inter-action, law enforcement techniques, and military prisoner of war techniques, even when it is labelled "impersonal".
Torture, according to Wikipedia is: "any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions” (i.e. "third-degree methods" of interrogation). Torture is also used as a method of coercion or as a tool to control groups seen as a threat by governments. Throughout history, it has often been used as a method of effecting religious conversion or political "re-education". The severe pain and suffering of torture often causes long-term trauma in its victims (
www.wikepdia.org)".
Psychological torture is considered by many to be far more damaging than physical torture and takes a much longer duration to heal from, if ever. "Torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (enemy civilians and POWs) in armed conflicts, and signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on anyone, to obtain information or a confession, to punish them, or to coerce them or a third person. These conventions and agreements notwithstanding, it are estimated by organizations such as Amnesty International that around two out of three countries do not consistently abide by the spirit of such treaties (
www.wikepdia.org)".
Sexual pleasure is believed by many to derive from the part of the brain that is named the hypothalamus. "The hypothalamus is located below the thalamus and is a gland in the human endocrine system. The nervous system sends electrical messages to control and coordinate the body. The endocrine system has a similar job, but uses chemicals to "communicate". These chemicals are known as hormones. A hormone is a specific messenger molecule synthesized and secreted by a group of specialized cells called an Endocrine Gland. These glands secretions (hormones) are released directly into the bloodstream and travel to elsewhere in the body to target organs, upon which they act. Note that this is in contrast to our digestive glands, which have ducts for releasing the digestive enzymes (
www.biology.clc.edu/courses/bio105/endocrin.htm)".
"The hypothalamus links the nervous system to the endocrine system by synthesizing and secreting neurohormones, often called releasing hormones, as needed that control the secretion of hormones from the anterior pituitary gland among them, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). The neurons that secrete GnRH are linked to the limbic system, which is very involved in the control of emotions and sexual activity.
The hypothalamus also controls body temperature, hunger and thirst, and circadian cycles (
www.wikepedia.org)".
Basically, what this describes is the chemical processes that are involved in the emotions of sexuality among other duties. The addiction that people receive from inflicting physical and psychological harm upon others should surprise no one since this is a form of pleasure chemicals (hormones) secreted by the hypothalamus. To suggest that there is a differentiation due to the hormones estrogens and testosterone is linear and too simplified. For one thing, all humans receive 23 pairs of chromosomes by a male and a female that consist of six billion bits of information in the human genome.
Males and females both receive the same sadistic pleasure of physical and psychological torture, even from Western Cultures, as can be seen by the recent Abu Ghraib prison scandal (
www.antiwar.com), Guantanamo Bay prison camp allegations, and the Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment that involved both sexes and official and peer encouragement. This also includes the 1940's United States military and Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) experiments of pharmacological secret ingestion to soldiers and civilians who were not aware that they were given L.S.D. to see the affects of aggression as part of their biologic warfare program. This also involves when the Western Nations’ publics participates with entities in oppressing, physical torturing, psychological torturing, and aggression targeted towards other human beings, innocent or guilty, due to being easily influenced without critically analyzing the veracity, logic and legalities involved in any accusations made against other people.
Torture has been utilized in nearly all societies since the beginning of people organizing into social groups. It was used by many governments and countries in the past, the Medieval Inquisitions, the Middle Ages, including the Roman Republic, essentially the model that modern day democratic republics such as the United States of America are designed after. This is so very significant because in the Roman Republic historic period of time, physical and psychological tortures were not only utilized for legal reasons, but were also one of the foundations of their society pertaining to entertainment. In the Roman Coliseum, gladiators fought one another, other people, wild animals, people executed by animals such as lions, and any form of bloodshed. This also involved their Olympiad.
This was a part of everyday Roman Republic life and the citizens took much pleasure in this form of brutal entertainment. Obviously, it is clear to see that their entertainment involved the physical torture of the people who had to physically suffer and the psychological torture of the people in fear when their lives were in danger and most disturbing, the enjoyment that the citizens of their time who in seeing other people, good or bad, took enormous pleasure and/or gratification in the infliction of pain and suffering upon other people. This, I believe, involves sexual gratification due to the chemicals (hormones) released by the hypothalamus while viewing this form of entertainment of suffering of other people.
This is an addiction that is quite similar to other forms of addictions such as: work, eating, violence, alcohol, sports, hobbies, stealing, hobbies, pornography, gambling, control over other people, controlled substances, illegal drugs, nicotine, criminal activity, shopping, religious activities, computers and computer games and the internet (unnatural lack of human social inter-actions, although the computer and the internet does have many benefits), or any other activities that usually are psychological escapes (fantasies) for various reasons specific to such specific individuals and their life experiences. These are all thought to derive from genetic and/or sociological propensities. Subsequently, many human beings neurosis are developed due to the conscious and/or subconscious psychological repression of the unpleasant aspects of peoples’ lives and the world that we the peoples live in via the aforementioned activities and are sublimated, positively and negatively, through other activities and this dangerous path will increase.
There is a further explanation on addiction that includes sexual-psychological sadism, from the website noted below, that will be included in its entirety in the “Acknowledgement” section at the end of this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin
To emphasis what was just written, the hypothalamus is the endocrine gland of the human body that is believed to be responsible for the secreting the chemicals (hormones) of pleasure (including sexual) among other functions. We will now briefly examine the definition of culture and modern culture's entertainment to see the parallels between the Roman Republic historic periods of time's entertainment compared to that of today.
Culture, as previously summarily defined, is all the knowledge and values generally shared by a society. Is Psychological torture a part of modern day culture? Without specifically identifying any specific show for obvious legal reasons, let’s just realize that sadism was earlier defined as: sexual pleasure or gratification in the infliction of pain and suffering upon another person. This includes humiliation of others. With that understood, what about reality shows that focus on fear and competition that leaves every person experiencing traumatic emotional experiences of being frightened or lower self-esteem except for the winner, the "hero", if you will?
What about sports such as boxing that may not be as brutal as gladiators fighting to the death (although this sometimes occurs in boxing), yet still is gruesome. How about the scintillating aspect that during boxing matches, beautiful women in bikinis parade around the boxing ring displaying cards that inform the audience of the particular round. Does this make it easier for one to see the psychological connection between violence and sexual pleasure being derived from the exact same part of the brain and the chemical (hormone) processes that occur while this sport is being observed by the audience?
In fact, this is the same pertaining to criminal activity. To comprehensively understand the chemical (hormone) processes that are involved in criminal activity most certainly would benefit society as a whole as the “experts” would not be so linear in their “intellectual” scientific (that is always expanding) understanding of these people in addition to the socio-economic and earlier life traumas that many of these individuals experience rather than just “labelling” them as criminals (according to the Bible, are not all rebellious, sinful creatures, angelic demons and humans “sinners”, thereby criminals against God?). Eventually, this would allow for more accurate predictions on specific humans’ behaviour. These chemical (hormone) processes influence the psychological traits of human beings, good and bad, and one day in the future, human beings will understand this. To prove this point, why does God always know the possible future behaviour of human beings and angelic beings? Perhaps this is not a mystery and is scientific, (if as I believe), that God created all life and universal matter, thereby all discourses e.g., science, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc….
The addiction and enjoyment that the "things" of Sodom and Gomorrah received from the sexual-psychological sadistic "sins" against other humans (which is no different than in many of the world's prison systems that are mostly heterosexual males violence against other males for power, dominance, humiliation, etc...) makes more sense on why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that it would be more endurable for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than for false "religious" people in Matt. 10:14, 15; 11:20-24; and Luke 10:10-15.
We the peoples should critically examine ourselves to see if we are behaving any different, albeit in the same and other aspects of our cultures. The cultures of sadism are the sexual and emotional pleasure that people receive from inflicting physical and psychological torture upon other people.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God, not simply because of their "sins" in itself; rather, the people, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, lived in a culture of sexual sadism and enjoyed inflicting physical and emotional (psychological) pain and suffering upon other humans and their sexuality was irrelevant as is easily seen that those "things" did not care if they gang raped males or females. In fact, this involved all of them, male, female, young, and old.
A comparison just made and worth repeating is that the "things" had the mind-set of people in prisons and their evil actions (sins) were for the enjoyment of humiliating, dominating, power and control over other people. This is why their behaviour was so grievous to God, even more so than heterosexual Lot’s married daughters intoxicating their heterosexual father with wine to become impregnated by him. Their morals and values were obviously affected by living in Sodom and Gomorrah. The question we the peoples must ask ourselves now is: are we reverting, stagnant, or progressing as a human species?







10
SAUL OF TARSUS VS JESUS’ 12 APOSTLES
Saul of Tarsus (Apostle Paul), who never personally met Jesus Christ while He lived on earth as a human being, lived c. 3-68 A.D. and we will now review a synopsis of his life that was previously mentioned in the chapter "What is Sin?
Saul of Tarsus (c. 3-68 A.D.) Renamed himself Paul after conversion to the early Jesus movement after claiming to have seen the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus (ACTS CHAPTER 9). Saul of Tarsus was an admitted early persecutor and murderer of people in the Jesus movement (e.g., Stephen, the first Christian martyr mentioned in the Bible book of Acts 7:58-8:1). He arrested these pre-Christians as mentioned in Acts 8:3 (which most likely meant death) and had strained relationships with the other 12 Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 21:21) who naturally did not trust him since before conversion to the Jesus movement that he once vowed to destroy, led a privileged and free lifestyle.:
1. SAUL OF TARSUS, A FORMER PHARISEE, THAT BELIEVED IN FOLLOWING THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH LAW AND LAWS OF LEVITICUS, WAS BORN AT LEAST 30 YEARS AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST, SUBSEQUENTLY, AT LEAST 30 YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE 11 APOSLES PERSONNALY PICKED BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH. OBVIOUSLY, A GENERATION GAP BETWEEN SAUL OF TARSUS AND THE OTHER SURVING APOSTLES EXISTED, 11 PERSONALLY CHOSEN BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING, AND SAUL OF TARSUS' EARLY LIFE ATROCITIES AGAINST THEM AND HIS SELF-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN JERUSALEM AND THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES (THAT MOSTLY CONTRADICTED JESUS CHRIST'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM), THAT THERE WAS ENMITY BETWEEN THEM AND ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. OTHERWISE, WHY DID NOT THE GLORIFIED CHRIST APPEAR BEFORE THE OTHER APOSTLES TO SUPPORT SAUL OF TARSUS' CLAIM TO REMOVE THEIR DOUBTS AS HE DID WITH APOSTLE THOMAS? (JOHN 20:24-29)
2. THIS DISCOURSE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT TO ATTACK SACRED SCRIPTURE. IF THE READER REALIZES AND READS THE BIBLE IN-DEPTHLY, ESPECIALLY COMPARING WHAT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF STATED IN THE 4 GOSPELS (MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN, 4 BIBLICAL BOOKS WITH 4 DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST) AND COMPARE THAT TO THE “DISCREPANCIES” OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES THAT IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING SAUL OF TARSUS IS GIVEN THE TITLE OF AUTHORSHIP, THEN THE READER WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER JESUS CHRIST MADE ERRORS, THEREFORE, BEING IMPERFECT AS A HUMAN BEING, COMPARED TO BEING PERFECT AS THE GLORIFIED CHRIST, BECAUSE MANY OF SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ARE DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. THUS, I EMPHATICALLY STATE, IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM, JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING WAS PERFECT AND THE JESUS CHRIST’S INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 4 GOSPELS OUTWEIGH AND DISCREDIT SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS WHO WAS NOT ALIVE WHEN JESUS CHRIST WAS ALIVE AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING WHEN HE INSTRUCTED HIS DISCIPLES.
3. IF THE READER WOULD COMPARE THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS WITH THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO SEE THE SIMILARITIES. AGAIN, SAUL OF TARSUS WAS A FORMER PHARISEE AND PERSECUTOR OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND MUCH YOUNGER THAN THE OTHER APOSTLES. JESUS CHRIST AND THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF REVELATION PROPHESIZES THAT THERE WOULD BE 12 APOSTLES WITH HIM IN HEAVEN THAT WOULD RULE WITH HIM IN HIS CELESTIAL GOVERNMENT. (MATTHEW 19:28). NOW, WE HAVE 13 APOSTLES AS THE BOZO WHO BETRAYED JESUS WAS REPLACED (THE BOOK ACTS CHAPTER 1). THEREFORE, SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE LEFT OUT OF THIS.
JESUS CHRIST AND THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF REVELATION PROPHESIZES THAT THERE WOULD BE 12 APOSTLES WITH HIM IN HEAVEN THAT WOULD RULE WITH HIM IN HIS CELESTIAL GOVERNMENT. (MATTHEW 19:28). NOW, WE HAVE 13 APOSTLES AS THE BOZO WHO BETRAYED JESUS WAS REPLACED (THE BOOK ACTS CHAPTER 1). THEREFORE, SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE LEFT OUT OF THIS.
4. ACCORDING TO MOST SCHOLARS, THE PAULINE EPISTLES, WRITTEN BY SAUL OF TARSUS, WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE 4 GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. IF TRUE, THIS MAKES THE THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES AND SAUL OF TARSUS MORE FASCINATING AS IF ALL 4 GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN A COUPLE OF DECADES AFTER THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EFFORT BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR FOLLOWERS IN JERUSALEM TO CORRECT THE WRITINGS OF SAUL OF TARSUS BECAUSE THE MOST INTIRGUING ASPECT IS THAT THE 4 GOSPELS DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT EVEN MENTION SAUL OF TARSUS OR THE GLORIFIED JESUS (RESURRECTED CHRIST) APPEARING BEFORE HIM AS THE APOSTLES CLAIM THAT JESUS CHRIST DID FOR THEM. IF THE APOSTLES BELIEVED SAUL OF TARSUS’ CLAIM, THEN THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED HIS CLAIM TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS IF THEY BELIEVED THAT SAUL OF TARSUS HAD ANY CREDIBILITY, WHICH APPARENTLY HE DID NOT. JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES WOULD NOT SEE SAUL OF TARSUS AFTER CONVERSION FOR THE MOST PART DUE TO THEIR MISTRUST OF HIM AND HIS THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING THE FOLLOWERS OF THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH, PRIMARILY DUE TO KNOWING JESUS CHRIST THEMSELVES (EXCEPT FOR THE REPLACED APOSTLE) AND PERSONALLY BEING INSTRUCTED BY OUR SAVIOUR. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WAS THE APOSTLE PETER AND LATER THAT RELATIONSHIP ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED THAT JESUS CHRIST, THE MESSIAH, WAS GOING TO RETURN IN THEIR LIFETIMES DUE TO JESUS CHRIST’S STATEMENT IN JOHN 8:51 THAT HIS BELIEVERS WOULD NEVER SEE DEATH AT ALL (JESUS CHRIST MOST LIKELY MEANT THAT HIS FOLLOWERS WOULD NEVER EXPERIENCE ETERNAL DEATH). THUS, AS THE APOSTLES BECAME OLDER AND WERE BEING EXECUTED, THE 4 GOSPELS BECAME MORE IMPERATIVE TO WRITE AND POSSIBLY TO CORRECT SAUL OF TARSUS, AS JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN APOSTLES, NOT THE SELF-APPOINTED ONE, SAUL OF TARSUS, EVENTUALLY REALIZED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DIE AND HAD THEIR YOUNGER DISCIPLES WHO COULD SPEAK AND WRITE IN GREEK THEIR THEOLOGIC BELIEFS AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH JESUS CHRIST.
Did Jesus make errors in judgment when appointing the 12 Apostles (except for knowing ahead of time that one bozo would betray Him), or did Saul of Tarsus have a vendetta against the 12 Apostles in Jerusalem who refused to accept his self-appointed leadership role of the early Jesus movement (as seen by reading all of the Bible books that Saul of Tarsus is given the title of authorship)? Saul of Tarsus was one of the few Israeli people of his historic period of time who had Roman citizenship as the Romans then occupied Israel. Later, Nero ordered his execution. Now, we will examine some of Saul of Tarsus’ writings in the Greek Scriptures (Pauline Epistles) to see the strained relationships that he had with the other 12 Apostles
We will attempt to understand why there were conspicuous, contemptuous written disagreements between Saul of Tarsus and the Apostolic Leadership in Jerusalem of the early Jesus movement that was later named Christianity:
1. ACTS 8:3
SAUL OF TARSUS PERSECUTING PEOPLE OF THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT (PRE-CHRISTIANS).
2. ACTS 9:2
SAUL OF TARSUS PERSECUTING PEOPLE OF THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT (PRE-CHRISTIANS).
3. ACTS 15:1, 2
SAUL OF TARSUS AND THE 12 APOSTLES DISAGREEMENT ON CIRCUMCISION OF GENTILES.
4. ACTS 15:3-29
SAUL OF TARSUS AND THE 12 APOSTLES DISAGREEMENTS ON OTHER THEOLOGICAL BELIEFS.
5. ACTS 21:21
APOSTLE JAMES (LIKELY JESUS CHRIST’S HUMAN HALF-BROTHER, QUESTIONS APOSTLE PAUL’S CREDIBILITY).
6. GALATIONS 1:13, 14
SAUL OF TARSUS ADMITS TO PERSECUTING PEOPLE IN THE JESUS MOVEMENT (PRE-CHRISTIANS).
7. GALATIONS 1:18-19
SAUL OF TARSUS NOT SEEN BY ANY OF JESUS’ APOSTLES IN JERUSALEM (THE HEADQUARTERS OF JESUS’ APOSTLES) EXCEPT FOR ONE, THAT BEING APOSTLE PETER. OBVIOUSLY, THERE WERE ISSUES BETWEEN THEM, BECAUSE SAUL OF TARSUS WROTE ABOUT IT.
8. GALATIONS 2:11-14
APOSTLE PAUL AND APOSTLE PETER’S (THE ONLY OTHER APOSTLE AT THIS HISTORIC PERIOD OF TIME WHO WOULD SEE SAUL OF TARSUS OVER THEIR THEOLOGIC DISAGREEMENTS AND MUTUAL MISTRUST).
9. 2 CORITHIANS 11:5
SAUL OF TARSUS STATES THAT HE DOES NOT CONSIDER HIMSELF BELOW THE OTHER APOSTLES.
DO THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF SACRED SCRIPTURE STILL OCCUR TODAY, NOT JUST AMONG CHRISTIANS, YET ESPECIALLY AMONG THE OTHER TWO MONOTHESISTIC RELIGIONS, JUDAISM AND ISLAM?
Again, It was only natural for the 12 apostles (11 personally chosen by Jesus Christ as a human being on earth) did not trust Saul of Tarsus and his self-appointed leadership role of the early Jesus Movement (Pre-Christians) due to his admitted authority and arresting these earliest followers of Jesus Christ that most likely resulted in death. Saul of Tarsus also had other disagreements with the 12 Apostles in Jerusalem over money collected during his missionary work and their refusal of Saul of Tarsus self-appointed leadership role of the early Jesus Movement (Pre-Christianity).
Any person may read the Pauline Epistles to see this obvious desperate attempt by Saul of Tarsus for acceptance by the other 12 Apostles in Jerusalem. There are numerous more scriptural examples in the Pauline Epistles where Saul of Tarsus had strained relationships with the 12 Apostles in Jerusalem who probably believed that since 11 of them were personally chosen by Jesus Christ as a human being and Saul of Tarsus claiming to have seen the glorified Christ, that a power-play emerged between them over who really had the authority from Jesus Christ as leaders among them. This power-play between them was not unprecedented among Jesus Apostles as is seen by reading Matthew 20:26-28 and Mark 10:42-45. Jesus lovingly corrected them to this imperfect, human desire for power and control by informing them that the least among them would be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven and vice-versa.
This brings us back to Saul of Tarsus since we are Paulinians, living by his theologies, not those of Jesus, despite his claim of seeing the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus. Saul of Tarsus was a former Pharisee in the Jewish religion. This may be why he was initially so opposed to the teachings of Jesus before "converting" to this movement and his claim of seeing the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus. This is due to Pharisaic beliefs that people must live a life of austerity, in accordance with Jewish tradition, predestination, no questioning of authority, (and other beliefs that the Sadducees and other Israelites disagreed with and had their own interpretations of the Jewish Law).
Let us ask ourselves a few questions on why Saul of Tarsus reinstated the self-enslavement of ourselves by using the Jewish Law (which is fine for Israelites, yet we are Christians) instead of the instructions of Jesus Christ.
1. Is it possible that Saul of Tarsus was consciously and/or sub-consciously still affected by his Pharisaic Jewish beliefs?
2. Is it possible that Saul of Tarsus had such a guilt complex for arresting people in the early Jesus movement (pre-Christians) that most likely meant death, e.g., Stephen, the first Christian martyr mentioned in the Bible book of Acts 7:58-8:1, and went to the other extreme pertaining to salvation even though this contradicts Jesus Christ in the 4 Gospel accounts?
3. Is it possible that Saul of Tarsus ate some poisonous mushrooms on the road to Damascus and had a hallucination regarding seeing the glorified Christ?
4. Is it possible that Saul of Tarsus was involved in a clandestine effort (e.g., the bozo who betrayed Jesus) to infiltrate the people in the early Jesus movement (pre-Christians) and passed on information from his "missionary" work and other Christian activities to other factions of Judaism and Roman authorities since he was a Pharisee with Roman citizenship, something that most of the people in occupied Israel of this historic period of time did not have?
Saul of Tarsus did bring his version of the early Jesus movement to the Gentiles (non-Israelites); however, if his message was incorrect, then he was not and is not credible. Since I was neither Saul of Tarsus and am not God, I do not know if Saul of Tarsus was telling the truth. Notwithstanding that, one may compare the 4 Gospel accounts of Jesus’ instructions to his followers to that of Saul of Tarsus because if they are consistent, then what Saul of Tarsus claimed is probable true. However, if they are not consistent, then what Saul of Tarsus claimed is most likely untrue. It is up to the individual reader to examine this for themselves and to come to their own conclusions.

11
INFANT BAPTISM: WHAT DID JESUS BELIEVE?
“Baptism is a religious act of purification by water usually associated with admission to membership or fullness of membership to Christianity” (
www.wikepdia.com). Does any reasonable person believe that children, especially infants, have the cognitive ability to utilize the gift of God of “FREE-WILL” to decide for themselves to dedicate their lives to God, forgiveness of sins that they have not yet committed, etc…? Baptism is an act Christians derived from the early followers of the Jesus Movement, later to be named Christianity, from the Jewish tradition (Judaism-The “Torah”, the Jewish Law) of Mikvah: “A Mikvah …is a specially constructed pool of water used for total immersion in a purification ceremony within Judaism. Its main uses today (are similar to the Laws of Leviticus FOR Purification Health Reasons) by Jewish women to achieve ritual purity after menstruation or childbirth, by Jewish men to achieve ritual purity, as part of a traditional procedure for conversion to Judaism (the early Jesus Movement), and for utensils used for food (www.wikepedia.com) Even among Judaism, there are different interpretations of baptism in addition to the Jewish Law, the Torah. “In modern times, views regarding the Mikvah differ greatly among the Jewish denominations” (www.wikepedia.org).
Pertaining to infant baptism, initiated by Christians many years after Jesus Christ’s death and ascension to Heaven, (and later promoted by Augustine and the early Church fathers due to the divisions in the early Church over theological differences in Europe, Asia and Africa) atrociously utilize only one scriptural interpretation (2 thousand years and multiple languages later) that differs from other Christian religions by making a huge leap of Jesus Christ’s words in Matthew 19:14 to justify baptizing infants that Jesus Christ did not, I repeat, did not state (please read the whole story for an accurate assessment of this incident, before and after Jesus Christ’s statement) as he was counselling His disciples that people must become like them in their heart conditions to enter the Kingdom of the Heaven and that children will also enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Never, never, never, does Jesus Christ state anything about children needing to be baptized as that was against the Jewish religion of His historic period of time and anyone may check for themselves on the veracity of the statement just made.
“Infant baptism is generally practiced by those who believe in the doctrine of original or ancestral sin; later Protestant denominations tend to practice baptism based upon the confession and faith of the child of an accountable age. Although they do not consider it wholly necessary for salvation United Methodists and others baptize infants as a recognition of our complete dependence on God: that is to say, the wisest adult is no closer to understanding the mystery of baptism than a newborn is.” (
www.wikepedia.org)
It is interesting to emphasize that most, if not all, Baptists, Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Churches of Christ do not baptize infants (and mentally disabled people), largely due to the fact that infants, unlike adults, cannot make a self “free-will” decision to dedicate their lives to God.
“Christian baptism, whose origin may be linked with the Jewish religious act of Mikvah purification, historically takes three forms:
1. Aspersions: sprinkling water over the head.
2. Affusion: pouring water over the head
3. Immersion: dunking, lowering the entire body into a pool or (perhaps ideally) a living body of water (as a river).
All of these forms of baptism, “which can be and are simultaneously in use by many Christian denominations (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and most mainline Protestants”)-that followed Catholics. The reasoning again is that “Baptists and other …denominations” believe against baptizing infants, (and mentally disabled people) due to the “first two of the following , particularly when administered to an infant or to one otherwise ‘not of the age of discernment’” (
www.wikepedia.org).
Since there is absolutely zero basis for Jesus Christ’s statement to his followers about having the attitude of children in His historic period of time entering the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 19:14 due to not even speaking about the baptism issue, then what did Jesus Christ Himself especially do, and then say, about baptism since He Himself was born and died perfect as a human being, and alone being our Saviour, it is to Him alone that I defer to on this and all issues that imperfect human beings, whether or not their claims of being inspired by God are true or not, wrote, not Jesus Christ Himself, period.
The easiest answer to infant baptism would be to read the Gospels to see when Jesus Christ Himself was baptized, and later his followers and those of John the Baptist, Jesus’ 1st cousin who preceded him. As most Christians are aware of, the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, teach that Jesus Christ, although being the Son of God or God Himself in the flesh, teach that Jesus Christ was definitely baptized as an adult:
In the account of Jesus' baptism given in the Gospel of Luke, it is mentioned that Jesus was about 30 years old (Luke 3:23). This age requirement for priests and Levites was given in the Old Testament Law (Numbers 4:3,47). In addition a priest had to be called by God (Hebrews 5:4-10), and washed with water by an existing priest (Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 8:6). John the Baptist was a priest, inheriting the office from his father (Exodus 29:9, Numbers 25:13, Luke 1:4,13). This explains why Jesus, who according to Christianity is sinless, submitted to a ritual that signified repentance for sin. (However, Jesus was not ordained into the priesthood of Aaron, but into a superior priesthood - the Order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6, Genesis 14:18ff).)
Other answers are given by different Christian groups, since various branches of Christianity vary widely in their Christology. Unlike Mark and Luke, Matthew emphasizes that Jesus immediately leaves the water. Gundry believes this is because baptism would traditionally have been followed by a confessing of sins and the author of Matthew wanted to indicate that Jesus did not undergo this part of the ritual, owing to being sinless. (
www.wikepedia.org)
Thus, most, if not all scholars, believe that Jesus Christ was baptized as an adult. Why would this seem the most logical scenario in addition to what was just described? Well, let us reflect back to the chapter “What is Sin” on what the Gospels (Matthew Chapter 4) claim that occurred immediately after Jesus Christ baptism when the holy spirit led Him to the wilderness for 40 days and Satan the Devil approached Jesus Christ to tempt (test) Him to sin against God, thereby misusing His “FREE-WILL” granted to all God’s creations, in the heavens and the earth:
1. JESUS CHRIST TO DISOBEY GOD BY MISUSING HIS POWER AND AUTHORITY, “FREE-WILL”, FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT TURNING A STONE INTO BREAD DUE TO HAVING NO FOOD FOR 40 DAYS.
2. JESUS CHRIST TO MISUSE HIS “FREE-WILL” TO TEST GOD AND HIS PROMISE OF GOOD ANGELIC PROTECTION DUE TO SATAN THE DEVIL UTILIZING SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE BOOK OF PSALMS, YET LYING BY OMISSION ABOUT GOD’S PROTECTION, YET AS JESUS CHRIST STATED, THE SACRED CIRCLE OF GOD’S PROTECTION IS NOT TO TEST GOD (A SIN), RATHER, IT IS A GIFT OF GOD THAT IS GIVEN, NOT TEMPTING GOD, A TOTAL 180% TWISTING OF TRUTH.
3. JESUS CHRIST WAS TEMPTED BY SATAN THE DEVIL TO MISUSE HIS “FREE-WILL” TO DO AN ACT (ONE) OF WORSHIP TO SATAN THE DEVIL IN ORDER TO RECEIVE TEMPORARY (SATAN THE DEVIL AGAIN LIED BY OMITTING THIS FACT) POWER AND AUTHORITY IN THE EARTH THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS BEEN DESTINED TO HAVE ANYWAY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
PERHAPS THIS 3RD TEST OF SATAN THE DEVIL OUT OF HIS TOTAL DESPERATION AND FAILURE LED HIM TO DEPART FROM JESUS CHRIST AND PLOT THE FUTURE EVIL AND CRUCIFIXION AGAINST HOLY JESUS CHRIST FOR HIS FINAL ATTEMPTS IN HAVING JESUS CHRIST MISUSE HIS “FREE-WILL” TO DISOBEY GOD BY AVOIDING THE FUTURE PAIN, SUFFERING, DESPICABLE MURDER, ETC… AS SATAN THE DEVIL CLAIMED TO GOD THAT IMPERFECT JOB (ALL HUMAN BEINGS AND MOST LIKELY USED ADAM AND EVE AS “EVIDENCE”) WILL NOT REMAIN LOYAL AND LOVING TO GOD IF IT MEANT THE LOSS OF THEIR LIVES (THAT GOD RESTRICTED WITH JOB, YET NOT WITH JESUS CHRIST). THEREFORE, GOD GRANTED SATAN THE DEVIL THE ULTIMATE OPPORTUNITY (FREE-WILL) TO ATTEMPT TO TEST JESUS CHRIST TO MISUSE HIS OWN “FREE-WILL” TO AVOID CURCIFIXION, ETC….
How could Jesus Christ have made multiple successes against powerful demonic angel Satan the Devil (superior in intellect and power to imperfect human beings unless receiving blessings and protection from God just as Job received) with its eternal importance if He did not have the cognitive abilities, education, and holy spirit from God that He received upon His baptism by John the Baptist? Obviously, God had Jesus Christ wait until this human age for this encounter with Satan the Devil.
Some may suggest that this only applied to Jesus Christ. Yet, what do the synoptic Gospels (including John) state about this? Well, the reader may read the Bible of their own choice and see that there is not one mention of a child and/or infant being baptized during this historic period of time, only adults just like Jesus Christ, and in fact, read the following to see how an egregious twist on baptism was modified to include children and/or infants:
“Baptism by pouring is closely linked with the practice of infant baptism. The Bible does not explicitly say if infants were baptized; and though children may have been baptized, their exact ages have not been determined. Infant baptism is generally practiced by those who believe in the doctrine of original or ancestral sin; later Protestant denominations tend to practice baptism based upon the confession and faith of the child of an accountable age. Although they do not consider it wholly necessary for salvation, United Methodists and others baptize infants as a recognition of our complete dependence on God: that is to say, the wisest adult is no closer to understanding the mystery of baptism than a newborn is” (
www.wikepdia.org)
ONE QUESTION: WHAT DID JESUS SAY?
HERE IN THE GOSPELS, EVEN JUST ONCE, DID JESUS CHRIST STATE THAT INFANTS MUST BE BAPTIZED FOR THE ORIGINAL SINS OF ADAM AND EVE AND/OR ANCESTRAL SINS?
THERE IS NONE.
“The Christian explanation of baptism as the definitive rite, by which the baptized person is indicated to be fully-qualified for participation in the life of the Church, begins with the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist, whose mother was a cousin of Jesus's mother. Those who believe that John was indeed a prophet identify baptism with his message concerning repentance in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.
"He [John] went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all mankind will see God's salvation.'" Luke 3:3-6
"Produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Luke 3:8
John declared that repentance was necessary, prior to forgiveness. There must be a return to God. This implies that the stain of sin is not ineradicable, but can be removed by putting off polluting acts and returning to "the way of the Lord", all of which was symbolized in his baptism.
Christians believe that John also taught that his baptism was not finally sufficient, and that repentance would not attain to its goal of separation from sin, apart from a greater baptism which it was not in his power to give. According to the Gospel of Luke, John taught, "I baptize you with water; but one comes who is stronger than I, of whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire; his winnowing fork is in his hand to clean out his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with inextinguishable fire." (Luke 3,16-17) Christians believe that John's baptism shows that the effort to make oneself acceptable to God by repentance would be superseded, made complete by the coming of the Lamb of God that 'takes away' (not 'covers over') sins.
According to the Gospel of John, after John baptized Jesus, he testified concerning him,
"I have seen the Spirit coming down as a dove from heaven, and it remained upon him. And I had not known him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water, that one said to me, On whomever you see the Spirit coming down and remaining upon him, this is the one baptizing with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and I have testified that this is the son of God." (John 1,32-34)
"Behold the Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world."
>From this point on, water baptism became identified with the followers of Jesus, who preached: "Repent, for the kingdom of God is near", and explicitly identified the coming of the kingdom with his own appearing.”
1.1.1 Apostolic period
“The Bible gives accounts of baptisms performed before this period, in the lifetime of Jesus, by John the Baptist in the Jordan River,[6] and by Jesus himself, not personally but through his disciples.[7]
In the apostolic period, it reports baptisms of about 3,000 persons in Jerusalem within a single day, that of Pentecost,[8] of men and women in Samaria,[9] of an Ethiopian eunuch,[10] of Saul, who was later called Paul,[11] of the household of Cornelius,[12] of Lydia's household,[13] of the Philippi jailer's household,[14] of many Corinthians,[15] of certain Corinthians baptized by Paul personally.[16]
None of these accounts gives an exact description of how baptism was administered. For instance, Acts 8:38 says that both Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water that they had come to, but does not say whether the eunuch was totally immersed in it or even if the water was deep enough for that. But many believe that Christian baptism was, normally, by at least partial immersion.[17]
As has been said, "the example of Our Lord baptized in the Jordan would naturally cause rivers to be chosen as the first places of baptism; nothing, elsewhere, could be more favorable than these large streams of water for the immersion of the crowds that converted to Christianity. But, as there were not rivers everywhere, the writers of the first centuries (Justin, Clement, Victor I, and Tertullian) took care to remark that seas, lakes, ponds and springs are equally proper for baptismal immersions."[18]
Though immersion was the usual method of baptizing, it was not the only one: one of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in an anonymous book of 16 short chapters known as the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which most scholars attribute to the first century (see Date of the Didache), predating the writers quoted in the preceding paragraph, who, with the exception of Clement, belong to the post-apostolic period. This document gives a quite explicit description of how baptism was administered:”
1.2 Early Christian manner of administering baptism
1.2.1 [edit] Apostolic period
“The Bible gives accounts of baptisms performed before this period, in the lifetime of Jesus, by John the Baptist in the Jordan River,[6] and by Jesus himself, not personally but through his disciples.[7]
In the apostolic period, it reports baptisms of about 3,000 persons in Jerusalem within a single day, that of Pentecost,[8] of men and women in Samaria,[9] of an Ethiopian eunuch,[10] of Saul, who was later called Paul,[11] of the household of Cornelius,[12] of Lydia's household,[13] of the Philippi jailer's household,[14] of many Corinthians,[15] of certain Corinthians baptized by Paul personally.[16]
None of these accounts gives an exact description of how baptism was administered. For instance, Acts 8:38 says that both Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water that they had come to, but does not say whether the eunuch was totally immersed in it or even if the water was deep enough for that. But many believe that Christian baptism was, normally, by at least partial immersion.[17]
As has been said, "the example of Our Lord baptized in the Jordan would naturally cause rivers to be chosen as the first places of baptism; nothing, elsewhere, could be more favorable than these large streams of water for the immersion of the crowds that converted to Christianity. But, as there were not rivers everywhere, the writers of the first centuries (Justin, Clement, Victor I, and Tertullian) took care to remark that seas, lakes, ponds and springs are equally proper for baptismal immersions."[18]
Though immersion was the usual method of baptizing, it was not the only one: one of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in an anonymous book of 16 short chapters known as the Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which most scholars attribute to the first century (see Date of the Didache), predating the writers quoted in the preceding paragraph, who, with the exception of Clement, belong to the post-apostolic period. This document gives a quite explicit description of how baptism was administered:”
1.2.2 Post-apostolic period
“The following period of Early Christianity (down to 325) seems to have introduced no change. Immersion continued to be the usual method of baptism, and there is no evidence to suggest that the practice of the first century differed in any way from what is known more precisely with regard to the second and third. "In the case of the sick or dying, immersion was impossible and the sacrament was then conferred by one of the other forms. This was so well recognized that infusion or aspersion received the name of the baptism of the sick (baptismus clinicorum). St. Cyprian[24] (Epistle 75) declares this form to be valid. From the canons of various early councils we know that candidates for Holy orders who had been baptized by this method seem to have been regarded as irregular, but this was on account of the culpable negligence supposed to be manifested in delaying baptism until sick or dying. That such persons, however, were not to be rebaptized is an evidence that the Church held their baptism to be valid. It is also pointed out that the circumstances under which St. Paul (Acts 16) baptized his jailer and all his household seem to preclude the use of immersion. Moreover, the acts of the early martyrs frequently refer to baptizing in prisons where infusion or aspersion was certainly employed."[25]
www.wikepdia.org
Thus, reading the Bible of the readers’ choice, specifically all four Gospels, and if you will, even the Pauline Epistles, to see the validity of the events just referenced to, easily shows that adults, not infants, were baptized in the Apostolic period and the early post Apostolic period. Here are the following historic periods of time in reference to baptism:
• 90 - Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 11. "Baptism remits sin"
• 150 - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chap 61. "John 3:5 = water baptism"
• 150 - Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chap 14. "Baptism remits sin"
• 190 - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Chap 21. "Baptism remits sin"
• 200s - Tertullian, On Baptism. See the chapter "Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation"
• 215 - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Chap 6. "Baptism washes away sins"
• 250 - Cyprian, On Baptism & Against the Donatists, Chap 6. If baptism was not a saving issue, why question the validity of baptisms among heretics?
• 250 - Cyprian, 3 Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, Chap 65 "that all sins are put away in baptism"
• 250s - A Treatise on Re-Baptism by Anonymous
There were many theologic differences that emerged over almost all issues, including infant baptism, and like almost all other “Christian” beliefs today, they come from Augstine (He even wrote against Saul of Tarsus’ belief on this issue) , not Jesus Christ. Here is a point for emphasis:
Aurelius Augustinus, Augustine of Hippo, or Saint Augustine (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430) is one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity, there considered to be one of the church fathers. In Roman Catholicism and the Anglican Communion, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church, and the patron of the Augustinian religious order. Many Protestants, especially Calvinists, consider him to be one of the theological fathers of Reformation teaching on salvation and grace. In Orthodox Churches he is considered Blessed or even a saint by some while others are of the opinion that he is a heretic, primarily for his statements concerning what became known as the filioque clause. Born in Africa as the eldest son of Saint Monica, he was educated in Africa and baptized in Milan. His works—including The Confessions, which is often called the first Western autobiography—are still read around the world.
www.wikepedia.org
If one releases oneslves from subjectified ideologies taught to them, most as children, then they would be aware of these clear and obvious facts just give that are accepted by most scholars and theologians:
• Jesus Christ and His self-chosen 11 loyal Apostles and the one who replaced the bozo who betrayed him died in the 1st Century since they must have at least been around Jesus Christ’s realitively young age in his early 30’s when He was crucified and resurrected.
• Saul of Tarsus (Apostle Paul), the assumed writer of the Pauline Epistles, was executed before 70 A.D.
• The Synoptic Gospels and John, the 4 Gospels about Jesus Christ’s life, was all written after the death of Saul of Tarsus.
• There were many theologic differences between the followers of the early Jesus Movement, later named “Christianity”, in the first few Centuries after the death of the writing of the Greek scriptures, and in fact, can be seen in the Greek Scriptures (The New Testament).
• Augustine, the 4th Century author who converted to Christianity, had the most influence with his theologic and philosphoical beliefs on the early Church fathers that are mostly consistent with Saul of Tarsus, and contradicts many of the instructions in the 4 Gospels, except for the main issue of Infant Batism, and still remains the greatest influence on Western morals and values, interpretation of scripture, among the Christians of the world today.
• To emphasize, the entire Greek Scriptures were voted on just by men, the early Church fathers, on which scriptures were to be considered inspired by God that constanly evolved until the following with Augustine as the primary decision maker:

The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[35] This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:
The New Testament (Greek: Καινή Διαθήκη, Kainē Diathēkē), sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, and sometimes also New Covenant – which is the literal translation of the original Greek – is the name given to the final portion of the Christian Bible, written after the Old Testament. The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. Its books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries. The New Testament is a central element of Christianity, and has played a major role in shaping modern Western culture.
Although certain Christian sects differ as to which works are included in the New Testament, the vast majority of denominations have settled on the same twenty-seven book canon (see also, Biblical canon): it consists of the four narratives of Jesus Christ's ministry, called "Gospels"; a narrative of the Apostles' ministries in the early church, which is also a sequel to the third Gospel; twenty-one early letters, commonly called "epistles" in Biblical context, written by various authors and consisted mostly of Christian counsel and instruction; and an Apocalyptic prophecy, which is technically the twenty-second epistle. Although the traditional timeline of composition may have been taken into account by the shapers of the current New Testament format, it is not nor was it meant to be in strictly chronological order.
1.2.3 New Testament Apocrypha
Main article: New Testament apocrypha
In ancient times there were dozens—perhaps hundreds—of Christian writings claiming Apostolic authorship, or for some other reason considered authoritative by ancient churches, but which were not ultimately included in the 27-book New Testament canon. These works are considered "apocryphal", and are therefore referred to as the New Testament Apocrypha. It includes not only writing favourable to the position of the orthodoxy, but also a large amount of Gnostic writing, and spurious prophecy and general fantasy. These apocryphal works are nevertheless important insofar as they provide an ancient context and setting for the composition of the canonical books. They also can help establish linguistic conventions common in the canonical texts. Below are some examples of early apocryphal works (please note this short list is by no means exhaustive):
1.3 The canonization of the New Testament
Main article: Biblical canon
The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Old Testament.
Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed very slowly over many centuries. This is not to say that formal councils and declarations were not involved, however. Some of these include the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism (by vote: 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain), the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for Greek Orthodoxy.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Canon of the New Testament: "The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council [Council of Trent]."
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, Early Christianity, there seems to have been no New Testament canon that was universally recognized.
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[30] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[31] He also listed a 22 book OT and 7 books not in the canon but to be read: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Shepherd. This list is very similar to the modern Protestant canon; the only differences are his exclusion of Esther and his inclusion of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah as part of Jeremiah.
To emphasize for closing, the Bible was an evolving process that concluded with the above mentioned facts and the amazing impact of Augustine of the canonized Bible more than even Jesus Christ, Saul of Tarsus, and the early Christians of the first 3 Centuries A.D. that are the primary elements of Western Cultural religious beliefs of today, some 1,600 years later:
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[35] This list, given below, was purportedly endorsed by Pope Damasus I:
www.wikedpedia.org


12
THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: A BRIEF SYNOPSIS
The most serious threat to world peace and security in the next century, and perhaps longer, aside from the world-wide political terrorist organizations, e.g., Al-Qaeda (ironically, that are connected to the issue to be described in this chapter) is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that has been on-going for thousands of years and exponentially increased in the 20th Century after the 1st World War, the 2nd World War where the victorious allies allocated a nation in the Palestinian region for Israel (where they have previously lived), and the Six Day War between Israel and the Arab Nations pertaining to Israel’s Right to exist (that I believe in). Here is a synopsis of the Six Day War:

The Six-Day War (Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة, ħarb al ayyam as sitta ; Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים, Milhemet Sheshet Ha Yamim), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and its Arab neighbours Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria also contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces. In the months before June 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel. In June 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airforce fearing an imminent invasion by Egypt.[1] Jordan then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[2][3] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of eastern Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
www.wikepia.org
It is imperative to in-depthly understand from the Israeli and Arab (Palestinian) historical, theologic, political, and economic realities of each side’s position in order to come to an effective, comprehensive attempt to resolve this conflict. The best way would be to have each side use their religious beliefs to moralize compromises with the leadership of the United States of America and the United Nations in order to achieve the goal of learning to love and realizing the interconnectedness of all living things. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict involves directly the world crisis’ in Iraq, the Middle-East, Lebanon and most importantly, terrorism and this also involves the effects of Capitalism and Globalization that most Nation States have a direct and/or indirect role.
Here is a micro-explanation of the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is often claimed to be at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict, is an ongoing dispute between two peoples, Jewish Israelis and Arab Palestinians, who both claim the right to sovereignty over the Land of Israel/Palestine in whole or in part. Throughout history, there have been many conflicts in this area between peoples inhabiting it. This particular conflict can be traced to the late 19th century, when Zionist Jews expressed their desire to create a modern state in the ancient land of the Israelites, which they considered to be their rightful homeland.
www.wikepedia.org
Although in modern times this Conflict may be “traced to the late 19th century,” what is most crucial to understand, is that both the Israelites and Arabs consider the land of Palestine the
“holy” Promised Land given to them by God (YHWH for Israel and Allah for the Arabs) in Genesis 17:8 to Abraham and his descendants. Since the Israelites and Arabs both claim to descend from Isaac (Jacob, Isaac’s son, name was changed to Israel by an angel of God according to Genesis 32:24-30).
Subsequently, since the Israelites and Arabs both claim to descend from Abraham via Isaac (and obviously, his son Jacob), both assert the sacred right to the land called the “Promised Land” and the following description, even from only the Hebrew Scriptural viewpoint, both the Israelites and the Arabs legitimately claim this land.
THIS IS THE BIBLICAL “PROMISED LAND”:

The Promised Land (Hebrew: הארץ המובטחת, translit.: ha-Aretz ha-Muvtachat) is another name for the Land of Israel. According to the Bible the land was promised by God as an everlasting possession to the descendants of Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
Abraham "On that day, God made a covenant with Abraham, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river the Euphrates. The land of the Kenites, Kenizites, Kadmonites; the Chitties, Perizites, Refaim; the Emorites, Canaanites, Gigashites and Yevusites." (Genesis 15:18-21)
Isaac "To you and your descendants I give this land." (Genesis 26:3)
Jacob "The ground upon which you are lying I give to you and your descendants." (Genesis 28:13)
Moses "I made a pact with them to give them the land of Canaan.” (Exodus 6:4)
"Now Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the LORD showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, and the Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see with your eyes, but you shall not go over there." (Deuteronomy 34:1-4)
www.wikepedia.org

CANAAN: “THE PROMISED LAND”
It is an ancient term for a region approximating to present-day Israel and the West Bank and Gaza, plus adjoining coastal lands and parts of Lebanon and Syria. The Hebrew Bible identifies Canaan with Lebanon — foremost with the coastal city of Sidon — but extends the "Land of Canaan" southward across Gaza to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan Valley, thus including modern Israel with the Palestinian Territories. This southern area included various ethnic groups. The Amarna Letters found in Ancient Egypt mention Canaan (Akkadian: Kina
ḫḫu) in connection with Gaza and other cities along the Phoenician coast and into Upper Galilee. Many earlier Egyptian sources also make mention of numerous campaigns conducted in Ka-na-na, just inside Asia.
www.wikepedia.org
Abraham’s grandson Jacob went to live in Egypt due to a famine in the area where his family was living (perhaps Canaan, and left Canaan and went to live in Egypt. The Bible book of Exodus describes Jacob’s descendants, who due to the guidance from God who was directing Moses, makes the famous “Exodus from Egypt” to the “Promised Land” flowing with “milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8).
Additionally, and worth repeating, both Judaism and Islam teach that they descend from the Biblical man Abraham-Isaac and this most likely is true due to the similarities in their languages and cultures, although this too is open to debate, yet would explain the contentions between the two groups. This gives both sides the “moralizing” and justifications for war to claim this part of the earth and no other section of the earth, despite an improved geographical area, will ever appease either side due to considering the land of Palestine sacred. This disagreement between the two groups has spilled over into Lebanon and is affecting all the world relations between the Jewish and Arab peoples, despite their denominations and the fact that the U.S.A. has taken the side of Israel for the most part on this Conflict by military, economic, and political support, expon

entially exaberates this Conflict and has led to the Arabs having a natural dislike and distrust of any action of the U.S.A. and viewing it as going against the promise of God. Naturally, if the situation was reversed, Israel would have the same belief.
Now, everything stated above, true or not, or anywhere in-between, will be debated until God Himself appears before the human species and tells us. Thus, until this occurs, the focus should be on accepting the realities of both sides and attempt to find a solution where both sides can exist on “The Promised Land” in peace and security that will facilitate a de-escalation of world instability. First, we must understand and revisit the events in Palestine in the 20th Century:
20th Century Palestine:
www.wikepedia.org
1.3.1 The 20th century
In European usage up to World War I, "Palestine" was used informally for a region that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included.[28]
Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when freed from Ottoman control, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which laid plans for a Jewish homeland to be established in Palestine eventually.
The British-led Egyptian Expeditionary Force, commanded by Edmund Allenby, captured Jerusalem on 9 December, 1917 and occupied the whole of the Levant following the defeat of Turkish forces in Palestine at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918 and the capitulation of Turkey on 31 October.[29]
1.3.1.1 British Mandate (1920–1948)
Main article: British Mandate of Palestine


Palestine and Transjordan were incorporated (under different legal and administrative arrangements) into the Mandate for Palestine issued by the League of Nations to Great Britain on 29 September 1923
Formal use of the English word "Palestine" returned with the British Mandate, which enacted English, Hebrew and Arabic as its three official languages. Palestine was now the formal name of the entity in English and Arabic whilst Palestina (Eretz Yisrael) ((
פלשתינה (א"י) was the formal name in Hebrew.
In April 1920 the Allied Supreme Council (the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan) met at Sanremo and formal decisions were taken on the allocation of mandate territories. The United Kingdom accepted a mandate for Palestine, but the boundaries of the mandate and the conditions under which it was to be held were not decided. The Zionist Organization's representative at Sanremo, Chaim Weizmann, subsequently reported to his colleagues in London:
"There are still important details outstanding, such as the actual terms of the mandate and the question of the boundaries in Palestine. There is the delimitation of the boundary between French Syria and Palestine, which will constitute the northern frontier and the eastern line of demarcation, adjoining Arab Syria. The latter is not likely to be fixed until the Emir Feisal attends the Peace Conference, probably in Paris."[30]
In July 1920, the French drove Faisal bin Husayn from Damascus ending his already negligible control over the region of Transjordan, where local chiefs traditionally resisted any central authority. The sheikhs, who had earlier pledged their loyalty to the Sharif of Mecca, asked the British to undertake the region's administration. Herbert Samuel asked for the extension of the Palestine government's authority to Transjordan, but at meetings in Cairo and Jerusalem between Winston Churchill and Emir Abdullah in March 1921 it was agreed that Abdullah would administer the territory (initially for six months only) on behalf of the Palestine administration. In the summer of 1921 Transjordan was included within the Mandate, but excluded from the provisions for a Jewish National Home.[31] On 24 July, 1922 the League of Nations approved the terms of the British Mandate over Palestine and Transjordan. On 16 September the League formally approved a memorandum from Lord Balfour confirming the exemption of Transjordan from the clauses of the mandate concerning the creation of a Jewish national home and from the mandate's responsibility to facilitate Jewish immigration and land settlement.[32] With Transjordan coming under the administration of the British Mandate, the mandate's collective territory became constituted of 23% Palestine and 77% Transjordan. Transjordan was a very sparsely populated region (specially in comparison with Palestine proper) due to its relatively limited resources and largely desert environment.
The award of the mandates was delayed as a result of the United States' suspicions regarding Britain's colonial ambitions and similar reservations held by Italy about France's intentions. France in turn refused to reach a settlement over Palestine until its own mandate in Syria became final. According to Louis,
Together with the American protests against the issuance of mandates these triangular quarrels between the Italians, French, and British explain why the A mandates did not come into force until nearly four years after the signing of the Peace Treaty.... The British documents clearly reveal that Balfour's patient and skillful diplomacy contributed greatly to the final issuance of the A mandates for Syria and Palestine on September 29, 1923.[33]
Even before the Mandate came into legal effect in 1923 (text), British terminology sometimes used '"Palestine" for the part west of the Jordan River and "Trans-Jordan" (or Transjordania) for the part east of the Jordan River.[34][35]
A stamp from Palestine under the British Mandate
Jewish immigration into the region also increased during this time.
In the years following World War II, Britain's position in Palestine gradually worsened. This was caused by a combination of factors, including:Rapid deterioration due to the incessant attacks by Irgun and Lehi on British officials, armed forces, and strategic installations. This caused severe damage to British morale and prestige, as well as increasing opposition to the mandate in Britain itself, public opinion demanding to "bring the boys home".[36] World public opinion turned against Britain as a result of the British policy of preventing the Jewish Zionist Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine, sending them instead to refugee camps in Cyprus, or even back to Germany, as in the case of Exodus 1947. The costs of maintaining an army of over 100,000 men in Palestine weighed heavily on a British economy suffering from post-war depression, and was another cause for British public opinion to demand an end to the Mandate.
Finally in early 1947 the British Government announced their desire to terminate the Mandate, and passed the responsibility over Palestine to the United Nations.
1.3.1.2 UN partition
Main article: 1947 UN Partition Plan


UN partition plan, 1947
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.
1.3.2 Current status
Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

The region as of today: Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights
In addition to the UN-partitioned area it was allotted, Israel captured 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan river. Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory, known today as the West Bank. Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the Old City, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt.
For a description of the massive population movements, Arab and Jewish, at the time of the 1948 war and over the following decades, see Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus from Arab lands.
>From the 1960s onward, the term "Palestine" was regularly used in political contexts. Various declarations, such as the 15 November 1988 proclamation of a State of Palestine by the PLO referred to a country called Palestine, defining its borders based on the U.N. Resolution 242 and 383 and the principle of Land for Peace. The Green Line was the 1967 border established by many UN resolutions including those mentioned above.
In the course of the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt.
According to the CIA World Factbook,[37] of the ten million people living between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, 49% identify as Palestinian, Arab, Bedouin and/or Druze. One million of those are citizens of Israel. The other four million are stateless residents of the West Bank and Gaza. In the meantime, they live under Palestinian National Authority jurisdiction, subject to conditions imposed by Israel.
In the West Bank, 360,000 Israeli settlers live in a hundred scattered settlements with connecting corridors. The 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians live in four blocks centered in Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, and Jericho, while Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
With 20th Century Palestine and the “Six Day War” now understood with the main intangible of ideological, theological beliefs by both Israelites and Arabs viewing this land as their sacred right, then how can peace and security be procured for this area, the entire Mid-East, and essentially, the world? Here are a few suggestions that have already been discussed:
• PALESTINIAN ARABS ACKNOWLEDGING ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST.
• A PALESTINIANIAN STATE.
• NO TERRORISM AND/OR WAR WITH ONE ANOTHER.
• SOCIAL-ECONOMIC EQUALITY FOR BOTH SIDES.
• ECONOMIC AID TO PALESTINE INCREASED.
• EDUCATION OF THE PALESTINIANS.
• RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER.
• A WMD/NUCLEAR FREE MID-EAST.
• CONTAINMENT OF DANGEROUS ARAB NATIONS/POLITICAL GROUPS THAT UTILIZE TERRORIST TACTICTS UNTIL PEACE AND SECURITY IS ATTAINED.
• A DISCIPLINED ISRAEL UNTIL PEACE AND SECURITY IS ATTAINED.
• POLITICAL EQUALITY FOR BOTH SIDES (THIS IS UNLIKELY)
Although this seems so simple, and in any true sense, it is, if the Israelites and the Arabs, especially the Palestinian Arabs, agree to these terms and abide by them unconditionally and both sides should be treated WITH THE SAME SCRUTINY AND STANDARDS. With Israel likely already having U.S.A. nuclear weapons, what is so simple now becomes the impossible until equality for the Palestinian Arabs (and all Arab Nations) is achieved with support from the United Nations to actualize this very dangerous dilemma in a political environment that focuses on learning to love and realizing the interconnectedness of all living things with the subsequent results affecting the rest of the world. We the peoples have to use our gift from God of “Free-Will” to demand that the Pulpit of Power exercises their authority to accomplish this, otherwise, the world faces grave consequences in the 21st Century and beyond.




13
THE SOLUTION TO TERRORISM
As defined earlier, terrorism is a policy of using violence in a political or another cause. Terrorism is therefore a "fear" tactic utilized by people for a particular cause. Politics is basically groups of people who organize into one system and/or method of governing a specific society. Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Islam, Aristocracy, and Autocracy, are only some of the infinite amounts of methods that a group of people may rule a country. Therefore, these methods of governing are specific to Nation States (Human Social Creations). All of these methods are the foundations for politics and even within a specific government and/or Nation States.
There are various forms and vicissitudes that people choose to organize into. An example is in the United States of America, we have Republicans AND Democrats that dominate our Democracy. Yet, there are also lesser known political organizations such as the Independents, Green Party, and Others that are given less publicity due to Corporations and Political Action Committee Groups that give money to politicians in order to influence (legally bribe?) their decisions on legislative issues.
These other methods that Americans believe in are usually considered superfluous and supercilious by the two dominating Political parties. This is the problem when a group of people "believe" that there is only "ONE" method of governing.
It is critical for the reader to understand the roots of terrorism (and crime) that is simply the socio-economic inequalities of the governments of the world due to out of control Capitalism and Globalization procuring excessive greed and profits (not to mention the pollution of our planet that the entire human species is dependent upon for survival), increasing the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. What this does is marginalize peoples of such specific Nation States, subsequently, keeping the people poor with no hope for improving the quality of their lives and struggling just for the critical elements of human survival. This leads to an endless cycle of impoverished human beings that in every single culture, unsettles the balance of the psyche among peoples desiring to survive and become drawn to God (spirituality) to find comfort and support from other human beings in and or have been in similar life experiences. This affect is good for human beings when the benefits between the peoples and the religions are benevolent for both parties. This affect is bad for human beings when the benefits between the peoples and the religions benefits only one of the parties, usually the religions. The reason why is that history tells us that when people are too oppressed, they become more susceptible to ideologies, good and bad, and more often than not, frequently it is the ideologies that support harming other people whether that being terrorism or criminal acts.
Wisdom says that even in a perfect world, there will always be a minimal level of terrorism and crime within Nation States and outside of Nation States such as the terrorist political organization Al-Qaeda. The reason is as stated above:
• THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMIC AGENDAS (WHICH MAKES PEOPLE WITHOUT JOBS AND HOPE FOR THE FUTURE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUCH ACTIVITIES) THAT EQUAL POLITICS AND IS INGRAINED INTO PEOPLES' MINDS VIA SUCH SPECIFIC NATION STATES' EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND "MORALLY" JUSTIFIED THROUGH SUCH SPECIFIC NATION STATES' RELIGIONS AND PATRIOTISM. CAPITALISM AND GLOBALIZATION MUST BE CONTROLLED, BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN THE "MIDDLE-CLASS" WILL BE SLOWLY ERODED AND THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE WEALTHY AND THE POOR INCREASES UNTIL SOCIAL REVOLUTION OCCURS AND THIS HAS ALWAYS HAPPENED IN HUMAN HISTORY. THIS MUST BE REALIZED AND REVERSED INTO BALANCED AND EQUAL SYSTEMS, THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE OF VARIOUS TALENT AND WEALTH, THAT IT DOES NOT BECOME TOO EXTREME AND EXCESSIVE. IF LEADERSHIP LACKS INTEGRITY AND EQUALITY AND BALANCE IN ALL NATION STATES ARE NOT ACHIEVED, THAN MAY GOD HELP US ALL.
First, it is wise to understand a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, the ones claiming responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon the U.S.A. and to remember that there are over 1.5 billion Islamic human beings in the world and most of them are of the Sunni denomination: ACCORDING TO OSAMA BIN LADEN, THESE ARE HIS TWO MAJOR ISSUES WITH THE U.S.A. AND ISRAEL: IN NO WAY DOES THIS IDEMNIFY HIM FROM DIRECTING TERRORIST ATTACKS. THIS IS JUST TO UNDERSTAND FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE ON HIS MOTIVES AND WISDOM SAYS THAT THERE ARE A FEW OF THEM THAT MAY BE AMENDED, EXCEPT FOR THE U.S.A. SUPPORT OF ISRAEL:
OSAMA AND THE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS PROPAGANDA

1. FOREIGN OCCUPATION IN “HOLY” ARAB LANDS (THE U.S.A. IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND MILITARY BASES IN SAUDI ARABIA, ETC…) AND ISRAEL IN PALESTINE.
2. USA DOUBLE STANDARDS WITH OTHER ARAB NON-DEMOCRACIES: SAUDIA ARABIA, EGYPT, JORDAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, AND BAHRAIN.

• Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida or Al-Qa'ida (Arabic:
القاعدة al-qāʕida, trans. 'the base') is the name given to an international alliance of militant Sunni Islamist organizations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda's ideology can be placed within the salafist strain of Sunni-Islam, but also has been heavily influenced by wahabism. Osama bin-Laden oversees al-Qaeda's finances and, with Ayman al-Zawahiri, provides ideological and strategic guidance. Al-Qaeda's objectives include the elimination of foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradication of those deemed to be "infidels", elimination of Israel, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate.[1]
The United Nations Security Council[2] and several UN member states[3][4][5][6][7] have labeled al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. Its affiliates have executed multiple attacks against targets in various countries, the most prominent being the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, DC. In response to the September 11 attacks, the United States government launched a broad military and intelligence campaign, known as the War on Terrorism, with the goal of dismantling al-Qaeda and killing or capturing its operatives. Al-Qaeda does not have a formal structure, but recruits field operatives to work independently in support of its goals.
Due to its lack of formal structure, al-Qaeda's size and degree of responsibility for particular attacks are difficult to establish. While the governments opposed to al-Qaeda claim that it has worldwide reach,[8] other analysts have suggested that those governments, as well as Osama himself, exaggerate al-Qaeda's significance in Islamist terrorism.[9] The neologism "Al-Qaedaism"[10] is applied to the wider context of those who independently conduct similar acts through political sympathy to al-Qaeda ideology or methods or the copycat effect.
Osama bin Laden first took interest in Iraq when the country invaded Kuwait in 1990, raising concerns the secular Baathist government of Iraq might next set its sights on Saudi Arabia, homeland of bin Laden and Islam itself. In a letter sent to King Fahd, he offered to send an army of mujahedeen to defend Saudi Arabia.[51]
During the Gulf War, the organization's interests became split between outrage with the intervention of the United Nations in the region, hatred of Saddam Hussein's secular government, and concern for the suffering of Islamic people in Iraq. Many scholars claim that the alleged link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda (which substantiated the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion) was non-existent and exaggerated.[citation needed]
Al-Qaeda was in contact with the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-islam from its inception in 1999. Several Afghan veterans, Arab and Kurd, entered the enclave controlled by Ansar al-Islam from Iran. Among them was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who left the Kurdish zone before the allied invasion in 2003.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda took more formal interest in the region and is known to have been responsible for actively organizing and aiding local resistance to the occupying coalition forces and the emerging government. Militant allies of Al-Qaeda bombed both the local United Nations and Red Cross headquarters later that year. In 2004, the main al-Qaeda bases in Iraq were raided by U.S. forces besieging Fallujah. Despite the loss of these key positions and many of its fighters, al-Qaeda continued to mount attacks across Iraq. During Iraq's elections in January 2005, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for nine suicide blasts in the Iraqi capital Baghdad. Many Iraqi attacks linked to the Sunni al-Qaeda were sectarian bombings of Shia civilians, who were apparently considered infidels.
Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formally merged his organization "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" with al-Qaeda on 17 October 2004, and the organization began to use the banners of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". In the merger, al-Zarqawi declared loyalty to Osama bin Laden. Al-Zarqawi was killed by U.S. air strikes on a safe house near Baqubah, Iraq on June 7, 2006. Before his death, it appears al-Zarqawi was trying to use Iraq as a launching pad for international terrorism, most notably dispatching suicide bombers to attack hotels in Amman, Jordan. It is unknown the extent of al-Zarqawi's relation to the larger al-Qaeda terrorist network, though it appears the renaming of his insurgent cell was a move to boost legitimacy and recruitment rather than an actual sharing of goals, members, and weapons.
Since the killing of al-Zarqawi, it is widely believed Abu Ayyub al-Masri took over as head of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Although the group has failed in its primary goal of driving U.S. and British forces from Iraq and destroying the Shiite-dominated government set up by the occupation, al-Qaeda in Iraq has effectively ignited widespread sectarian violence across the country. Al-Qaeda in Iraq now operates primarily as part of the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni militant groups in Iraq who resist solidarity with Shiites, and vow to continue resistance.
On September 3, 2006 the second-in-command of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi (also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana), was arrested north of Baghdad, along with a group of his aides and followers.[52]
www.wikepedia.org
IT IS IMPERATIVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE IRAQI SHI’ITE AND IRAQI SUNNI SPLIT BEGAN IN THE 7TH CENTURY DUE TO THE GRANDSON OF MUHAMMED AND TO IN-DEPTHLY UNDERSTAND THE IRAQI SITUATION IS TO IN-DEPTHLY UNDERSTAND THEIR CULTURE BY THEIR REALITIES, NOT BY PROJECTING WESTERN CULTURE REALITIES UPON THEM OR JUST RELYING UPON WEALTHY IRAQI LEADERS WHO ARE NOT AMONG THE COMMON PEOPLE. HERE IS A SYNOPSIS OF WHEN THE IRAQI SHI’ITE SUNNI SPLIT BEGAN:
IRAQI SHI'ITE-SUNNI SPLIT STARTED IN THE 7TH CENTURY: MUHAMMED'S GRANDSON:
This article is about Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (626 – 680). For the modern political figure (1852 – 1931), see Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca.
Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib (
حسين بن علي بن أﺑﻲ طالب) (third of Shaban 626, at Medina - tenth of Muharram 680, at Karbala) was the grandson of Muhammad. His mother was Muhammad's daughter Fatima Zahra and his father was Muhammad's cousin, the first Shi’ah Imam, and the fourth Sunni Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib. Hussain ibn Ali is revered as the third Imam by Shi’ahs.
He was martyred in the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE. The anniversary of his death is called Ashura and it is a day of mourning and religious observance for Shi'ah Muslims.
The birth of Husayn ibn Ali
After Hassan ibn Ali (the second Shi’ah Imam) was born; Fatima al-Zahra bint Muhammad became pregnant with her second child. Fatima started noticing the signs that childbearing was near, but Muhammad had already foretold of Husayn ibn Ali’s birth.
On Sha'ban 3, 4 H.E., Muhammad was given news of the birth of Husayn ibn Ali. Muhammad hurried to the house of Fatimah al-Zahra his daughter and Ali ibn Abi Talib. Saffiyah bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Asma bint Umais, and Umm Salama were present when Husayn ibn Ali was born.
When Muhammad asked Safiyah bint 'Abd al-Muttalib to bring him the newborn child, she said: "We have not cleaned him yet." When Muhammad heard this, he said: "You clean him? Surely Allah the Exalted has cleaned and purified him."
Asma bint Umais took the newborn child to him wrapped in a piece of cloth. Muhammad took him in his arms and recited the call to prayer (Adhan) into his right ear, and read the shorter version (Iqama) in his left ear. He then placed the infant in his lap and wept.
"May my father and mother be your sacrifice", Asma bint Umais asked Muhammad, "Why are you crying?"
"Because of my son", he replied.
"He is a newborn infant", she said.
"O Asma", he said, "After me, the transgressing party will kill him. May Allah never grant them my intercession."
Then he said: "Asma, do not tell Fatima about this, for she has just given birth to him." [1]
After Husayn ibn Ali was born, Jibril descended to Muhammad and revealed to him to give the newborn child the name Al-Husayn. Al-Husayn is the Arabic version of the old Hebrew name Shabir, which was the name of Harun’s second son. When Jibril descended to Muhammad, scores of angels accompanied him to congratulate and console Muhammad for Husayn ibn Ali's birth and expected martyrdom.
Seven days after the birth Muhammad shaved Husayn ibn Ali’s head and gave the gold equivalent of the weight of his hair as charity for him.
[edit] Ali's caliphate and the claims of his sons
Husayn's father, Ali, was caliph from 656 to 661 CE. He faced continual challenges to his rule, and was assassinated by Ibn Muljim, in the city of Kufa. Ali's followers proclaimed his eldest son Hassan as caliph. Muawiyah had fought Ali for the leadership of the empire and now prepared to fight Hassan. After a few inconclusive skirmishes between the armies of Hassan and Muawiyah, Hassan decided to spare his followers, and the Islamic empire, the agonies of another civil war. He signed a treaty with Muawiyah and retired to private life in Medina.
This could have been a temporary reverse for the Alids and their supporters. When Muawiyah died, the caliphate would be open again, and Hasan and Husayn, as grandsons of Muhammad and the sons of a caliph, would have a good claim to leadership. Hasan died in 669, while Muawiyah was still alive, leaving Husayn as the head of the Alids. However, Muawiyah chose to proclaim his son Yazid his heir while he was still alive, thus attempting to turn the caliphate from an elective into an inherited position, and removing Husayn from consideration as the next caliph.
Muawiyah died in 680 CE. In Damascus, Muawiyah's capital and the heart of his power, Yazid was acclaimed as caliph. However, other parts of the Islamic empire were less willing to acknowledge Yazid. Citizens of Kufa, in what is now Iraq, invited Husayn, Ali's eldest surviving son, to come lead them in a revolt against Yazid. Husayn was then in Mecca, having fled Medina to evade the forces of Yazid. He gathered his wives and children, and the few warriors who would commit to him, and marched towards Kufa.
[edit] Battle of Karbala
The Roza of Imam Hussain ibn Ali in Karbala, IraqMain article: Battle of Karbala
The Battle of Karbala took place on Muharram 10, 61 AH (October 9 or 10, 680 CE) in Karbala. On one side were supporters and relatives of Muhammad's grandson Husayn ibn Ali; on the other side was a military detachment from the forces of Yazid I, the Umayyad caliph.
Husayn ibn Ali's group consisted of notable members of Muhammad's close relatives, around 73 men, of which some were either very old or very young. Husayn and some members of his group were accompanied by some of the women and children from their families. On the opposite side, the armed forces of Yazid I were led by Umar ibn Sa'ad and contained at least 4,000 men.
The battle field was a desert region located beside one of the branches of the Euphrates River. The battle resulted in the military defeat of Husayn ibn Ali's group, the murder of almost all of his men, and the captivity of all women and children.
The Battle of Karbala is one of the most significant battles in the history of Shiite Muslims.
This battle also had significant effects on formation of subsequent revolts against the Umayyad dynasty.
The battle of Husayn ibn Ali is commemorated during an annual 10-day period held every Muharram, culminating on its tenth day, Ashura.
Husayn is also known to Shi’ahs as "the resurrector of Islam."
www.wikepedia.org
The dangerous aspect about a terrorist organization such as Al-Qaeda is that it is an organization, not a Nation State and its appeal to a large amount of impoverished human beings (especially the younger individuals) who if given opportunities in life and educations, having employment for the critical elements of human survival for themselves and for their families in addition to extracurricular activities, would be much less likely to be influenced to becoming suicide bombers and committing other terrorist actions if they had something to live for on this planet instead of looking forward to dying for a political cause to be with God (Allah for the Islamic people, YHWH for the Israelites and others, and Jesus Christ for Christians, etc…). The responsibility for social inequalities and lack of educations is on all Nation States who participate in Capitalism and Globalization and this is specific for such specific Nation State as the Arab Nations are most responsible for their cultural responsibilities just as the U.S.A. is for their cultural responsibilities. This is the same for all Nation States of the world.
The difficulty of the appeal for a terrorist organization such as Al-Qaeda is that the leaders, especially for the younger members who are more susceptible to being brainwashed, although the leaders being cowards themselves, is that the leaders become the parental figures in their group that provides the critical elements of human survival and a social network of acceptance by many who share similar life experiences and perspectives of the world, especially about the Pulpit of Power. However, due to most of their members being uneducated and impoverished, Al-Qaeda omits the fact that most, if not all, of the Islamic Nation States with oil are themselves among the Pulpit of Power and misuses their Islamic religion as “moral” justifications for terrorist acts for their political objectives and that explains why this group will even commit terrorist acts against their own peoples and nations, as the leaders realize that their own governments belong to the Pulpit of Power and almost all their leaders are educated in universities in the U.S.A. and other Western Nation States.
NOTE: THE U.S.A. MILITARY PRESENCE IN IRAQ IS IRRESPONSIBLE DUE TO BEING OVER-EXTENDED WITH GROUND FORCES AND EQUIPMENT. PLUS, SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ, THE RATIONALÉ FOR WAR BY THE BUSH-CHENEY ADMINISTRATION, AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO W.M.D. IN IRAQ IS IMPORTANT AS TO THE TRUTH, HONESTY, CHARACTER, AND INTEGRITY OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
The Pulpit of Power has a predilection to other peoples’ views which differ from theirs and admonish those whom they believe that they are superior to. Then, other people with other ideas of governing, are marginalized, dehumanized, and are considered innocuous and/or insidious by ones who already have the power and control. This may be a Political, Religious, or other form of method of which a specific group of people have a set of ideas that they believe are right and govern people by such specific method. Then, any alternate view of the identical methods that the Pulpit of Power considers right are labelled as "rebels," "iniquitous," "insalubrious," and "subcutaneous" and are either ignored or face extreme depredation and vendettas if they think that their power is being threatened.
To emphasize this point, here is a quote from Mahatma Ghandi:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
People who have different opinions of methodology of government are then disenfranchised due to the false perception that they are groups with no respect for "traditional" demarcation and obsequious to the Pulpit of Power. This is not an amatory way of life as it restricts people from the freedom to choose and live by the method which they believe is right. What is the right method? That largely depends upon one’s geographical place of birth and the society of that location with their already accepted morals and values. The world has over 200 Nation States and with each specific one; there will be a specific method(s) that any given Nation State may believe is/are right. There are many similarities and differences among the World’s Nation States’ methods. To believe that only "ONE" method is correct for the whole World is a pertinacious, vituperative, insalubrious, inert, unloving and undemocratic ideology because that restricts and prevents others from the freedom of choosing their own "method" of governing.
The major detractor of freedom is the love of money more than the love of people. Wealthy and poor people alike may have the diseased belief that people=monetary exchange rate. This belief is "morally" justified by the misuse of sacred scripture to afford the Pulpit of Power to exploit other people and Nations, including the earth’s environment. This exploitation occurs and is now wanton and uncontrollable. When a pensive, veracious, indubitable, infallible individual and/or group illuminates people to this absurd viewpoint of oppressive people who are discursive and blithering in their rhetorical and propaganda speech to attempt to explain their destructive and devastating policies for imperious imposition of their method upon others for the sake of money and profit, then they are usually "targeted" by the Pulpit of Power by means of deceit, duplicity, vilification, and Machiavellian negative tactics.
The promotion and one day, actualization of freedom and equality for every single individual on the Earth will prove to be efficacious. This may only be done through knowledge and action. This action will eventually occur through social evolution or social revolution as the disparity between the wealthy and poor is alarmingly increasing and human history has time and time again gone through the identical scenario that we the peoples of today are facing. Here are some quotes that emphasize some of the points just given:
Are these great Americans “Defeatists?”
Herbert Hoover:
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth who must fight and die."
George Washington:
"My first wish is to see this plague to mankind [war] banished from off the Earth, and the sons and daughters of this world employed in more pleasing and innocent amusements than in preparing implements and exercising them for the destruction of mankind."

Lyndon B. Johnson:
"The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure."

Douglas Macarthur:
"I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a method of settling international differences."

Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, and its stupidity."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."

Albert Einstein:
"A country cannot simultaneously prepare and prevent war."
"It has become appalling obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."
"The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service."

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it….Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate….Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Mahatma Gandhi:
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
"There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread." "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."

Mao Tse-tung:
"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
NOTE: MAO TSE TUNG AND HIS WIFE, (WHOM HE GAVE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY TO), WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS OF 70 MILLION CHINESE PEOPLE, MOSTLY INNOCENT, DUE TO THEIR CHALLENGE TO HIS AUTHORITY. HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO HITLER MURDERING 6 MILLION PEOPLE? CAN EVIL BE MEASURED? WHAT DOES JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF THINK?
PLEASE LOOK UP IN YOUR BIBLES TO ZECHARIAH 2:8 IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND MATTHEW 25:31-46 TO FIND THE ANSWER.

H.L. Mencken:
"To die for an idea: it is unquestionable noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true."

Jean Paul Sartre:
"When the rich wage war, it is the poor who die."
"Everything has been figured out, except how to live.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca:
"A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle unless there are two."

John Hay:
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
If an individual and/or group of people believe that they are experiencing tyranny through oppression, imperialism, occupation, and imposition, especially by a foreign entity, then the spark of resistance has been fuelled. Even if the ones considered the "oppressors" are doing what they think is right, the ones believing that they are being oppressed will view the "oppressors" as an enemy. This basic truth is a reality whether or not something is right or wrong. It is the "belief" or "beliefs" of an individual and/or group that dwells in their minds. Regardless of who is right or wrong, eventually the individual and/or group who believe that they are being oppressed will begin to resist and this has historically been the situation throughout human history and will always be so. Now that we generally recognize these viewpoints of ourselves and others, we have two options:
1) Social evolution through using the systems currently in place in a loving manner and correct the divisiveness and schisms that procures inequality simultaneously keeping the aspects of the systems currently in place that promotes equality through legislation. Apply this first to our own specific Nation as an example to other Nations instead of imposing an unequal system upon others while our own citizens do not have equal opportunities, freedom, liberty, and justice.
2) Social revolution (as has historically happened numerous times) by maintaining the systems currently in place without correcting what is wrong simultaneously being apathetic to the ones who are oppressed by the inequality that pernicious policies and laws that benefit only the elite. This applies to our Nation and the World. If we the peoples do not "fix" our own social problems first instead of attempting a 21st Century "Manifest Destiny" to "fix" the problems of other Nations that we believe are evil, then we are on an endless path of "terrorism" that will eventually lead to social revolution among the majority of the world within the next century. This is due to the blithering leaders who have exponentially increased corporate and political greed and power that results in poverty of people, pollution of the planet, and a terrible disparity between the wealthy and poor that is only increasing and will wipe out the "middle class" (THERE IS NO “MIDDLE CLASS” IN THE MAJORITY OF NON-WESTERN NATION STATES) unless we elect and/or choose leaders who realize the dangerous path that the whole world is on, mostly due to the greatest nations of the world’s economic and political agendas. Which option do we want our leaders to choose?
This includes the wealthy Islamic Nations that collaborate with the Christian, Judaism, Asian, and third world Nation States’ economic systems that perpetuate inequality and keep a segment of their populations poor for various motives specific to such specific Nation State. Why does not the wealthy Islamic Nations focus on education and employing (to afford the critical elements of human survival) their peoples in a much greater effort in addition to other Nations reducing their oppression against them in order for the Arab people to become less susceptible to becoming a terrorist (an ideology, therefore, a non-critical element of human survival) and/or supporting their networks?
If the Islamic Nation States would do this to an acceptable degree and become democracies (not autocracies, etc...) so that their people would elect leaders that would implement governmental policies that would improve the quality of their lives, this would subsequently result in such specific leaders being democratically voted by their peoples and allow for easier dialogue with other nations rather than focusing on terrorists tactics for their political objectives?
Israel and the Arab Nations will never be friends; however, they can eventually co-exist in peace and security if this benevolent goal is achieved. If not, then there will always be war and terrorism in the Middle East and spread throughout the rest on the world on grander levels then we have already tragically experienced on all sides.
In no way does this imply that all people will have the identical amount of money, power, and social status’. We are all individual people, with various levels of talent and ability in addition to being from different Nation States and Cultures. What this suggests is that unless all people of the world have freedom and equality, then the spirit of resistance will remain and be commensurate to how an individual and/or group believes that they are being oppressed by other people within and outside their specific Nation State. The danger of being oblivious to what has been written thus far is that social revolution will occur instead of social evolution.
If people have the critical elements of human survival: a steady income, shelter, food/water, clothing, medical care and education, then they have life and love and are much less susceptible to egregious ideologies such as those that promote terrorism, which to emphasize, was defined as a method of attempting to cause fear by having a policy of using violence for a political or other cause.
Freedom and equality for every citizen of our Nation and allowing the same for other Nations without attempting to have power and control over them for any reason is the answer to decreasing terrorism to minimal levels. This is due to the fact that once given freedom and equality and choosing their own leaders and laws, other Nations will not tolerate terrorism and will legally deal with them in their own system.
TO EMPHASIZE THE EMPIRICAL POINT:
GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD OF ALL NATION STATES ENACT THE LAWS FOR THEIR OWN PEOPLES AND DIRECT THE ECONOMIES, EDUCATIONS, AND MARGINALLY REGULATE THE RELIGIONS (SPIRITUALITY) SPECIFIC TO SUCH SPECIFIC NATION STATE. THE ELITE OF THE WORLD, DESPITE THEIR NATIONALITIES, ARE A CLASS WITHIN THEMSELVES, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE, AND ALWAYS WILL BE RELUCTANT TO SAY THE LEAST, TO ABDICATE AND/OR SHARE THEIR WEALTH AND POWER. WHAT WILL THIS ELITE CLASS OF PEOPLE DO UPON JESUS CHRIST’S RETURN TO GOVERN THE EARTH?
Even in the best case scenario and all the Nation States of the world, over 200, become Democracies, what are the chances that the only world super-power, the United States of America (U.S.A.), would approve of every single Nation States democratic decisions on voting and electing their own leaders? This has already happened in Palestine with Yaser Arafat/Hamas and in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez (the point that they were democratically elected by their own people discredits attempts to justify having no political dialogue with them just because of what the U.S.A. and other World leaders think of them, true or false).
This has happened in other Nations too. Is it just me, or does this seem to set-up the U.S.A. as having double-standards for various Nation States due to our own Nation’s political and economical agendas, thereby discrediting the U.S.A. and United Nations (U.N.) in political discussions with different leaders of the world who have come into power by the exact system that we have and are encouraging the world’s Nation States to become?
The solution to terrorism is to socially evolve into a world-wide family of freedom and equality. Afford every single individual an opportunity for life and love and the amount of people who wish to be unloving towards others will be minimized and manageable. If the current economic and political paths that are "morally" justified by the misuse of religion and perpetuated through various educational systems are permitted to allow excessive greed and tolerate oppressive policies and laws towards our own citizens and people of other nations, then freedom and equality will never be actualized and terrorism and war will always occur. A closing for emphasis, let us learn to love and realize the interconnectedness of all living things so that social evolution occurs and love, not fear, is the primary reason of our existence.


14
SOCIAL EVOLUTION OR SOCIAL REVOLUTION
First, let me state that I firmly believe in love and that the best solution to the problems that the world faces today is to socially evolve rather than socially revolt in an effort to achieve equality for every single person and Nation on the planet. The topics that have been discussed is an attempt to come to a complete enlightenment and illumination from our Western Cultural viewpoint of the world in order to see the paradigms and paths that we are currently on and to correct that which is wrong while retaining that which is right. To accomplish this, we must not project our realities from a Western Cultural viewpoint upon other people and Nations that have different cultures and different realities of the world. Other Cultures most certainly have their own specific strengths and weaknesses, equality and inequality and historical aspects to critically examine and will be in my next book. Yet, no one specific path to the Kingdom of Heaven seems likely.
We the peoples have been granted the "free-will" by God to choose which path to or not to take to attempt to reach the sacred. In Matthew 10:14 and Mark 6:8-11, Jesus Himself instructed his disciples to depart people who would not receive them and accept them, not attack them. History has always perpetuated itself by means of social revolution once there are too many people oppressed by the Pulpit of Power over and over again since the organization of people into tribal groups. Since we now recognize this obvious fact, would it not be wise to avoid a repeat of this scenario? The only other alternative is social evolution to world peace and security. Social evolution must be accomplished; otherwise the world will one day face total annihilation from the pollution of our fresh water supply, pollution of our atmosphere, and weapons of total destruction (nuclear), and the decadence of society that we are currently witnessing.
As previously mentioned, what prevents this social evolution from actualization is primarily that many individuals and Nations have the love of money more than the love of people. This love of money more than the love of people includes the wealthiest to the poorest of individuals and Nations. Of course, this is a general statement and does not apply to everyone. The people that have that diseased belief are linear thinkers by not realizing that what happens to other people and Nations whom they do not know eventually comes around to affect our own Western Culture.
The intangible to this diseased belief is that people project their realities and Culture upon other people and Nations that prevents a true understanding of the issues that other Cultures and Nations face according to their specific realities. Instead, we attempt to understand them solely by our specific reality that almost always proves to be incorrect. Subsequently, without understanding one another and having no dialogue usually leads to political failure and people failure at every level.
An analogy that was earlier described was the reverberating effects of dropping a pebble into a pond. Eventually and inevitably, what happens to other people and Nations of the world will affect us in our Western Culture by various means, both positive and negative. If the Pulpit of Power and their constituents are arrogantly imperious to social injustice in the world due to a narrow minded thinking of a "me first" attitude and compete against one another rather than cooperate with one another, then that is not a display of love but one of excessive greed and self-centeredness. This is a very destructive and devastating path that will silently approach us until one day social revolution occurs and if that happens, it will be too late to alter our course. The winds of destiny blow in many mysterious and non-mysterious directions.
We the peoples must hold ourselves and the Pulpit of Power accountable for social injustice and demand that it is corrected while keeping what is successful in order to have balance and equality for ourselves and other Nations. What prevents this balance from occurring is that frequently it is the egos of the people in the Pulpit of Power who refuse to share wealth, power, and control. Ego is not our friend, especially one within the Pulpit of Power.
To be free, people must free themselves from their ego allowing them to clearly see and to love. Without love, we the peoples will not succeed. Love is the only ideology that can not be discredited by others. Love only benefits individuals and Nations. Anything that is harmful done in the name of God and/or love for power and control over other people is an emphatic lie. What the Pulpit of Power and many people falsely claim is that the problems that we the peoples face in the world today are too complicated and too intricately webbed together through the systems currently in place and that to change what is incorrect is too difficult. That is an excuse from people who have motives that only benefit themselves and those within their own inner circle of cronies.
Love is far more powerful than anything else combined in this profane existence and in the sacred. To not do anything is the motive of operation of human history and that is what has had humans on a perpetual agenda of ultimate failure, even if this is done at a very slow pace. Yet, people truly love within the most inner depths of their hearts. An example of this is when natural tragedies occur, people of all types instinctively join together to help one another despite their differences.
Why does it take such drastic events to bring people to the sacred level of love when that is within all of us? That is because many of us are distracted by our own little world without observing what is happening to other people and Nations. This is done through the illusions of vacations, television, movies, sports, hobbies, and other means that are mostly just fantasies as an escape to avoid clarity of thought and an in-depth understanding of life on earth and other peoples’ sufferings.
This does not imply that illusions in themselves are not beneficial if balanced accordingly since they often bring enjoyment to an individual’s life. The problem is that many people allow the illusions of life to obscure their thought processes and an in-depth understanding of life and love, thereby ignoring the unpleasant aspects that exist if they do not have a direct impact upon their own lives and the ones whom they love.
We are free to choose our destinies contrary to what the Pulpit of Power teaches. If something is not broken, then why fix it? If something is broken, then it must be fixed or the problem will become worse. Ignoring the problems of the world while only seeing what is working and being oblivious to the suffering of others is not love, it is selfishness. We must demand that the people whom we choose in our culture in the Pulpit of Power works in unity with all the Nations of the world and to change the systems that are not functioning in a correct manner rather than have a defeatist attitude that "we can’t fight city hall" and "what can one person do"? There is no such thing as can’t. That term is just an excuse for failure, usually from people who have a lack of confidence and/or corrupt.
There is nothing in the profane or sacred more powerful than love. Love will conquer all obstacles in our social evolution to learning to love others and realizing the interconnectedness of all living things. We all have the ability and capability to do this whether we are leaders or citizens. The choice is ours if we free ourselves from ourselves. We are only enslaved by ideologies taught to us because, as previously mentioned, we are educated in these systems as youths before we have the maturity to critically examine what we are being taught and what is being ingrained into our minds, a form of brainwashing if you will.
This enslavement that we do to ourselves by means of ideologies also includes the psychosis of patriotism. Why is patriotism psychosis? That is because the three monotheistic religions of the world, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all theologically teach that we the peoples descend from 1 original human pair, therefore, we are one world-wide family.
The boundaries of Nations were created by people, not God. The only boundaries that may be attributed to God are geographical ones. The other religions of the world and spirituality of people also realize and teach the same concept in various ways. Yet, we all still choose to live in an unequal and unbalanced manner that has much inequality despite our own theological belief systems.
The gift from God to humanity is the "free-will" to choose our own destinies and that may very well be the reason that Jesus: God, the Son of God, a great Prophet, or (atrociously) a heretic as people today believe not personally take out all the guess work and opinions of people by Himself writing down the exact path to Heaven instead of relying on imperfect human beings, inspired or not.
Do we choose to live a life of love (that involves loving other people, even ones whom we do not know), or do we choose to life a life of selective love (only those that love us)? Jesus Himself answered that question when asked by his disciples on the most important criteria for people to live by to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
What did Jesus instruct? As earlier mentioned, in Matthew 22:37, Jesus gave just two items: to love God and to love other people as ourselves. Jesus did not give people contingencies upon this. That is the solution to the world’s problems and is not a general statement. Jesus was being very profound and if we the peoples choose to in-depthly look inside ourselves, then we will have an in-depth understanding of learning to love and realizing the interconnectedness of all living things and be closer to self-actualization that will inspire us to progress as a human species through social evolution rather than social revolution. Our gift of "free-will" by God is to learn to love and realize the interconnectedness of all living things and this must be continuously repeated until we the peoples reach the sacred here upon the earth.
We may choose this path or we may not choose this path as individuals, Nations, and as part of the "one" which is the human species. If we ignore other peoples’ sufferings, then we are not truly God-like. Here is a Bible scripture to emphasize this point on how God emotionally feels when people are harming other people: Please open up your own Bible to Zechariah 2:8 to find the answer. The choice is ours.











15
AUSPICES OF ARMAGEDDON
An arcane term most of us are acquainted with is Armageddon. What exactly is Armageddon is contingent upon whom one asks. Most Theologians will define Armageddon as the final battle between the forces of good (God) and evil (Satan the Devil and his angelic demons) as our Creator’s emolument for rebellion in the sacred and the profane. These same Theologians believe that Armageddon is the advent of Jesus Christ’s return to the Earth and that there will be many auspices of this event described in the Bible book of Revelation and the 4 Gospels with the subsequent result being the annihilation of the planet (even by nuclear proliferation) and unrighteous people not approved by God and a "Rapture" to heaven of the righteous people approved by God.
The title of authorship of the Bible book of Revelation is usually given to an elderly Apostle John circa 98 A.D., allegedly the very same one personally picked by Jesus Christ while He lived on the Earth as a human being. If true, Apostle John would have been near 100 years of age or older at the time of Revelation’s composition. This chapter will not be a discourse on the veracity of Armageddon or the authorship of Revelation. Instead, this will be an assiduous, assessment of four other theological alternatives to Armageddon with the basic assumption being that the Earth will never be destroyed and that people will live forever upon the planet per Psalms 37:29. Basically, this assumption may be compared to an artist or another person who has taken an arduous, time consuming effort to complete a masterful piece of work and then destroying it in retaliation for their being unrighteous people later owning the accomplished, finished masterpiece.
The four alternatives that will be discussed in this chapter are:
1. Social Amelioration=social improvement through the procurement of equality, justice, peace and security for all the people of the planet by Pulpit of Power.
2. Celestial Contact=alien life forms (we will not be cynical and assume that they are all enemies as some would definitely be our friends) contacting the human species.
3. Great Tribulation=a celestial event such as an asteroid and/or comet striking the earth and/or moon resulting in what Jesus Christ described in the 4 Gospel Accounts that involve atmospheric and geographic tragedies, earthquakes, a lack of comestibles (famine), and social depredation not associated with any sacred event.
4. Divine Intervention=a celestial event such as an asteroid and/or comet striking the earth and/or moon resulting in what Jesus Christ described in the 4 Gospel Accounts that involve atmospheric and geographic tragedies, earthquakes, a lack of comestibles (famine), and social depredation associated with a sacred event, yet not the destruction of the Earth.
First, we will evaluate social amelioration that results in social progression to peace, prosperity, emancipation, equality, and security by means of direct action by the Pulpit of Power. This would suggest a switch to the love of people more than the love of money among all the Pulpit of Power rather than the current love of money more than the love of people that is easily recognizable by the enacted laws and exercised power of such throughout human history. Social amelioration seems very idealistic and improbable due to the past 6,000 years of human history and the multiple methods of governing that have and are still being used today. The Pulpit of Power themselves have not brought about justice and equality for every single person who have ever lived throughout their existences in any of these methods of governing and never will despite their best efforts to actualize their virtues into reality due to the virulent opposition by others within the Pulpit of Power. Why would some, if not many, within the Pulpit of Power, exercise their authority to achieve something wonderful that is within our capabilities? This is because of lust of money, selfishness, lust for power, and egomania.
The variables of corruption, nepotism, and rapaciousness, and perennial, perpetuation of unequal and unbalanced systems themselves allow for any within the Pulpit of Power with these diseased beliefs to dominate the loving ones within the Pulpit of Power who are not infected with those psychoses. If loving ones within the Pulpit of Power do not outnumber and unify against the insidious ones within the Pulpit of Power (which has never happened in human history), then their loving agendas will be onerous and remain innocuous to the inordinate, iniquitous ones with excessive, extremist, imperialistic, infringement objectives upon good (and bad) people for their own inner circle of cronies and progenies’ best interests, simultaneously proclaiming themselves moral despite their double-standard hypocrisy. To imagine a wonderful world that the Pulpit of Power is capable of producing, yet refused and refuses to do so, is so disingenuous and disgusting because even if the loving ones within the Pulpit of Power were suppliant to the mavericks within the Pulpit of Power, they would have even less influence.
This maladministration and misanthropist attitude by many in the Pulpit of Power has in history eventually invited social revolution due to the lack of recognition and ambivalence to social injustice. This is very sombre, yet true, and unless the Pulpit of Power is inoculated with the love of people more than the love of money, the social ramifications are indeed dire and calamitous. We are wantonly on this course and leave any restive people to this pernicious path too pusillanimous to attempt a social evolution despite the Pulpit of Power. This is a poignant reflection upon the human species.
The next possible alternative to Armageddon would be Celestial Contact by friendly (hopefully) alien life forms that would assist human beings by means of knowledge and cooperation. This would be a benefit to human beings as students and to alien life forms of higher intelligence as instructors by bringing different worlds to a higher level of consciousness and love, thereby potentially reaching as close to the sacred as possible here on the Earth and throughout the universe. If alien life forms exist and are capable of reaching our planet while we are not capable of reaching their planets, then obviously their technology would far surpass ours and the war hawks on earth would lead us to fight against superior beings with power that we have yet to discover leading to a real Armageddon. How silly is that? Or, celestial contact may be of a physical nature such as an asteroid and/or comet colliding with the Earth or moon. Commensurate to the size of asteroids or comets that eventually will strike our planet and the moon (as has already happened), the effects could be devastating. For example, even if a significant asteroid and/or comet struck the moon (that affects our water tides, magnetism, gravity, etc…), then atmospheric changes would certainly occur and possibly alter the axis of the Earth (a direct hit by an asteroid and/or comet absolutely would) with unknown consequences to the human species, paradise or extermination, and anything in between. Is this the peace that in John 14:27 Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that He brings to people?
What about the possibility of a Great Tribulation that Jesus prophesized about in the 4 Gospels that involve atmospheric tragedies (discussed in the previous paragraph), earthquakes, famine, war, the love of the people diminishing and social depredation if it would not be associated with a sacred event. Is this scenario likely? Could this be occurring at the moment and we the peoples are too wrapped up in our own linear realities to realize that there are auspices happening right before our eyes? If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then this is going to occur and the Armageddon described in the book of Revelation as people understand is incorrect even fro

m a Biblical viewpoint as never does the author of that scroll described an end to Civilization or the earth and uses symbolism the most that is similar to what Jesus did (the difference being that He balanced that with parables), yet much more so. Since the author of Revelation utilized symbolism more than any other Biblical writer, what is symbolic and what is not symbolic?
The whole Bible is filled with symbolism and some suggest a code within the sacred writings. For any person after these many thousands of years (translations and copies) to claim what is symbolic and what is not symbolic is silly to say the least. For only men to have voted, I repeat, voted, on what sacred scrolls were inspired by God or not in one historic period of time (the 4th Century) should be critically examined. Perhaps what they believed is true, perhaps what they believed is not true, or perhaps what they believed falls somewhere in between which is what I believe. This is solely up to the individual to decide because as mentioned earlier, God Himself (Jesus?) personally did not write anything down taking out all the subjectivity out of sacred scripture of all religions/prophets of the world.
Nevertheless, will a Great Tribulation associated with a sacred event that does not involve an Armageddon that people currently understand that subsequently results in the destruction of the planet? Let us examine only what has happened to the Earth’s eco-system since the Industrial Revolution (the late 17th century to the 20th century) and our modern technological era (the late 20th century to the early 21st century) and what the future would bring to the environment on our current course. The most severe damage of humanity’s past century is the pollution to our fresh water supply. This is the most critical because without water, the human species will cease to exist. There are many efforts currently underway to alleviate this problem (e.g., desalination of salt water), yet the pollution still is rampant and the Pulpit of Power allowing this to occur due to the love of money more than the love of people (for economic purposes) will someday negatively reciprocate back upon the human species and we will face a crisis of incomparable comparisons.
Without fresh water, there will be no food. Without fresh water and food, there will be wars galore for the remaining fresh water and food until the human species disappears. And if the superfluous demand and use of oil continues, than the Earth itself not only becomes more polluted everywhere, but the ground will become more unstable likely resulting in more destructive earthquakes. Nature sublimely does this safely on its own as part of the cyclical pattern of erosion and re-creation by means of volcanic activity, natural fires, and beneficial earthquakes. The major problem since the Industrial Revolution is the dissonant manner in which the Pulpit of Power rules and regulates business.
Then, the Pulpit of Power "moralize" this ecological self-destruction by any means necessary (true or not), that usually involves the desecration of sacred scripture/spirituality. Once again, this pattern hardly seems God-like and much more human-like.
Maybe the Great Tribulation will be we the peoples bringing that upon ourselves and that what Jesus prophesized about (and the writer of Revelation expounded upon) was an acute awareness of human behaviour and not so difficult to predict, Divinity or not. It is possible that the Great Tribulation written about in the Bible book of Revelation and prophecies of Jesus Christ in the 4 Gospels are actually signs of impending Divine Intervention that does not involve an Armageddon as people currently understand (destruction of the Earth and bad people and a "Rapture" to Heaven of good people) by their attempts to interpret Jesus Christ’s quotations and the Bible book of Revelation.
The final chapters of Revelation symbolically described a union of the sacred and the profane, and whether this is in heaven or on the earth is not definitively mentioned. However, why would God destroy His Creation, the Earth, just because the residents are not living up to His standards when He obviously has the capability to remove people from the planet? God, therefore, could remove the ones whom He (not people) does not approve of and allow the people whom He does approve of to remain on His property. In human history, people of most cultures and religions have expected Divine Intervention specific to their specific culture and religious beliefs. This is extremely fascinating and is even observed in the hieroglyphics of ancient Egyptian pyramids. With such a variance of people believing the same prophecy in one form or another, something wonderful is likely to occur.
Most certainly Divine Intervention will be welcomed if the Pulpit of Power is left with a heinous hegemony of only one political super power (in any historic period of time). This is due to the fact that anytime throughout history when there has been a hegemonic Nation, there still have/has/had been a disparity between the wealthy and the poor that only increases until social unrest occurs. This is happening at the moment in the United States of America (U.S.A.), the self-proclaimed leader of western Democracy, liberty, and justice for all. Is this an accurate proclamation? In the U.S.A., there are still "Ghettos" with a majority of African-Americans, "Barrios" with a majority of Latin-Americans, "Reservations" with a majority of American Indians (who preceded the European and World settlers), and neighbourhoods of extremely poor Caucasians, Asians, and Alaskan Natives.
Of course, the U.S.A. is perhaps the best method of governing that exists on the Earth at the moment, yet it still contains elements of inequality, racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, and other social ills exponentially increasing crime simultaneously corruption in the legal professions (abuses of authority) that are even more morally wrong. The Pulpit of Power must be held at a higher level of accountability due to the higher level of responsibility and power. An example of this is when parents are raising children: who do parents hold more accountable, the older children or the younger children? Obviously the older children with more insight and authority are more responsible for their actions than if the younger children committed the identical errors.
We are all children in God’s eyes as this is the genesis of our existence. Since God is love, not a terrorist (worshipping Him due to the fear tactic of eternal damnation), then there is nothing wrong with a hedonist way of living since God, like any parent, wants His children to enjoy life, not living like slaves due to self-created ideologies. If imperfect human beings are capable of this type of love and understanding, then certainly God Himself is capable of this type of love and understanding on a level that we the peoples will never understand even if we reach the sacred here on Earth.
Divine Intervention very well may occur (I believe this), however, to believe that God would destroy his masterpiece (the Earth) due to rebellious human beings is utter nonsense and ridiculous. Would a construction company destroy a beautiful building that they spent much effort into creating just because there are bad people who view and/or are inside their work? Perhaps the construction company would wish to keep their creation intact and only remove the people whom they believe are bad. Which scenario is the most logical? This brings us back to Armageddon and the unknown variables of what exactly is meant by this term and the subsequent results if this event ever happens.
Everyone is entitled to their own ideologies, right or wrong, (although I wish more were right) and mine is that the Earth will exist forever and if it is ever endangered, God will not allow human beings or matter in the universe to destroy His magnificent Creation. The four alternative possibilities that have been discussed are Social Amelioration, Celestial Contact, a Great Tribulation, and Divine Intervention. Is it possible that Armageddon may involve all of the above to help human beings to bring the sacred here upon the earth as the Pulpit of Power will never willingly abdicate their power and control, even in the U.S.A., and that perhaps us God-like peoples will fight God Himself and His angelic armies (Armageddon) to usurp His right to His property that people, I repeat, that people, not God Himself, wrote down that God gave to human beings.









16
FREEING OURSELVES FROM OURSELVES
To re-emphasize, in Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus Christ Himself is quoted as instructing His disciples that the path to entering the Kingdom of Heaven was simply to love God and love other people as ourselves. Again, in Mark 2:27, and throughout the Gospels, Jesus claimed that His arrival fulfilled the Jewish Law (including the Sabbath since He was the ultimate and final propitiatory sacrifice for human beings’ sins), therefore, it was no longer applicable to people since no imperfect humans, only a perfect human, He Himself could uphold the Laws of Leviticus’ morals, values, and obligations to God. Why? Because it was too much to burden all people who ever have lived. This is why Jesus simply gave His followers the instruction to love God and other people as themselves and this is the Law from when Jesus Christ spoke those words and forever for people to follow.
Subsequently, the strange and bizarre aspect of Christianity (since the Israelites and Islamic people do not believe Jesus’ claims) is that "Christian" religions frequently go to the Hebrew (Judaism) scriptures and Pauline Epistles to selectively choose the scriptures specific to such religions’ beliefs to instruct their followers on how to live, rather than what JESUS Himself instructed people on how to live.
Jesus’ belief was that the Jewish Law was impossible for imperfect humans to fulfil, in effect, enslaving them to themselves and/or God Himself. Jesus claimed that due to His arrival being in accordance to Biblical prophecy and fulfilling the Jewish Law, that people were released from that enslavement mostly written down in the Bible book of Leviticus and even went so far as to wash His disciples feet and to call them friends (John 13:1-20). Does that sound like Jesus Himself viewed imperfect humans as inferior to Him despite His Divinity and that there was to still be a master-slave relationship between the sacred and profane, or does this indicate a switch to a loving relationship between them? Perhaps the Laws of Leviticus may have been God’s way of putting imperfect people in their proper place then reconciliation by offering His Son as the perfect sacrifice for rebellious humans? In John 14:27, Jesus states that He gives people a peace that does not come from this earth (how would that be so if imperfect humans were still burdened by the Laws of Leviticus)?
In John 3:16, (a verse most people know), God sent forth His Son for the love of the people of the world. Does it make sense that God would sacrifice His willing, beloved Son in the name of love, just so that people would still be enslaved by the Jewish Law that was incorrectly promoted by Saul of Tarsus in the Pauline Epistles that directly contradicts Jesus Christ Himself that was discussed in the chapter "Saul of Tarsus vs. Jesus’ 12 Apostles?
TO RE-EMPHASIS CRITICAL POINTS FROM THAT CHAPTER, SAUL OF TARSUS:
1. SAUL OF TARSUS, A FORMER PHARISEE, THAT BELIEVED IN FOLLOWING THE TRADITIONAL JEWISH LAW AND LAWS OF LEVITICUS, WAS BORN AT LEAST 30 YEARS AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST, SUBSEQUENTLY, AT LEAST 30 YEARS YOUNGER THAN THE 11 APOSLES PERSONNALY PICKED BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING ON THE EARTH. OBVIOUSLY, A GENERATION GAP BETWEEN SAUL OF TARSUS AND THE OTHER SURVING APOSTLES EXISTED, 11 PERSONALLY CHOSEN BY JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING, AND SAUL OF TARSUS' EARLY LIFE ATROCITIES AGAINST THEM AND HIS SELF-APPOINTED LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN JERUSALEM AND THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES (THAT MOSTLY CONTRADICTED JESUS CHRIST'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM), THAT THERE WAS ENMITY BETWEEN THEM AND ANY REASONABLE PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND WHY. OTHERWISE, WHY DID NOT THE GLORIFIED CHRIST APPEAR BEFORE THE OTHER APOSTLES TO SUPPORT SAUL OF TARSUS' CLAIM TO REMOVE THEIR DOUBTS AS HE DID WITH APOSTLE THOMAS? (JOHN 20:24-29)
2. THIS DISCOURSE IS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT TO ATTACK SACRED SCRIPTURE. IF THE READER REALIZES AND READS THE BIBLE IN-DEPTHLY, ESPECIALLY COMPARING WHAT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF STATED IN THE 4 GOSPELS (MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE, AND JOHN, 4 BIBLICAL BOOKS WITH 4 DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST) AND COMPARE THAT TO THE “DISCREPANCIES” OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES THAT IMPERFECT HUMAN BEING SAUL OF TARSUS IS GIVEN THE TITLE OF AUTHORSHIP, THEN THE READER WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER JESUS CHRIST MADE ERRORS, THEREFORE, BEING IMPERFECT AS A HUMAN BEING, COMPARED TO BEING PERFECT AS THE GLORIFIED CHRIST, BECAUSE MANY OF SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ARE DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. THUS, I EMPHATICALLY STATE, IN MY BELIEF SYSTEM, JESUS CHRIST AS A HUMAN BEING WAS PERFECT AND THE JESUS CHRIST’S INSTRUCTIONS IN THE 4 GOSPELS OUTWEIGH AND DISCREDIT SAUL OF TARSUS’ INSTRUCTIONS WHO WAS NOT ALIVE WHEN JESUS CHRIST WAS ALIVE AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING WHEN HE INSTRUCTED HIS DISCIPLES.
3. IF THE READER WOULD COMPARE THE LAWS OF LEVITICUS WITH THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT WOULD BE CLEAR TO SEE THE SIMILARITIES. AGAIN, SAUL OF TARSUS WAS A FORMER PHARISEE AND PERSECUTOR OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS AND MUCH YOUNGER THAN THE OTHER APOSTLES. JESUS CHRIST AND THE BIBLICAL BOOK OF REVELATION PROPHESIZES THAT THERE WOULD BE 12 APOSTLES WITH HIM IN HEAVEN THAT WOULD RULE WITH HIM IN HIS CELESTIAL GOVERNMENT. (MATTHEW 19:28). NOW, WE HAVE 13 APOSTLES AS THE BOZO WHO BETRAYED JESUS WAS REPLACED (THE BOOK ACTS CHAPTER 1). THEREFORE, SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE LEFT OUT OF THIS.
4. ACCORDING TO MOST SCHOLARS, THE PAULINE EPISTLES, WRITTEN BY SAUL OF TARSUS, WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE 4 GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST. IF TRUE, THIS MAKES THE THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES AND SAUL OF TARSUS MORE FASCINATING AS IF ALL 4 GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN A COUPLE OF DECADES AFTER THE PAULINE EPISTLES, THEN IT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EFFORT BY THE APOSTLES AND THEIR FOLLOWERS IN JERUSALEM TO CORRECT THE WRITINGS OF SAUL OF TARSUS BECAUSE THE MOST INTIRGUING ASPECT IS THAT THE 4 GOSPELS DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT EVEN MENTION SAUL OF TARSUS OR THE GLORIFIED JESUS (RESURRECTED CHRIST) APPEARING BEFORE HIM AS THE APOSTLES CLAIM THAT JESUS CHRIST DID FOR THEM. IF THE APOSTLES BELIEVED SAUL OF TARSUS’ CLAIM, THEN THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED HIS CLAIM TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS IF THEY BELIEVED THAT SAUL OF TARSUS HAD ANY CREDIBILITY, WHICH APPARENTLY HE DID NOT. “VIEWS ABOUT THE DATING OF ALL FOUR GOSPELS VARY GREATLY, FROM ABOUT 90 TO 115 AD, THOUGH SOME SCHOLARS ARGUE FOR AN EARLIER DATE FOR MARK (70 AD)” (
WWW.WIKEPEDIA.ORG). SAUL OF TARSUS DIED BEFORE 70 AD, THUS, THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN 11 HOLY APOSTLES AS A PERFECT HUMAN BEING THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES WITH THE SELF-APOINTED APOSTLE, SAUL OF TARSUS, AND ALL THEIR FOLLOWERS WHO LIKELY WROTE DOWN WHAT THEY WERE BEING TAUGHT BY ALL OF THEM LED TO THE DIVISIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE EARLY CHURCH UNTIL THE LIFE OF AUGUSTINE.
JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES WOULD NOT SEE SAUL OF TARSUS AFTER CONVERSION FOR THE MOST PART DUE TO THEIR MISTRUST OF HIM AND HIS THEOLOGIC DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING THE FOLLOWERS OF THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT THAT THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH, PRIMARILY DUE TO KNOWING JESUS CHRIST THEMSELVES (EXCEPT FOR THE REPLACED APOSTLE) AND PERSONALLY BEING INSTRUCTED BY OUR SAVIOUR. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WAS THE APOSTLE PETER AND LATER THAT RELATIONSHIP ENDED ACCORDING TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. JESUS CHRIST’S APOSTLES ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED THAT JESUS CHRIST, THE MESSIAH, WAS GOING TO RETURN IN THEIR LIFETIMES DUE TO JESUS CHRIST’S STATEMENT IN JOHN 8:51 THAT HIS BELIEVERS WOULD NEVER SEE DEATH AT ALL (JESUS CHRIST MOST LIKELY MEANT THAT HIS FOLLOWERS WOULD NEVER EXPERIENCE ETERNAL DEATH). THUS, AS THE APOSTLES BECAME OLDER AND WERE BEING EXECUTED, THE 4 GOSPELS BECAME MORE IMPERATIVE TO WRITE AND POSSIBLY TO CORRECT SAUL OF TARSUS, AS JESUS CHRIST’S SELF-CHOSEN APOSTLES, NOT THE SELF-APPOINTED ONE, SAUL OF TARSUS, EVENTUALLY REALIZED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DIE AND HAD THEIR YOUNGER DISCIPLES WHO COULD SPEAK AND WRITE IN GREEK THEIR THEOLOGIC BELIEFS AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH JESUS CHRIST.
Christian Biblical history has gone from perfection-rebellion-slavery-enslavement by the Egyptians-exodus from Egypt-occupation-self-enslavement in Leviticus-freedom from Jesus Christ’s Propitiatory Sacrifice to God-re-self-enslavement by the self-appointed Apostle, Saul of Tarsus that Augustine, the early Church fathers, and people today still believe as truth. Ironically, mostly the Hebrew Scriptures and Saul of Tarsus’ Pauline writings in the Greek Scriptures are selectively quoted by "Christians" and RARELY the quotations of Jesus Christ Himself. I realize that this is redundant, however, this is worth repeating and that is Jesus Christ’s quoted instructions on how people should live:

JESUS' WORDS
Matt. 22:36-40
Love is the path to heaven. Love your enemies.
Luke 6: 27-35
Love your enemies.
Matthew 5:43-47
Love your enemies
Matthew 22:36-40
Love your enemies and love is the path to Heaven.
Matthew 7:1
Do not judge.
Luke 6:37-41
Do not judge.

John 3:17
Do not judge.

John 8:15
Do not judge.
Luke 15:11-32
Jesus Parable about the Prodigal Son and not to judge.
Matthew 18:15-35
Jesus Parable to forgive people 77 times.
John 4:7-27
Jesus with the Samaritan woman showing us not to judge others.
Any other words, by "imperfect" human beings, inspired or not, DOES NOT, I REPEAT, DOES NOT HAVE CREDIBILITY IF THEY CONTRADICT THE WORDS OF JESUS HIMSELF QUOTED ABOVE, PERIOD. Why? Well, who would you rather trust on the path to live in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus or an imperfect human being? The re-self-enslavement that Saul of Tarsus salaciously and successfully accomplished by twisting and ignoring Jesus Christ’s instructions (Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus Christ) and the power play between him and the other 12 Apostles of which Jesus personally choose 11 of them while living as a human being on the earth is very unloving because it is for power and control over other people. Again, whose judgment of peoples’ character and heart conditions are more likely correct, Jesus Christ, or an imperfect human being despite any claims of being inspired by God are true or not?
These Christian Biblical instructions on how people should live are from Saul of Tarsus, NOT JESUS. Accordingly, we as Christians live by the Pauline Epistles morals and values that we accept as truth instead of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. These false teachings of Saul of Tarsus create the ideologies (sets of ideas) that Christians STILL live by, therefore, enslaving themselves to themselves through ideologies that promote fear (obey or go to hell) and guilt complexes (by not fulfilling the Laws of Leviticus re-enacted in the Greek Scriptures AFTER the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ by Saul of Tarsus).
As earlier discussed, in Mark 2:27 and throughout the Gospels, and must be continually repeated, Jesus claimed that He fulfilled the Jewish Law and it was no longer applicable to his followers. Therefore, Jesus stated that His ultimate sacrificial offering allows for imperfect humans to free ourselves from ourselves and that was the only possible theological means by which to do so. Again, instead of the fear and guilt Laws of Leviticus, Jesus gave us a new law in Matthew 22:36-40 and that is simply to love God and other people as ourselves and the "Golden Rule" in Matthew 7:12 on doing to others as we would like done unto ourselves in addition to Jesus’ words mentioned above.
As a result of what has just been written, we have the approval from Jesus Christ to free ourselves from ourselves and the self-enslavement that Saul of Tarsus re-instated, Augustine promoted, and the Church fathers erroneously perpetuated and perpetuate. In short, we are FREE as long as we love God and other people as ourselves. This is what Jesus Christ Himself is quoted as instructing people on how to live, and as a follower of Jesus, not Saul of Tarsus, I have freed myself from the egregious ideologies of Saul of Tarsus and will remain free until I meet our Maker. What will the reader and all people do?
This does not mean that we should not have ideologies as we are FREE to have whatever ideologies that we wish and Jesus allowed for this when sending his disciples in the missionary work as seen by reading His instructions to them in the 4 Gospels. However, to put more importance on ideologies that consists of non-critical elements of survival of the human species (religions/spirituality) over ideologies that consists of the survival of the human species (a steady income, shelter, food, water, clothing, medical care, and education) would eventually result in there being no more people. Thus, any ideology is futile if there is no one left living if we do not correctly prioritize the critical elements of human survival compared to the non-critical elements of human survival. Does this make sense?
What does Jesus Christ Himself think about the social problems of the world that we the peoples today experience mostly due to the economic systems of the three monotheistic religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) Nation States that the Asian Nations are now adopting (The Pulpit of Power)? These systems are unbalanced and unfair within our own Nation States and the third world Nations and as has been previously mentioned, the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor is a disgrace upon all people who proclaim themselves God-like. One day, we all will know what God thinks about this no matter what God (or gods), if any, we worship in our own specific Nation States. God is love, period.
The 4 Gospel accounts in the Bible are so distinctive from all other Biblical books, even though they were all written by imperfect humans, due to the focus on love, not fear, as how imperfect humans should live and spoken by Jesus Christ Himself, if (as I believe), the quotations of Him in the 4 Gospels are correct. God is not a terrorist by using fear tactics for His objective of wanting His Creation to love and worship Him due to their "free-will" and the sacred scrolls of humankind have credibility issues galore despite peoples’ claims that were not alive when these sacred scrolls of humankind were written. Therefore, we must realize that God is Love and we are free. This is so very significant and the main purpose of this whole book. We must free ourselves from ourselves as Jesus lovingly instructed us to do and to remind people of our purpose in life: to learn to love and to realize the interconnectedness of all living things.











Acknowledgements
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!
Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:GFDL

Version 1.2, November 2002
Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
0. PREAMBLE
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.
We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.
1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.
The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.
The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.
A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.
The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.
A section "Entitled XYZ" means a named subunit of the Document whose title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", "Endorsements", or "History".) To "Preserve the Title" of such a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section "Entitled XYZ" according to this definition.
The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License.
2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.
3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects.
If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general network-using public has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.
It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.
4. MODIFICATIONS
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
• A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
• B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
• C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
• D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
• E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
• F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
• G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
• H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
• I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
• J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
• K. For any section Entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
• L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
• M. Delete any section Entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
• N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
• O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.
If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.
You may add a section Entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a standard.
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.
The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.
5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.
The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.
In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections Entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections Entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections Entitled "Endorsements."
6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.
You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole aggregate.
8. TRANSLATION
Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the original English version of this License and the original versions of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original version of this License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version will prevail.
If a section in the Document is Entitled "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", or "History", the requirement (section 4) to Preserve its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.
9. TERMINATION
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.
How to use this License for your documents
To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after the title page:
Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, replace the "with...Texts." line with this:
with the Invariant Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the
Front-Cover Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover Texts being LIST.
If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation.
If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free software.
Listen to this article • (info)
This audio file was created from an article revision dated 2005-05-28, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles
Retrieved from "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License"
Categories: Spoken articles | Permanently protected | Wikipedia copyright | Wikipedia official policy
Views
Project page
Discussion
View source
History
Personal tools
Sign in / create account
Navigation
Main Page
Community Portal
Featured articles
Current events
Recent changes
Random article
Help
Contact Wikipedia
Donations
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
In other languages
Deutsch
Euskara
Bahasa Melayu
Português
Română
Simple English
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other senses of this word, see endorphin (disambiguation).
Endorphins (or more correctly Endomorphines) are endogenous opioid biochemical compounds. They are peptides produced by the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus in vertebrates, and they resemble the opiates in their abilities to produce analgesia and a sense of well-being. In other words, they might work as "natural pain killers." Using drugs may increase the effects of the endorphins.
The term "endorphin" implies a pharmacological activity (analogous to the activity of the corticosteroid category of biochemicals) as opposed to a specific chemical formulation.
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Molecular biology
3 Mechanism of action
4 Activity
5 References
[edit]
History
These opioid neuropeptides were first discovered in 1975 by two independent groups of investigators. John Hughes and Hans Kosterlitz of Scotland isolated — from the brain of a pig — what they called "enkephalins" (from the Greek 2;, cerebrum). Around the same time in the calf brain, Rabi Simantov and Solomon H. Snyder of the United States found what they later termed "endorphin", an abbreviation of "endogenous morphine", which literally means "morphine produced naturally in the body". In fact, morphine itself is not a peptide. However, recent studies have demonstrated that diverse animals and human tissues can produce morphine.
[edit]
Molecular biology
There are at least three different families of opioid peptides. The endorphins are products of a gene that encodes a large precursor peptide called pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC); POMC is expressed in the pituitary gland and in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus. The best-known endorphins are α-, β- and &;-endorphin, of which &;-endorphin appears to be most implicated in pain relief.
The amino acid residue sequence (primary structure) of β-endorphin is:
Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met-Thr-Ser-Glu-Lys-Ser-Gln-Thr-Pro-Leu-Val-Thr-Leu-Phe-Lys-Asn-Ala-Ile-Ile-Lys-Asn-Ala-Tyr-Lys-Lys-Gly-GluOH (Fries, 2002).
Other opioid peptides are the enkephalins and the dynorphins. The term enkephalin mainly refers to two peptides, [Met]-enkephalin and [Leu]-enkephalin, which are both products of the proenkephalin gene. [Met]-enkephalin is Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met. [Leu]-enkephalin has Leu in place of Met. Dynorphin is the product of a third opioid gene, called prodynorphin.
[edit]
Mechanism of action
Beta-endorphin is released into the blood (from the pituitary gland) and into the spinal cord and brain from hypothalamic neurons. The beta-endorphin that is released into the blood cannot enter the brain in large quantities because of the blood-brain barrier. The physiological importance of the beta-endorphin that can be measured in the blood is far from clear: beta-endorphin is a cleavage product of POMC which is the precursor hormone for adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH), so it will be released whenever ACTH is released. The behavioural effects of beta-endorphin are exerted by its actions in the brain and spinal cord, and probably the hypothalamic neurons are the major source of beta-endorphin at these sites.
Beta-endorphin has the highest affinity for the Mu1-opioid receptor, slightly lower affinity for the Mu2 and Delta-opioid receptors and low affinity for the Kappa1-opioid receptors. Mu receptors are the main receptor through which morphine acts. Classically, Mu receptors are presynaptic, and inhibit neurotransmitter release; through this mechanism, they inhibit the release of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA, and disinhibit the dopamine pathways, causing more dopamine to be released. By hijacking this process, exogenous opioids cause inappropriate dopamine release, and lead to aberrant synaptic plasticity which causes addiction. Opioid receptors have many other and more important roles in the brain and periphery however, modulating pain, cardiac, gastric and vascular function as well as possibly panic and satiation, and receptors are often found at postsynaptic locations as well as presynaptically
Activity
Scientists debate whether specific activities release measurable levels of endorphins. Much of the current data comes from animal models which may not be relevant to humans. The studies that do involve humans often measure endorphin plasma levels, which do not necessarily correlate with levels in the CNS. Other studies use an opioid antagonist, usually naloxone, to indirectly measure the release of endorphins by observing the changes that occur when any endorphin activity that might be present is blocked.
Capsaicin (the active chemical in chili peppers) also has been shown to stimulate endorphin release. [1] Topical capsaicin has been used as a treatment for certain types of chronic pain.
The placebo effect has been linked to endorphins. In one study, a volunteer received pain by a compression cuff on his arm. In the first trial, no drug was administered and the patient showed signs of pain including facial grimace, increased blood pressure, and sweating. During the next trial, the physician informed the volunteer that he would be injected with morphine and that he would feel no pain. The morphine was injected, the pain compression repeated, and this time the volunteer showed and reported no pain. The morphine and compression was repeated several times. Then, the volunteer was unknowingly injected with a saline placebo, but still reported no sign of pain, though the last time he was unmedicated the signs of pain were obvious. In a last test, the patients’ ‘morphine’ was actually an injection of naloxone, an opioid antagonist. Even though the volunteer believed the shot was morphine and expected relief, the endorphins’ effect was blocked by the naloxone injection and the volunteer displayed the same signs of pain as the first unmedicated trial. (Groopman 169) Another widely publicized effect of endorphin production is the so-called "runner's high", which is said to occur when strenuous exercise takes a person over a threshold that activates endorphin production. Endorphins are released during long, continuous workouts, when the level of intensity is between moderate and high, and breathing is difficult. This also corresponds with the time that muscles use up their stored glycogen and begin functioning with only oxygen. Workouts that are most likely to produce endorphins include running, swimming, cross-country skiing, long distance rowing, bicycling, aerobics, or playing a sport such as basketball, soccer, or football. However, some scientists question the mechanisms at work, their research possibly demonstrating the high comes from completing a challenge rather than as a result of exertion. (Klosterman) (Altman) There is some recent evidence that endogenous cannabinoids are responsible for "runner's high", rather than endorphins. (Endocannabinoids and exercise, by A Dietrich and W F McDaniel, May 4, 2004 bjsportsmed.com). Studies in the early 1980's cast doubt on the relationship between endorphins and the runner's high. There were a couple of reasons for this doubt. The first was that when an antagonist (pharmacological agent that blocks the action fo the substance under study)was infused(eg naloxone) or ingested (naltrexone) the same changes in mood state occurred that happened when the person exercised with no blocker. A second piece of evidence is much more simple. It turns out that scientists cannot make a runner's high occur in the lab with any certainty. This makes it very difficult to study much less prove that endorphins cause the runners high.
In 1999, clinical researchers reported that inserting acupuncture needles into specific body points triggers the production of endorphins [2]. In another study, higher levels of endorphins were found in cerebrospinal fluid after patients underwent acupuncture. In addition, naloxone appeared to block acupuncture’s pain-relieving effects. However, skeptics say that not all studies point to that conclusion, and that in a trial of chronic pain patients, endorphins did not produce long-lasting relief. (Margolis 140-141).
The good feeling one gets from eating chocolate, smiling, laughing, sunbathing, being massaged, meditating, singing, listening to one's favorite music, or having an orgasm is partially attributed to the release of endorphins. [3]
[edit]

References
• Fries, DS (2002). Opioid Analgesics. In Williams DA, Lemke TL. Foye's Principles of Medicinal Chemistry (5 eodulation demonstrates a dopamine coupling." Medical Science Monitor 11 (2005): BR397-BR404. <
http://www.medscimonit.com/pub/vol_11/no_11/8127.pdf>

Analgesics (N02A, N02B) edit
Opioids: Buprenorphine, Butorphanol, Codeine, Dextropropoxyphene, Dihydrocodeine, Fentanyl, Diamorphine (Heroin), Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone , Ketobemidone, Morphine, Nalbuphine, Oxycodone, Oxymorphone, Pentazocine, Pethidine (Meperidine), Tramadol
Salicylic acid and derivatives: Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic Acid), Diflunisal, Ethenzamide -- See also: NSAIDs
Pyrazolones: Aminophenazone, Metamizole, Phenazone
Anilides: Paracetamol (acetaminophen), Phenacetin
Others: Ziconotide, Tetrahydrocannabinol
Retrieved from "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin"
Categories: Analgesics | Neurotransmitters | Opioids

Gerald Murphy (Cleveland Free-Net - aa300). Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN). Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National Public Telecomputing Network.
NOTE: ALL BIBLICAL SCRIPTURES CITED IN THIS BOOK ARE SUMMARIZATIONS OF ALL BIBLES AND ANY DIFFERENCES ARE MINIMAL AND SPECIFIC TO THE RELIGION THAT PUBLISHES SUCH SPECIFIC BIBLE.
ALL REFERENCES ARE FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org
ALL QUOTATIONS ARE TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING SITE:
http://www.quotationspage.com/about.html#disclaimer
Disclaimer: To the best of our knowledge, all quotations included here fall under the fair use or public domain guidelines of copyright law in the United States. If you believe that any quotation violates a copyright you hold or represent, we will immediately remove it upon notification pending good-faith resolution of any dispute.










Notes