The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
-47 votes

Amazing Little Known Facts - Proving How You Have Been Kept In The Dark

This article peels back many layers of the onion exposing where elusive truth apparently resides on interrelated subject matters most people would find very difficult to approach (like a conspiracy to inhibit world peace?), and is a treasure trove packed with golden nuggets of information and useful links. Topics include:

1) A pervasive misconception of the golden rule - A Universal law revealed.

2) The Achilles heel to humanity's wide-spread addiction to violence.

3) Eating meat will soon be illegal - Not a joke.

4) Does the Bible present a belief that the earth is flat?

5) Amazing things church leaders are knowingly not telling you.

6) Evidence that the Illuminatti/Freemasons have influenced nearly all organized religions.

7) Forbidden knowledge.

Have organized religions been ruthlessly manipulated by age old geo-political divide and conquer strategists?

"The Masons (fake Christians) manipulate the Christians, the Jesuits (fake Catholics) manipulate the Catholics, the Zionist Khazars (fake Jews) manipulate the Jews, and the Ismailis (fake Muslims) manipulate the Muslims. We're all being manipulated by IMPOSTERS and ya'll don't get it! The secret societies have been in cahoots TOGETHER, and against us common folk for ages. WAKE UP EVERYBODY! your neighbor is NOT your enemy!!!!!"

"Most organized religions can be boiled down to basically the golden rule, just with different window dressings. The solution is to no longer allow window dressings to get in the way of actually seeing and understanding what is necessary to usher in peace" - RicoCabeza

Out of sight -- Out of mind:
[ A MUST see photo ]

No matter where we look, there seems to be an appeal to an urgent need for humanity to change from within. As a case in point, here is an interesting (fictional?) writing portrayed as being communicated to us from extra terrestrials - "What your Species [humanity] is missing from your understanding is the presence of an overwhelming Universal Law. This Universal law in its simplest forms has been expressed through many of your belief systems. Within the times ahead as the future unfolds, and the challenges your species now must face; you are being asked to maintain supreme integrity over your mental focus and intentions. You have been shown that you can no longer ignore your internal gyrospectrum sensory guidance instrumentation and inner-visual lens scopes. These are the times right now , this moment when the changes must begin to take place within your own self. WE ARE TALKING TO YOU HUMAN BEING, DO YOU NEED TO SEE THINGS AROUND YOU DESTROYED TO WAKE UP ?" - from "The Human Species Ancestry is Stellar", Jon Hurst:

The broader conclusion of this article occurs in question and answer item number "7)", which therefore should be considered every bit as much a part of the article itself.

This article "Amazing Little Known Facts - Which Have Kept You In The Dark" (which begins a few paragraphs further down) has been published on the DailyPaul, and after subsequently undergoing countless additional revisions and refinements (including several title changes, the most recent prior title of which was "Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution"), is now believed to be ready for prime time viewing.

"Mending: Fearful hearts, Obedient minds, Aggressive impulses - Thank you, RicoCabeza, for your compelling associations between religious texts, significant influences, killing animals, and a culture of violence. For those of us who want a world of peace, this is all of worthy consideration. There is no doubt that texts, regarded as sacred by our society, deeply, and oftentimes unconsciously, form our standards of that which is acceptable. For example ... [fast forward] This is a rather intense formula for creating fearful hearts. As long as we are in fear, we cannot access the beauty and power of our own Souls...

The ENTIRE comment submitted by Reverend X can be found here:


It is IMPORTANT that you THE READER help take initiative to increase exposure to this article if we are to succeed in planting its seeds of knowledge and positive change for world peace.

[article begins here]

Amazing Little Known Facts - Proving How You Have Been Kept In The Dark

Nearly everyone wishes for world peace (non-violence towards others) and an end to all wars right? But have you ever sat down and given serious thought to what it might actually take to achieve this?

How is it that time and time again, year after year, decade after decade, even the best of the alternative news outlets (all the while incessantly calling for peace efforts which thus far have shown to be futile) never seem to talk about a practically obvious requirement which appears to be ABSOLUTELY necessary for making world peace a reality? By the way, they say INSANITY is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result. Clearly with regards to pursuing world peace a new approach is needed.

This article not only offers a new revolutionary concept towards achieving world peace, but it attempts to demonstrate using real world evidence and easy to follow logic and rational thought, that this approach is a FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT toward any credible holistic effort seeking to attain world peace.

In a nutshell, the world at large all these years has failed to recognize the absolute importance of adhering to a relatively simple to understand universal truth (or law), which is key for allowing peace to perpetuate and prosper. This UNIVERSAL TRUTH can be derived solely using objective reasoning and logic. However, to further satisfy skeptics, this article also quotes from a website linked below, to show how allegedly experts/FBI professionals unwittingly offered real world credence to the truth of this matter. To understand this universal truth in its proper context and why adhering to it IS a requirement toward making world peace a reality, many of you will first need to familiarize yourself with the "objective reasoning and logic" (which immediately follows) as well as the information quoted from the initial website referenced below.

BECAUSE we human beings are sentient beings with a will to live, we understand that it is wrong/not acceptable for animals or humans (or by extension even ETs) to arbitrarily take the life of a human being (be it for food, entertainment, political gain, research, or what have you). We all understand this as truth either intuitively or by reasoning objectively using our own logic, and need not be told this by any god or gods or religious establishment in order to understand this as a truth we can all agree on (it should be noted that the whole concept of religion and gods is a subjective one, which runs contrary to what should be employed here, which is objective reasoning and logic). Anyway, regardless of religion (or lack there of) we ALL understand that it is MORALLY WRONG for anyone to take the life of a human being in this way.

Now if you examine the logic in the above paragraph carefully you will realize that it cannot hold true for humans if it does not also hold true for other potential species of sentient beings (in other words, from their perspective it is equally wrong for other species to unnecessarily take their lives in a similar fashion, as they also have a will to live, just like humans do). Additionally, if we look at it inversely and assume it does NOT hold true for humans, or even for other sentient beings (in other words a frame of mind which has no problem killing humans or other species of sentient beings), then what we are left with ultimately is the FRAME OF MIND which gives the green light for war and perpetual killings. Some aspects of this will likely not be entirely clear to many readers upon initial reading. That's OK because fortunately there is a website which sheds more light on just how this phenomenon works in the real world, which includes the following:

"Virtually no-one would allege that a slaughterhouse is a place of peace. But just as few are the opinion that the violence committed toward the so-called "economically useful animals" (live-stock) could contribute to the level of violence displayed between humans ... experts dealing daily with human violence, currently see a close relationship between violence toward animals and violence toward humans ... FBI investigations found that there was a similarity amongst nearly all serial murderers: They all (usually already as children) were violent toward animals. Once a basis of violence was laid, it is difficult to limit these only to certain forms of life, or situations."


Now to be clear, no one is saying here that every person who has had a history of violence toward animals will behave violently towards humans as well. All we are saying here is that this cause and effect relationship is sufficiently strong such that it cannot be ignored. It would therefore seem safe to say that if we TRULY wish to END ALL VIOLENCE toward human beings, then as a second line of defense it is absolutely essential that we no longer allow humans to act out of violence toward animals.

See also, Slaughterhouse 1,100: The Emotional Impact of Killing Animals:
"It will come as no surprise that the consequences of this emotional dissonance include domestic violence, social withdrawal, drug and alcohol abuse, and severe anxiety. As slaughterhouse workers are increasingly being treated for PTSD, researchers are finally starting to systematically explore the disturbing results of killing sentient animals for a living.
At the University of Windsor, the criminologist Amy Fitzgerald has found a strong correlation between the presence of a slaughterhouse and high crime rates."

OK, so before moving on, here are a few related quotes you may also find interesting and/or helpful to this end:

- "First it was necessary to civilize man in relation to man. Now it is necessary to civilize man in relation to nature and the animals."Victor Hugo (1802-1885)

- "Cruelty has cursed the human family for countless ages. It is almost impossible for one to be cruel to animals and kind to humans. If children are permitted to be cruel to their pets and other animals, they easily learn to get the same pleasure from the misery of fellow-humans. Such tendencies can easily lead to crime. "--Fred A.McGrand (1895- )

- "If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals." --Albert Einstein

- "When a man has pity on all living creatures then only is he noble. "--Buddha (563? - 483? B.C.)

- "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings we are still savage." - Thomas Edison, Inventor

- "As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together." - Isaac Singer, Writer

- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Continuing right along with regards to yet more "objective reasoning and logic", it seems that violence stems from people who lack sufficient respect for other sentient beings, or perhaps from a more noble perspective, from people who are lacking in the fullness of love (to love is to action-ably take into consideration the desires of others equally or more so than your own). Who can dispute, that by definition, simply eating meat in general, is in and of itself, ultimately an act of violence? But does eating meat also correlate with additional acts of violence as well?

According to Armando D'Elia - Naturalist, chemist, expert in vegetarian dietetics, Honorary President of AVI Scientific Committee: "Human beings use large numbers of animals for the food value of their meat proteins. The effects OF THESE PROTEINS can undoubtedly be seen in aggression, violence, hatred and moral insensitivity: we can therefore say that meat has a negative effect on human behavior. The vegetarian, on the other hand, builds the foundations for an attitude of tolerance, gentleness, sociability and a spirit of sharing. Experts speaking out against the use of meat proteins can now call on support from the chemistry of neurotransmitters and from neurobiology, two scientific disciplines that explain how such foods cause certain human behaviors. As a result we can now act with greater certainty in our food choices, which to prefer and which to avoid. Among other things, we should reject the idea that violence is innate in humans: no-one is born aggressive or evil, but we can become so by eating meat. ... Another thing that can easily be seen is the gradual reduction in aggression in human beings as they move from a diet containing large amounts of meat towards one excluding high protein foods, especially meat."


It is also worthwhile to note his seemingly spot on claim that "Generally in nature carnivorous animals are fierce and aggressive, while non-carnivorous ones are peaceful and sociable", so this correlation does not appear to be based solely on toxic chemicals or whatever else is commonly induced towards livestock as some would argue.

One very interesting side note here is that contrary to popular belief, closer examination suggests that human beings are in actuality herbivorous biologically, and not designed to be carnivores, as demonstrated so well by Gary Yourofsky (which for this and other reasons should be considered required viewing EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS READING THIS ARTICLE):

“Best Speech You Will Ever Hear” [ also available in over 30 languages at ]
- [humorous intro ~5 min]
- [part 2 humorous intro ~1 min]
- [Gary’s speech in English]

Getting back on track, this article has already presented enough information from which the "Universal Truth For The Establishment Of Peace" can be derived, as formalized a few paragraphs below. However, to gain an even broader understanding while reading it, please also consider that this issue affects far more than just our environment of peace verses violence, as illustrated by the following:

"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity... The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency." ~ United Nation Food and Agricultural Organization's report "Livestock's Long Shadow". See also "UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet" (


"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." ~ Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"

[Some advice for die-hard meat eaters on how to prolong to the extent possible your option to continue eating meat. Ironically, it seems the most effective tactic to this end is for meat eaters to encourage others to eat less meat, and ideally, encouraging where possible, even to the extent of transitioning to vegetarianism. This is a simple matter of reducing excessive demand for an increasingly endangered resource. So for you this article should be viewed as a powerful tool/aid to help you craftily encourage other people to eat less meat.]

There is also a heightened sense of urgency which should be placed on this issue in the wake of things like the unprecedented Fukushima nuclear accident, the BP oil spill, and fracking, which are all recent occurrences taking a significant additional toll on already endangered resources.

"Is There Anything Truly Sustainable or Humane About Eating Meat?"

"It’s not a requirement to eat animals, we just choose to do it, so it becomes a moral choice and one that is having a huge impact on the planet, using up resources and destroying the biosphere." ~ James Cameron, movie director, environmentalist. Can you see the irony when someone is asked if they like animals? "Oh I love them". Then why are you eating them?


Universal Truth For The Establishment Of Peace

NO ONE (not even an advanced species alien, God, spirit or what have you) can correctly claim to be a truly GENUINE loving being (or peacemaker) during a time such as they are unnecessarily and knowingly eating, or condoning the unnecessary eating (or arbitrary killing or harming for that matter) of, sentient beings against their will, regardless of species.


Understandably (yet sadly), Christians and people of many other religious faiths will have a difficult time recognizing this as the universal truth that it indeed is, because it runs contrary to their official spiritual writings or beliefs which permit the eating of meat (which in the final analysis is clearly an anomaly from the perspective of an all powerful loving God), or perhaps moreover because of peoples' inner-most evil desires. Fortunately, however, this matter can be straightened out by simply asking you/them to consider the following scenario:

A more advanced (assumed to be somehow superior) race of aliens invades earth and starts eating all humans one at a time solely based on whatever is YOUR argument justifying the eating of other sentient beings (perhaps that it is OK to eat other species thought to somehow be inferior - apparently regardless of how SUBJECTIVE this may be)? So they finally get to you and inform you that unless you can objectively show where they have gone wrong in their logic, they will in short order eat you as well. Will you then tell them their logic is correct and without fault? Do you REALLY have NO logical issue with them EATING YOU in this case? Or will you instead perhaps FINALLY sense that MAYBE there is something wrong with YOUR/their logic? If so, congratulations; you are now both vegetarian minded, and also cognizant of the fact that there was an error in your previous religious belief system! **Here is a rather ingenious graduation song for you to serve in remembrance of your soon to be distant past on how life USED to be, never again to be repeated as you now are able to SEE the light:


Sample lyrics from graduation song “Vampire In You”:

Taste so good, can't give it up.
Tasteful flesh means they're out of luck.
Screams fall silent long before their flesh touches your tongue.

Tastes so good, can't let it go.
Virgin blood for the vampire in you.
Prayers give thanks no tears shed for the life served on our plate.

Slice it up and dig in, let the funeral begin.
From the cage to the plate, their blood on your hands.

Wave goodbye to a soul, leaving hell for the unknown.
From the cage to the plate, their blood on your hands.

Vampire in you.

Incidentally, for those who assume the concept of rogue aliens illegally eating humans right here on planet earth [apparently in contempt of intergalactic universal law] is merely hypothetical, let us point out that this is a topic which apparently (at least in some circles) remains open for discussion:

- "Sadly, we must say their are factions within all species [of extra terrestrials] who align themselves without caring for operational procedures and instructional directives, of the Common; Universal Law" -
- Anyone who strongly doubts that planet earth has been visited by extra-terrestrials really ought to check out "Governments and Officials Admitting Aliens Are Real" -

[Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognize non-humans as sentient beings...

In the philosophies of animal welfare and rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-welfare advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled, at a minimum, to protection from unnecessary suffering, though animal-rights advocates may differ on what rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience...

The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?[3]

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity--extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.--are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism--that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.

Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that, "All sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.]:


"While vegetarianism is not a common practice in current western Christian thought and culture, the concept and practice has scriptural and historical support. According to the Bible, in the beginning, before the Fall, human and nonhuman animals, which are beings that have or are an ānima, Latin for soul,[6][7] were completely vegetarian, and "it was very good".[Genesis 1:29-31]"

For those of you who after reading this article up to this point still find yourself somehow wanting to cling on to your traditional belief system with regards to eating meat, you must at least see the POSSIBILITY that maybe just maybe spiritual writings in this regard have been in error or perhaps altered by disingenuous humans with an axe to grind in favor of their immoral desires to eat meat? Perhaps it would be helpful if we could examine potential evidence which suggests strongly that this type as well as other types of official spiritual writing alterations/anomalies have occurred? As a case in point let's examine how this may have occurred with regards to the Christian Bible.

There do seem to remain remnant texts within the Bible which seem to indicate a vegetarian minded God (which have been termed
'Vegetarian Bible Quotes'), including:

- Proverbs 12:10 KJV "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

- Isaiah 66:3 KJV "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man"

- Acts 15:29 NIV "You are to abstain ... from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." [Please also note that there are no procedures in place, not even kosher, which can assure the removal of all blood from meat. In fact many Jews such as Dr Richard Schwartz of Staten Island believe that it is impossible to drain all the blood out of tiny capillaries. And since this is a New Testament command, it cannot be argued that it was nailed to the cross as were the ceremonial [non-ten commandments] laws of the Old Testament.]

- Exodus 20:13 KJV "Thou shalt not kill" [There are no other surrounding qualifiers, so as stated here (supposedly by one of God's chosen translation servants), it apparently applies to all sentient lifeforms, which would include animals. Granted, the original language technically could have been translated correctly either as kill or murder, however, several of God's servants chose to translate it as kill.]

- Proverbs 23:20 World English Bible "Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat"

- Genesis 1:29-30 KJV "29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."

Note: This was probably never intended to include the prolifically tainted genetically modified food (GM/GMO) of today, which could be surmised by a statement from Dr. August Dunning: "We see this exponential increase in disease since 1988 or early '90s, which was when genetically modified (GM) food was introduced" [so it would seem prudent to grow your own non-GMO food and/or purchase food which is certified organic].

- Isaiah 65:25 KJV "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord."

- Job 5:23 KJV "For thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field: and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee."

- Isaiah 7:14-15 "Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign--Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son and call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and to choose the good. One interpretation of the butter and honey is that Christ would belong to a lower socio-economic class. However, some vegetarians believe that refusing the evil and choosing the good means refusing to consume animal flesh. What about the loaves and fishes? Apparently it’s possible that fish was mistranslated from fishweed, which does seem a little more likely to be in a basket with bread. He also asked Simon called Peter and Andrew to give up fishing to become his disciples. Perhaps more than an invitation to serve, this was a subtle condemnation of the trade. Many people believe that Jesus belonged to the Essene sect of Jews, a group that was against animal sacrifices. If this is true it is very likely that Christ did not eat meat. Vegetarian Jews certainly existed in Jerusalem at the time, and it isn’t too far-fetched to think that Jesus was one of them." -
"Most scholars agree that the post-resurrection stories of Jesus eating fish were added to the Gospels long after they were written, in order to settle various schisms in the early Church. (e.g., the Marcionites and other early Christians believed that Jesus did not actually return in the flesh. What better way to prove that he did than to depict him eating?) The scribes who added the stories were not, apparently, averse to eating fish. But since this is the only depiction anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus eating any animals at all, it seems clear that he was.
The loaves and the fishes - Although it would not contradict the technical definition of a vegetarian to multiply fishes who are already dead to feed people who eat aren't opposed to eating fish, there are some interesting points to notice about this story. First, the disciples ask Jesus where they will get enough bread to feed the multitudes, never even thinking of buying fish or other animal products, and never suggesting a fishing expedition, despite being beside a sea. Also, evidence indicates that the story of the loaves and the fishes did not originally include fish. For example, the earliest (pre-Gospel) accounts of this miracle do not include fish, and Jesus, when he refers to it, refers only to the bread (e.g., Mt 16:9-10, Mk 8:19-20, Jn 6:26). Fish were added to the stories by Greek scribes, probably because the Greek word for fish, ixous, is an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. In this very likely interpretation, the multiplication represents a prediction of the burgeoning Church and has nothing to do with eating animals." -

- Essene Gospel of Peace*** [not officially part of the Bible, but PLEASE see disclaimer below in the Question and Answer section] - here allegedly the words of Jesus Christ are recorded as saying "Kill not, neither eat the flesh of your innocent prey, lest you become the slaves of Satan. For that is the path of sufferings, and it leads unto death"

In the original glory of the garden of edin, there was only vegetarianism on the face of the earth. This was followed by the glory of God forfeited through sin, which was followed at the cross by the hope for a restored glory of God, which as clearly described in the Bible will ultimately restore all saved Christians to be solely vegetarian forever more...

See "God’s End Time Vegetarian Diet: Bible Truth or Human Invention?"

"It is interesting to see who God selected to have join Him with His Son at the transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:1-3). Moses and
Elijah were honored to join with the Father and the Son in that glorious event. Moses represented all those who will die and then be
resurrected to everlasting life (Jude 9). Elijah represented all those who will be translated at the Second Coming without seeing death. Both Moses and Elijah ate a vegetarian diet in their later years. For both, a vegetarian diet was God’s prescribed diet while here on earth."

So even the Bible seems to make the point within the passages quoted above, that world peace is not possible when sentient beings of any species (including humans) are eating meat. Keeping in mind these Bible passages, how then can the Bible also condone the eating of meat? Some Christians may say that God cursed the world in this way when sin entered the world to remind us daily that the consequence of sin is death. Others may cite this as psychopathic/unloving/disconnected thinking (because, for example, what sin did vegetarian cows commit to justify slaughter by meat eaters?). The Bible does teach that there was no death, even of animals, prior to sin - ( ). So if sin alone causes death, even of animals, and Christians are to refrain from sin, then it would seem anomalous for the Bible to ever condone the eating of meat. Could it be that the Bible was modified in this way for political and/or Illuminatti Satanically inspired reasons?

That the Bible has been modified is certainly not a new concept. For example "The Book of Enoch was considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers, such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Tertullian, who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ. However, later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book, and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work.
By the 4th century, the Book of Enoch was mostly excluded from Christian canons, and it is now regarded as scripture by only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church."

Also, "a letter written by Clement, the third bishop of Rome, was considered as scripture for nearly two hundred years, as were seven letters written by Ignatius, who was the bishop of Antioch early in the second century. Also, there was a book called The Shepherd of Hermas and another called The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles that were also approved as scripture by the Church."

However, the Bible declares:

- "As for God, his way [or method of inspiring scripture] is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30)

- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)

- "... I [God] will put my words in his [the prophet's] mouth" (Deuteronomy 18:18)

If this is true, then what has been inspired and later recognized as scripture (through God's perfect word for word way of inspiring scripture) cannot change or arbitrarily be thrown out (not even under the pretext that it was not inspired), for any Christian canon, because we have been assured right in the Bible itself that all officially recognized Christian scripture was already perfect to begin with. The Bible also proclaims that Gods words will not pass away (Mark 13:31).

Granted, the Bible also states in Deuteronomy that there will be false prophets who will claim to speak inspired words of God. However, to be clear, many 'inspired words of God' (spoken by prophets) are not considered to be 'Bible scripture' - these are not one and the same. So it would be patently false to conclude that the Bible is saying here that alleged inspired words of false prophets would EVER be included in any Christian Bible/canon.

On the other hand, imagine the Bible credibility issues that would be created if Christians were to argue, that words of false prophets would continually attempt to attack, corrupt, or even destroy the Bible, and that at times these blasphemy's would become part of Bible scripture. And all during this process the Bible would be preached as 'the perfect word of God'?

So it seems that no matter how we slice it, historically, there was nothing at all "perfect" about the process of determining for a given time period, what is officially recognized as scripture/truth, and what is not. It has been a wishy washy, arbitrary, contradictory process which can by no stretch of the imagination be considered perfect. In consideration of this it seems anomalous that Christianity claims that the Bible has been perfectly inspired (like what Bible... and like what time period are they talking about? Even in modern times there is not one singularly agreed upon Bible canon throughout all of Christianity) or that God is perfect. If God is perfect, he could, should, and in all likelihood, out of necessity in order for Christians to be able to claim that the Bible is consistent and trustworthy, and true, WOULD have seen to it that there were no attempts to ever alter (or take away from) his so called perfect scripture. Are we not assured, as argued above, that this would never happen?

Take note also how in modern day Christian Bibles, the book of Jude 1:14 not only quotes (using very similar wordings) from the Book of 1 Enoch, but it also identifies Enoch as a prophet, thereby delineating him as a person who had inspired words of God to share with the public. Fragments of the Book of Enoch found among the Dead Sea scrolls witness to its availability in the Holy land in apostolic times.

So a question to keep in the back of your mind as you continue reading this article is, how can anyone really know what is inspired and what is not within the context of Christianity, even for whichever Bible YOU may consider to be truth?

Now if you ask anyone, including church leaders, you will hear Christianity described as a monotheistic religion. Assuming this to be true, how then do we make sense out of how the Bible refers to angels, fallen or otherwise, as gods, as well as the existence of not just one, but rather multiple sons of God, and perhaps other gods?:

- Genesis 1:26 "And God [the father] said, Let us [so apparently there were multiple creator gods?] make man in our image, after our likeness" (KJV)

- Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." (KJV) [how could sons of God not also be considered gods?]

- 2 Corinthians 4:4 "In whom the god of this world [so here Satan too is referred to as a god] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (KJV)

- Genesis 16:13 "She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: "You [an angel] are the God who sees me,"" (NIV)

- Hosea 1:7 (KJV) "But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen"

- John 14:28 (KJV) "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I" [so God Jesus is separate, distinct, and clearly not equal to God the father (see below how the concept of the Trinity/triune Godhead came into existence).]

- Leviticus 16:7-10 "in the Hungarian Bible, there is a character mentioned called Azazel. The Scripture says there that the Israelites should sacrifice two goats - one for the Lord and the other for Azazel ... Azazel was considered by some Jewish sources to be a supernatural being mentioned in connection with the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.)" -

Arthur Frederick Ide says "While the various writers of Deuteronomy and Leviticus commanded the people "of Israel" to turn from "pagan [country or foreign] gods", few did. The majority rejoiced in the old ways and practiced polytheism. The people of Israel did not, reluctantly, embrace monotheism until the Babylonian Captivity ... The Hebrew text uses Elohim for "gods", a noun that is notably used both as a plural; however, later redactors and revisionists labored at making this plural noun a singular noun (that would be El) when it was necessary to speak of the god of Israel ... It is but a nationalistic ploy in an effort to unite a divided people of various cultures into one." -

Arthur also states "... deities (known as Satis, Sati, Amaunet, and Isis, who was a part of all world religions including the faith devoted to Pachamama of Perú) and was a part of the ancient Egyptian Trinity that Constantine I ultimately would refashion into the Christian Trinity) who spoke through their priests."

Notice that if what Arthur says here is true (note: additional historical evidence backing this up is presented later in this article), then the Christian concept of the "Holy Trinity"/triune did not originate from God, as Christians would claim, but rather from Constantine I. Furthermore, if prior to Constantine I the Christian Bible did not contain the concept of the "Holy Trinity"/triune, it would seem the only logical conclusion we can make is that prior to Constantine I, Christianity was polytheistic. So in retrospect, we now have a very plausible theory, if not a valid historic explanation, for why there seems to be multiple leftover remnants in the Christian Bible which acknowledge the existence of multiple gods, as identified a few paragraphs earlier in this article.

And if there indeed was an effort carried out by humans to alter the Christian Bible from its polytheistic origins to a more modern monotheistic presentation of Christianity (or even if merely "a nationalistic ploy in an effort to unite a divided people of various cultures into one"), then that may also explain a clear motive for why the book of Enoch was removed from nearly all Christian Bible cannons which included it earlier, as the book of Enoch describes polytheistic views in greater detail than does the rest of the Bible.

One undeniable Bible conspiracy which did in fact take place is admitted to by the Catholic Church with regard to their changing the Holy Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday...

The Catholic Mirror of September 23, 1894, puts it this way: "The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."

A far more fundamental problem however, is the extent to which Bible stories/characters appear to have been concocted from earlier works of fiction. And if indeed the Bible was originally polytheistic, would it come as any surprise to find parallels between it and polytheistic mythology? "The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information."

"A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians - the inventors of writing. The story of Noah and the flood story, the creation of man out of clay, Cain and Abel, the gardens of Eden, the tree of knowledge, creation of Eve from Adams rib, and numerous other myths, like the throwing of Moses after he was born in the river, are all but stories found recorded on Sumerian clay tablets dating 5000 years back in time."

For example, who can argue anything other than that the following specific similarities between the Bible flood story and the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh constitutes plagiarism?:

- God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
- God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
- God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
- The ark would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
- A great rain covered the land with water.
- The ark landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
- The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
- The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
- The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

So assuming this level of plagiarism (whereas previous works of antiquity are not acknowledged) has occurred throughout many places of the Bible, it opens up a Pandora's box of uncertainty over what if anything is unique or originally inspired within Christianity. Christian readers may understandably assume their ace in the hole to this end is Jesus Christ himself (which of course is the very inner-most core tenet of Christianity). However, as you will see in the next three examples, even this argument falls completely flat on its face:

1) As so eloquently illustrated in this ditty/poem called "An Easter Blessing":


An Easter Blessing

(7 forerunners to the Christian Jesus are cited – first 3 quoted below)

“Beloved, let us rejoice, for this is a time of celebration. In the true spirit of this season, let our hearts be gladdened, and let us pray and pay tribute to the deity in whose honor this holiday comes…

…Eastre, the Germanic goddess of spring.

No, no, wait, that’s not right. Let’s try again.

Please forgive our previous silly mistake. As we all well know, beloved, this holiday comes not because of any primitive druidic goddess, but rather in honor of a heroic figure, a true god among men, who was born of a mortal woman and a divine Father. As should be obvious by now, the name of this very special child was…


No – hold on. That can’t be right either.

Of course, of course. The hero of our story, the one whom we have gathered here to thank, was no figure of pagan Greek polytheism. He was a redeemer, one who came to earth to lift up sinful and ignorant humans, knowing full well he would pay the ultimate price for his actions, but willing to go ahead anyway out of love and compassion.

As you all know, this blessed Savior was called…


No, no, give us just a minute. We’ll get it right.

We all know full well … “

[Important Notice - Item "2)" below is going to be undergoing a radical facelift due to its poor scholarship, and additionally for not including source references. One substitution will include the following as a new replacement:

From Ancient mythology which predates the Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ, Asklepios was the son of a high God (Apollo), the biggest healer in antiquity, and was referred to as Saviour. He not only healed the bodies of the sick (including raising the dead), but also healed the soul.

- ]

2) "the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it's not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.
Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, "Don't cry, I'm going to heaven." when he died. As he passed he said, "It is finished."
Dionysus was literally the "Son of God", was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.
Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.
Osiris's son, Horus, was known as the "light of the world", "The good shepherd", and "the lamb". He was also referred to as, "The way, the truth, and the life." His symbol was a cross.
Mithra's birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he'll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he's the Sun God). His followers called themselves "brothers", and their leaders "fathers". They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.
Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.
Buddha's mother was told by an angel that she'd give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself "the son of man" and was referred to as, "prophet", "master", and "Lord". He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn't strong enough.
Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, "The Son of God"."


3) "If there really was a Jesus and his apostles around back then you would have confirmation of this OUTSIDE the bible but it DOES NOT EXIST!!

Not a single Roman authority during the reigns of the Emperors Augustus and Tiberius even mention a Jesus or any of the apostles even existed!! Palestinian historians who lived during the ALLEGED life of Jesus such as Justus of Tiberius, Arrian Phaedrus, Lucanus Suetonius, Columella Phlegon (among others) not only never mention that any of ridiculous bible events such as the resurrection and walking on water ever happened but don't even mention that a Jesus or the apostles even existed!!"


"Jesus Christ is the central figure of the Western civilisation, just as Muhammad is the central figure of the Arab civilisation and Confucius of the Chinese civilisation. These are trite observations. However, whereas we are quite positive, that Muhammad and Confucius were historical figures, we are not in a position to say with certainty that Jesus Christ, as portrayed in the Gospels, ever existed."

One place to find a rather lengthy list of Bible Scholars who have come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed is which includes the following amongst many many others:

- Kenneth Humphreys, 2005, Jesus Never Existed.

- Thomas L. Thompson, 2006, The Messiah Myth.

- Roger Viklund, 2008. Den Jesus som aldrig funnits (The Jesus who never existed) - A Swedish scholar

To this end a MUST READ is "Did a historical Jesus exist?" by Jim Walker:
"Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus."

Or perhaps you may prefer to hear it from a Christian Bible scholar, who reluctantly says Jesus did not die on a cross:

Language scholar G. A. Wells has demonstrated how the Bible fused two Jesus's into one, and how one Jesus was a mythical figure (the one Christians identify with as the "dying and rising Christ"), and that the other Jesus may well have been a real historical person.

So strangely enough, both Atheists and Christians may have been at least partially right regarding whether or not the Jesus of the Bible ever existed. This opens up a new option for Christians - to ask "which Jesus" whenever an atheist presents their view that a historical Jesus does not exist.

Apparently Pope Leo X was referring to the former "dying and rising Christ" Jesus when he declared: "It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us" ("The Diegesis" by Rev. Robert Taylor, footnote, p. 35) -

Actually, many prominent Jesuses have been identified:

A Surfeit of Jesuses! But No "Jesus of Nazareth” … “we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century”

Many Christians believe that Christianity/Christians have been guided ultimately through the work of a noble "Holy Spirit" for the purpose of evangelism. However, history shows us that Christianity in actuality came into popularity through force, in the form of government/church threat of torture and murder):

"As we have seen, real systematic persecutions of the early Christians by the authorities happened within a timeframe of only five years in the first three centuries. [However...] When the Church itself rose to power and became an authority, it has been merciless persecuting thousands of people, both non-Christians and Christians alike, more or less constantly, for seventeen hundred years. They have started wars, crusades, the Inquisition, burned people as heretics and witches [naturopathic healers], they’ve [been] killing Jews since the very beginning, slaughtered Indians in the New World, and most of their "martyrs" are lies." [So apparently the Bible's claim of the workings of a noble God "Holy Spirit" is fallacious, and consequently, so too is the church's concept of the "Holy Trinity"/triune, and "Holy Spirit" prayer.]

Many Christians believe that Christianity/Christians have been guided ultimately through the work of a noble "Holy Spirit" for the purpose of evangelism. However, history shows us that Christianity in actuality came into popularity through force, in the form of government/church threat of torture and murder):

"As we have seen, real systematic persecutions of the early Christians by the authorities happened within a timeframe of only five years in the first three centuries. [However...] When the Church itself rose to power and became an authority, it has been merciless persecuting thousands of people, both non-Christians and Christians alike, more or less constantly, for seventeen hundred years. They have started wars, crusades, the Inquisition, burned people as heretics and witches [naturopathic healers], they’ve [been] killing Jews since the very beginning, slaughtered Indians in the New World, and most of their "martyrs" are lies." [So apparently the Bible's claim of the workings of a noble God "Holy Spirit" is fallacious, and consequently, also the church's concept of the "Holy Trinity"/triune, and "Holy Spirit" prayer.]


Also, it is apparently documented that "some early pre-Nicean Christian Church leaders rejected the Trinity. They were closest to the source, which infers that if the principles regarding the Holy Spirit were valid, then they of all people would know if it was a proper way to describe God or not." -

"I'm sure there have been and still are quite a few faithful that were wondering what the heck was going wrong while they were being tortured or burned alive by fellow Christians who believed they had the spirit indwelling. The most recent manifestation of this that I know about is the persecution of Children as Witches in Africa."

"This is what happens [or has happened] when you [or people in society] base your beliefs on weak evidence and appeal to tradition and appeal to authority. This is what happens when you don't have firm criteria for good evidence. This is what happens when you don't think for yourself and weigh the evidence. This is what happens when you put your faith in the supernatural. This is the nature of The Beast." - [pun intended since apparently before we can successfully learn to treat each other with proper respect, we must also learn how to treat all sentient beings/'beasts'/animals with proper respect].


See also "Reasonable Doubt About the Holy Spirit", a short article which concludes that "Since it seems apparent that the Holy Spirit does not help interpret scripture or give understanding, Reasonable Doubt about the Holy Spirit is justified.":

Bible scholar Hector Avalos, in his presentation entitled "How Archaeology Killed Biblical History" says - "Most of my colleagues in my profession are not always telling their audiences what they are telling each other ... What scholars know: Modern biblical scholarship has demonstrated that the Bible is the product of cultures whose values and beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of our world are no longer held to be relevant, even by most Christians and Jews ... when I say it is not atheists saying the Bible is not relevant, it is Christian Biblical scholars saying that." This presentation is a good example of a powerful, yet short/concise Bible debunking tool (though it does include an apparently shortsighted rebuke of the firmament in the sky account from the creation story - perhaps Hector should read Zecharia Sitchin's "The Earth Chronicles, Genesis Revisited" chapter 3 - but please do not let this distract you from viewing this otherwise truly amazing presentation:

How Archaeology Killed Biblical History - Part 1 of 2

How Archaeology Killed Biblical History - Part 2 of 2 [also further details the apparent polytheistic origins of Christianity]

But doesn't Bible prophecy prove its divine inspiration? Well, let's see what one pastor has to say who set out to prove divine inspiration of the Bible through researching Bible prophesies, but instead found out that Bible prophesies could not be used to make such a case in his final analysis:

"As a pastor, I often made reference in my sermons to the astounding prophecies of the Bible, which I believed proved the deity of Christ and the divine inspiration of Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt ... For decades, I accepted this standard defense of the Christian faith without question ... Christians say that you can evaluate the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration by whether or not it accurately records actual instances of fulfilled prophecy. CARM [Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry] continues: If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future ... can we find one bogus prophecy? Well, here's where it gets tough: choosing just one! Let’s start in Matthew, who is prolific in his quotation Old Testament prophecies and his application of them to Jesus. Should we build our case on a passage like Matthew 2:23? It says of Jesus, And he came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.’ I'm sad to say that in my 20 years as a Christian, I never realized that Matthew makes reference to a prophecy that doesn’t even exist! Try as you may, you will nowhere find a place in the Old Testament where it unambiguously declares the Messiah would be a Nazarene [the reader can verify this by entering "naza*" in the search box at] ... How about the (in)famous example of Isaiah 7:14? Matthew uses this prophecy as the cornerstone of his Gospel, quoting Isaiah as saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child. However, the word Matthew translates "virgin" would be more accurately translated "young woman." The Jews had a very specific word for virgin (bethulah), but it was not the word Isaiah chose (ha-almah). Holy disappearing virgin, Batman! Further examination of the chapter reveals that the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 was to be a sign to Ahaz, a Judean king who lived centuries before Jesus was even born! Or how about this one: Matthew’s claim that King Herod slaughtered "all the male children who were in Bethlehem and its vicinity, from two years old and under" (Matthew 2:16) ... As a minister, I searched desperately to substantiate this story with the Jewish histories of Josephus or with any secular historian of that era--only to realize that there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence behind it. To add insult to injury, Matthew (or whoever wrote under his name) would have us believe that this fanciful tale was also a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. He quotes Jeremiah 31:15: "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." Once again, a careful reading of the entire chapter in its context reveals that Jeremiah is talking about a situation far removed from Bethlehem, Herod, and the Magi. He is describing the struggles of the Israelites during the Babylonian Captivity. The few verses after verse 15 bear this out ... Clearly the Gospel writer was stretching it a bit (read: a lot)!"

But what about the legendary statue (world power timeline) prophecy of Daniel, which Christians so often cite as a clear example of divine inspiration? Well, firstly "the Islamic and Ottoman Empires falsified Daniel's prophecy because they succeeded Rome and likewise occupied Judah and Jerusalem. In fact, they were much larger and lasted far longer than the Babylonian Empire of Daniel's prophecy." Also, "[The book of Daniel] was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future" [this white paper identifies MANY additional issues with the Daniel prophecies as well]

See also "60 Prophecies of Jesus Debunked"

... which includes:

"Christian missionaries and apologists are very fond of using alleged bible prophecies to argue for the resurrection and divinity of Jesus Christ. The Christian website lists 60 prophecies 'fulfilled' by Jesus [1]. Just how authentic are these claims to fulfillment? Followers of Nostradamus also claim that the 16th century author and purported seer predicted hundreds of real world events, and yet many Christians seem a bit reluctant to accept Nostradamus as any sort of divine prophet. Mark Hitchcock, a renowned Christian author who specifically writes on bible prophecy, called Nostradamus' predictions "very vague" and applicable "to all kinds of situations after the event" [2]. Ironically, the problem of vague and widely applicable prophecy will become a recurring theme throughout this article, as we examine and debunk 60 claims of prophetic fulfillment."

... and "In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus predicts his second coming to be within the lifetime of his own followers. We all know how accurate that was. If a supposed prophet has even one prophecy fail, can he rightfully be called a prophet? The bible itself says no, in Deut. 18:22."

Here is how these passages read in the King James version:

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

[Objection: You have applied "this generation" in Matt. 24:34 to the first century. Most modern prophecy teachers interpret this differently. Some say it refers to the generation alive at the time of Christ’s future return. Others say the Greek word γενεά (genea) can mean race, suggesting the Jewish race will still be in existence when Jesus returns.

Answer: All such opinions are presumptuous and irrelevant. The only interpretation worthy of consideration is the one taught in Scripture by Christ’s "holy apostles" (Eph. 3:5) who together with the prophets are the foundation of the Church of God (Eph. 2:19b-20; Rev. 21:14). Without exception, they understood Christ’s predictions to mean the Second Coming and all related events would occur within their lifetime; their generation. The Holy Spirit inspired this interpretation! Those promoting other interpretations attack the very foundation of the Church, deny the work of the Holy Spirit and according to Jesus and Paul, could be in danger of eternal condemnation (Mark 3:28-29; Gal. 1:8-9, 12). Please read The Apostles Predicted a First-Century Return of Christ [ ] ...

How could the Jews not be in existence at the return of Christ? They were the very people to whom Jesus was returning; to destroy some (Luke 21:22) and reward others (v. 28). Why would anyone ever make such an unnecessary statement as "Truly I say to you, you will still be in existence when I return to you?" Clearly, the "Jewish race" argument is beyond weak, it is absurd.]


Also includes:

Objection: Most commentators say Matt. 16:28 refers to the Transfiguration described in the following chapter.

Answer: Matt. 16:28 cannot be referring to the Transfiguration. Please read Did the Transfiguration Fulfill Matt. 16:28? -

which in summary states:

[For the transfiguration to qualify as the fulfillment of Matt. 16:26-28, it must include several key elements:

1. Jesus coming "with his angels in the glory of his Father" (v. 27);
2. People being rewarded for what they have done, i.e., the judgment (v. 27). This would include people Christ was ashamed of (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26). MacArthur writes, "Here...the Lord was concerned with the reward of the ungodly--final and eternal judgment" (John F. MacArthur, Jr., The MacArthur Study Bible, NASB ed. [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006], Matt. 16:27);
3. The "kingdom" (v. 28).

Not one of these vital components was apparent at the transfiguration.]

In the final analysis, it seems that we are left with only two possibilities: either 1) the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ already took place nearly 2000 years ago (a concept most Christians would find to be preposterous), or 2) according to Matthew 16:27-28, we see that Jesus Christ is found to be a false prophet, and therefore we ought not be wary of him (again, this is coming from the Christian Bible itself, as anyone can verify within the passages cited).

So just how much of the Bible CAN we rely on? Ultimately it is up to the reader to decide. However, below are some good examples of blatantly obvious false/ambiguous/contradictory information cited in most if not all Christian Bibles.

First, on the one hand the Bible declares:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (2 Samuel 22:31)

"And the words of the LORD are flawless...." (Psalm 12:6)

"As for God, his way [or method of inspiring scripture] is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30)

"... I [God] will put my words in his [the prophet's] mouth" (Deuteronomy 18:18) [It is clear here that the inspired words of God were not subject to any alteration by the inspired writers of the Bible. Had this passage instead stated that the inspired words of God were to be placed into the 'mind' of the prophet, only then would they be subject to possible alteration due to erroneous preconceived ideas, misunderstandings, or what have you. So in effect, what the Bible says here, in context with the other passages cited, is that the inspired written/spoken words of the Bible came word for word from God, and therefore are absolutely flawless.]

"Every word of God is flawless...." (Proverbs 30:5)

Yet the following verses reveal a very serious scientific blunder [skeptics - please see note following these passages] through suggesting that the earth is both flat and sitting still in the universe, has four corners, is standing on pillars that prevent it from shaking, and is immovable:

- Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

- Revelation 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

- Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

- Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

- Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world. [If this passage was intended to be taken literally, would it not then indicate a flat world view? Note that all of the surrounding verses here on the same topic of tempting Jesus, appear to have been written with the intent to be taken as a literal account of what actually took place, and so it would only seem appropriate to assume the same for this verse as well.] (KJV)

- Psalm 104:5 NIV
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

- Job 9:6 NIV
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

- Job 38:6
Whereupon are the foundations [of the earth] thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof [Thanks to scientific advancement, we now know that there are no cornerstones which physically keep the earth (or a flat earth on pillars) in its place, as God the creator falsely implies here in his rebuke of Job, but rather that the earth is spherical, and set in motion/orbit in outer space.]

- Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

- Psalm 103:12 NIV
As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. [According to, "The phrase "as far as the east is from the west" is a rhetorical description of an infinitely long distance" - a concept which technically only holds true under a flat earth belief system. In the spherical earth model, traveling from where east becomes west is always a finite distance. Whereas in the flat earth model, east and west span an infinite distance.]

Note - "Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including ancient Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Ancient Near East until the Hellenistic period, Ancient India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century."

Do the verses above hint at a likely possibility that the Bible was not in actuality inspired by an all knowing God? Is it fair to assume that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such ambiguities/scientific contradictions would not exist in a book which he/she supposedly had flawlessly inspired? And if several parts of the Bible are found clearly to not have been inspired by (all-knowing) God, then is there reason for Christians to continue assuming that somehow the rest of the Bible may still be considered the inspired word of God? Keep in mind that the Bible appears to have utterly perjured itself in this regard when it stated "the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30).

Upon finding that the Bible contains many such anomalies (additional examples of apparent Bible contradictions/absurdities are presented both within the remainder of this article, and also within the Question and Answer section which follows) some people may be inclined to imagine the possibility that the original Bible was later modified by the father of lies himself, Satan. However, Satan would not likely have described the world as flat, and built upon pillars. And the idea that God may have allowed this to happen seems very unlikely, especially when considered in the greater context of this entire article. It would seem far more likely that the Bible was either written or re-written by mere mortals using nothing more than their own imaginations and human knowledge, and very likely also, evil intent.

Another possibly anomalous point of consideration is how modern NDE science is at odds with Christians who believe from the Bible that the dead know nothing.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV) "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten"

No longer considered pseudo-science or paranormal, thanks in part to the plethora of physicians and medical practitioners who have publicly given testimony to having personally experienced the phenomenon, and also thanks to the culmination of research of over 3500 cases spanning the course of 30 years time around the globe, the scientific study of near death experiences (NDE's) is now considered mainstream. Thanks to all this research, we now know, as Dr. Jan Holden has explained, that near death experience follows a pattern which includes one of more of the following:

- Experience is surreal - more real than real.

- Consciousness outside ones physical body [proven many times within NDE research].

- Ability to see whatever you direct your attention to, including in remote locations, or even through walls.

- Ability to hear peoples thoughts [now proven within NDE research].

- Feelings of peace, well being, safety, ecstasy, and physically free of pain.

- Feeling perfectly alive.

- Ability to manifest what you think about.

- Meeting deceased loved ones [if true, then death is an illusion] or spiritual entities in accordance with their own personal belief system.

- Experiencing life review.

- Experiencing a very intense universal, all-knowing, loving light force.

- Experiencing being on the receiving end of your actions, every moment of your life. Feeling surreally remorseful. [SO IT WOULD

The best book on this subject bar none is "Near-Death Experiences, The Rest of the Story: What They Teach Us About Living and Dying and Our True Purpose" written by Dr. P.M.H. Atwater [readers who are looking only for the ultimate in scientific objectivity in NDE research should investigate Pim Van Lommel]:

One final point in this article regarding the topic of death which may interest the reader is - Death Is An Illusion - "From The Initiation Of The Pyramid" by Manly P. Hall

There are some noteworthy parts of the Bible which seem anomalous with the Christian view of the Bible as having been authored by a 'loving' God. As anyone who has read the old testament knows, God (of peace?) ordered the abduction of women for purpose of sexual enjoyment, and even commands that rapists are to be punished/rewarded (depending on your point of view) by taking the rape victims as their wives:

"Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)" -

Even more bizarre here is the Bible's account of "the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that [the rape] victim should be stoned to death ... because she did not cry for help [during the act] (Deuteronomy 22:23-25) ... it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape".

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NLT) "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her".

For better details on all this see

"The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9)."

Question: In what universe would anyone consider the God described above to possibly be coming from a place of peace?

Christians may argue that the culture was so different back in those days, and when understood properly, show that many of the above stated commandments with regard to rape were actually in the the best interest of the women. They don't seem to understand that the overriding principle here is that neither laws nor moral values can arbitrarily change with the wind. Otherwise it would be like a court of law presenting to the public that in the event a person feels it is for the overall benefit of society, then it is OK for them to murder. Probably a majority of people today feel that rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet strangely, an anti-rape law didn't even make it into the 10 commandments.

Many Christians believe their God is one of love, peace, and religious freedom of choice, yet the Bible commands God's chosen people to:

1. Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
2. Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
3. Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7.

In the preceding 10 paragraphs, many readers who are well researched in politics and the New (old) World Order (NWO), will likely see parallels between an apparent evil God ruler frame of mind and that of Illuminatti/Freemasonry based secret societies. It is no longer a secret that they have been behind international human trafficking rings, which shows no doubt that they are pro-rape. As we will see below in question and answer item number "7)", it appears that the Satanic Illuminatti/Freemasonry has significantly influenced nearly all organized religions, and may in fact have been behind the tactful evil slavery minded crafting of these organized religions.

Perhaps this is a good place to underscore yet another bombshell quote from the United Nations:


And while this article is not advocating Luciferianism, it does seem to make a solid case for current Christians to no longer be persecuted in end times merely for adopting to (an apparently false) identity - see:

Fortunately, the apparently evil crafters of the Bible (influenced by the Illuminatti?) left behind many tell-tale signs that their works were less than supernatural, all-knowing, and flawless. While this article only covers the tip of the iceberg, some additional good examples include:

- The Bible (apparently regardless of which translation we look at) clearly contradicts itself regarding Jesus' last words on the cross:
Luke 23:46 ""Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."
John 19:30 ""It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." [keep this in mind whenever Christians make the cohesiveness argument].

- God's name Yahweh, was given to Abraham (in Genesis), and yet later (in Exodus) was stated to have been kept from Abraham and others:
Genesis 15:7 "And he said to him [Abram], I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."
Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob [each individually], as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."
[The reader can verify the use of the name Yahweh in these verses from the original Hebrew using the online Interlinear translation at ]

- Leviticus 11:20-23, "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you." [No insect with four legs exists. Insects have six or more legs and feet, and use all their feet when walking. Therefore the words "that walk on all fours" is technically incorrect, and cannot be deemed to be flawless inspired words from an all-knowing God.]

Also, a note to the purists regarding the concept that only the original Bible writings are inerrant. If God leaves the Bible scholars no intellectually honest way to bring the best of our remnants back to inerrancy, then it effectively matters not whether the original was errant, or if only the best of what we have is errant. In either case the Bible effectively does not live up to its own standard that God's "way [or method of inspiring scripture] is perfect". So in either case we can say that what we effectively have is an errant Bible.

In consideration of all these things, can the Bible any longer be viewed as somehow being the flawless preserved word of God? In reality, as shown both in this article and to a much larger extent through the utilization of the related Internet links provided, the Bible has been shown to be riddled seemingly to no end with contradiction, error, and non-convincing prophecies, from cover to cover. Granted there have been good Christian responses to many publicized Bible contradictions, so there is a need to clarify this further. Here is the bottom line. Both Science and Religion are systems of faith. The difference is that when Science is found to be wrong on something, it then seeks a new answer. When religious beliefs are found to be in error, too often rather than acknowledging the error there are creative attempts to rationalize, sometimes irrationally.

To further illustrate, let's examine more closely some of the verses in the Bible which seem to indicate a belief that the world is flat:

- Matthew 4:8 (KJV)
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"

- Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises"

Christians have attempted to rationalize these verses away as being metaphors. Clearly the Bibles metaphoric use of the words "The sun rises and the sun sets" is not the issue. However, the subsequent words "and hurries back to where it rises." suggest strongly, a flat earth world view. People who understand that the sun is always rising somewhere in the world are not likely going to state these subsequently stated words which denote a false belief that the sun only rises from one location in the world. Just imagine how strange it would sound if someone were to utter these words today.

Also, Matthew 4:8 states apparently as a literal point of fact (in the surrounding context) that "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world". Do these words really qualify as being a metaphor? Wouldn't that be like saying that the phrase "all the kingdoms of the world" was meant as a metaphor to really mean "all the kingdoms of the world"? Also, there appears to be nothing in the context of the surrounding verses which indicates anything supernatural going on here, like for example, telepathically sharing a vision. In other parts of the Bible, when a vision is being shared, it is clearly delineated as such.

There are also Christians who like to [quote the first part of Isaiah 40:22 where it reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" as proof that the Bible advocates a spherical Earth. The full verse, however, reads as follows:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Isaiah is actually describing the Earth as flat and circular, with a dome-shaped tent (sky) covering the land.

As we all know, the Earth is not a circle but a sphere, and if Isaiah wanted to call it a sphere, he could have easily done so because earlier he states that God will "roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into another country" (Isaiah 22:18)."] ...

[Some fundamentalists like to point to Job 26:7 where Job says that God "spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."

"See?" they exclaim, "Job says that the earth floats in empty space!" But what they conveniently ignore is the fact that God later rebukes Job for his insolence:

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone?
-- Job 38:4-6 ]

Some Christians will also try to argue that phrases like "FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH" and "ENDS OF THE EARTH" are merely figures of speech. However, what evidence do they have that these were indeed merely figures of speech in use during that time frame? And even if you could cite people in modern times utilizing these same phrases merely as figures of speech, it's like, WHERE DO YOU SUPPOSE THESE FIGURES OF SPEECH CAME FROM ANYWAY? And how can we explain the physical description of the earth as being immovable and being built on four pillars?

If someone truly wants to make the 'figure of speech' argument, then the burden is on THEM to demonstrate that these specific ALLEGED 'figures of speech' were actually in use back in those days by people who clearly did not believe that the earth was flat. There is likely enough information in the world today to figure this kind of stuff out if indeed it were true (for example in the study of Etymology).

Heck, modern day Bible scholars even have multiple methods they claim for determining EXACTLY which Biblical books the Pharisees considered part of their canon back in the days of Jesus. Furthermore, if God's way of inspiring word for word the Bible, is indeed perfect, then certainly God would not have chosen such misleading "figures of speech" now would he?

So if the Bible is indeed riddled with error from cover to cover, can it realistically be relied on or trusted to form the basis for a persons belief system? Some will say "never underestimate a persons ability to rationalize" - or "FAITH INDEED" (though granted some things written in the Bible will understandably seem amazing to some). Please understand however, that people who make a virtue of believing without evidence (the definition of faith) will inevitably be looked down upon by some, and sadly, exploited by others.

But the disinformation campaign does not stop there, as even in the past 100 years there have been additional widely administered Bible modifications (apparently with evil intent). Perhaps the best example of this is the ever popular Scofield Bible, which became the cornerstone for the Christian Zionist war monger movement (representing a large portion of neocon voters). To this end, the following short documentary needs to be shared with every church pastor possible:

"The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy"

Getting back to our original topic (Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution), if you think about it, eating meat for an extended period of time is of the same frame of mind as engaging in war (PRO WAR) - you have something I want and I am willing to have you killed for it if I have to!

However, it should be clear to anyone reading this article up to this point that in this context, nobody can truly claim to be both PRO PEACE and PRO WAR, because we now know that eating meat is ultimately both PRO WAR minded, and PEACE PROHIBITIVE.

But the Bible teaches that God is love, who is even referred to in four places as "God of peace" (PRO PEACE), and that this same God permits the eating what it calls clean meat (PRO WAR). But as you now know, in this context you cannot have it both ways, so what we have here is yet another unequivocal biblical contradiction.

There is simply no way in hell a genuinely loving, truthful, and all-knowing God could possibly condone the unnecessary eating of other sentient beings. Yet scores of people over the course of countless generations have been duped by the religious establishment in this regard. So if there is indeed an all-loving all-knowing God out there who only allowed truth to be included in original Bible texts, then there must also have been a subsequent spurious fabrication effort promulgated throughout the Bible - no less than a massive Bible altering conspiracy in favor of establishing false biblical credence, perhaps in opposition to previously ordained decrees that it was immoral to eat meat.

Regardless of whether such a conspiracy actually did take place, it should be clear by now to the reader that the Bible in its current form (or any spiritual writing), to the extent that it has condoned the eating of meat, has been complicit in hindering humanity from knowing world peace.

The main point here is that humanity cannot credibly hope to see peace in its own war ravaged world of pain and suffering, at any time, while eating meat continues to be the norm. The first step towards solving this problem of epic proportions, is for humanity to recognize that in this way, it really has been collectively making its own bed.

If just 25% of meat eaters converted over to vegetarianism, just think potentially (using admittedly extrapolative reasoning) how many fewer votes there might be for war-monger presidential candidates? Besides, in the modern age there has probably never been a valid argument for war in the interest of national security.

The solution really is quite easy (one could even say stupid simple) - JUST BE NICE/RESPECTFUL! All we must do is abide by the golden rule which says "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself" which when negated reads "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated". So, DO ANY of you seriously approve of other species EATING, KILLING or otherwise MISTREATING YOU? If not, then perhaps a chip needs to come off a shoulder (collectively speaking). To that end it is hoped all readers will view this 13 minute video hosted by Paul McCartney:

If slaughterhouses had GLASS WALLS everyone would be VEGETARIAN

or for those who can stomach it:

Farm To Fridge - mercy for animals [12 min]

Finally, the book "The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World", by John Robbins, should be considered required reading:


Thank you for listening!

Below are responses to some anticipated questions readers may have:

1) Isn't meat consumption necessary for good health?

Vegetarian or vegan diets may be more healthy or less healthy than diets of meat eaters, depending on specific food choices. However, non-junk food vegetarians and vegans may possibly live longer. According to a study reported in 1992 in Epidemiology, "scientists observed 1,904 German people who were vegetarians and who were leading a health-conscious lifestyle for 11 years. Their healthy lifestyle paid off: Death rates from all causes were reduced by one-half compared with the general population". Consumption of meat and eggs can significantly reduce life expectancy. So no, the short answer is that meat consumption is NOT necessary for good health.

It is a common misconception that people need to eat a lot of protein to be healthy, when in reality the opposite seems to ring true. The word protein comes from the word proton which explains chemically why foods high in protein are acid forming in digestion, and therefore create an anaerobic (low oxygen) environment in the body tissues, therefore leaving the door open to all pathogenic disease including all forms of cancer. Yes we do need to consume some proteins to be healthy. But the fact is that nothing can grow without protein, so ALL FOOD contains protein. So in actuality it seems that MINIMIZING high protein content foods in our diet is perhaps the most fundamental thing we can do in the interest of good health (bear in mind that pathogenic diseases are the biggest killers).

2) Why is your anger not addressed against those that promote the killing of millions of unborn babies through abortion?

To the extent it can be established that fetuses are sentient beings (perhaps in part by looking at brain patterns) as has been done with animals, the stated "Universal Truth For The Establishment Of Peace" should apply to abortions as well. Otherwise I would argue that a fetus at a minimum is a LIFEFORM in the process of (in all likelihood) becoming a sentient being with a will to live anyway, which really ought to count for something. Besides, must things be sentient in order to have rights? What about legal entities such as corporations? What about the desecration of dead bodies, even with no surviving mourners - can we treat deceased human flesh however we want?

While we are on this subject I'd also like to go a bit off topic and point out how this ties into how both the Democratic and Republican parties in the USA are both pro-Death, which should come as no surprise to those who realize that both these parties more or less give lip service to the New World Order Elitists. The Democratic party is pro-Death abortion, whereas the Republican party is pro-Death capital punishment. Please bear in mind that to vote for the lesser of two evils is still evil. One exception to this however may be Ron Paul who appears to give no lip service to the NWO elites.

***3) Are there not scholars who question the authenticity of the Essene Gospel of Peace?

Yes, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there are scholars who question the authenticity of the Essene Gospel of Peace, primarily based on the fact that the original manuscript was never published. However this argument may be inconsequential as pointed out by blogger "Meeting Junkie No More":

"The fact that the Vatican denies knowledge of either the manuscript or Mr. Szekely's access to same is more or less a non sequitur, as far as I am concerned. From what I have read about ecclesiastical history and the Vatican's role in politics and church-empire-building leads me to absolutely believe that its Archives contain explosive material that MUST CONTINUE TO BE SUPPRESSED at all costs..."

[The rest of this well thought out 3 paragraph post can be seen (if you scroll down to the very bottom post on the page) at]:


It should be noted that the Essene Gospel Of Peace at times has been found to be sufficiently controversial to the point where the controversy seemed to take precedence over objectively trying to evaluate the value of its content. The claim has even been made that the work was a fabrication to reflect Szekely's pet views in the early 20th century to project back on early Christians who had no attachment to these beliefs.

But even for those who take this view of the Essene Gospel of Peace, to its credit, it should also be said that there appear to be many inconsistencies in so called sacred biblical texts (as discussed at length within this article), but it doesn't change the fact that the Bible has been helpful to many. In a similar fashion, the Essene Gospel Of Peace has also been helpful to many.

It is also interesting to note:

- Romans 10:15 KJV "And how shall they preach, except they be sent? AS IT IS WRITTEN, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach THE GOSPEL OF PEACE ..."

because the quoted text "How beautiful are the feet" does not appear anywhere else in the King James Bible, and also because Szekely's work was formerly titled "THE GOSPEL OF PEACE of Jesus Christ" - makes you wonder whether he knew, or whether the Bible in this case is referring (apparently as Bible scripture) to what we now know as the (only partially translated) Essene Gospel of Peace.

4) What about those who offer a prayer of gratitude and also believe the animal then willingly yields its life for the purpose of nourishing human beings?

Can you cite even one case where after such a prayer the animal of its own 'free will' put its neck on a guillotine? Anyone who is honest about it knows this is nothing more than delusional thinking. Animals in the wild try to avoid being in close proximity with humans apparently indicating they have a will to live. If it was indeed their desire to sacrifice their life in honor of the 'superior human gods', then we would not be observing this very strongly ingrained behavior pattern in nature.

5) What if my logic is that it is only wrong to eat human beings?

In this case the logic of the alien would be (in keeping with a level playing field) that it is only wrong to eat the alien race, therefore granting them permission to eat human beings, including you. Are you OK with this?

**6) What is the Graduation song (in the possible event the link is blocked, broken, or otherwise unavailable)? "Vampire In You" by Universal Poplab.

7) What are the additional Bible contradictions/absurdities mentioned earlier in the article?

OK first, do not miss in the second half of this section, the link to the movie "The Spirit Of Truth Will Set You Free", which is absolutely mind blowing, and the link which immediately follows regarding how the Illuminatti/occultism has influenced nearly all organized religions.

Most of the Bible contradiction/absurdity quotes included in this article (except where stated otherwise) were taken from one of the following sources (the latter of which includes a rating system of severity which is very useful):


- 2 Samuel 10:18 - David slew 700 and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
- 1 Chronicles 19:18 - David slew 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen.

- 2 Chronicles 9:25 - Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
- 1 Kings 4:26 - Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses.

- Ezra 2:5 - Arah had 775 sons.
- Nehemiah 7:10 - Arah had 652 sons.

- 2 Kings 24:8 - Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign.
- 2 Chronicles 36:9 - Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign.

- Proverbs 6:6-8, ants have no commander, no ruler and no overseer! [Obviously false, because ants live in colonies, have ranks of rulership and authority, and have a queen.]

- Leviticus 11:20-23, "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you." [No insect with four legs exists. Insects have six or more legs and feet.]

- Matthew 13:31-32 "He (Jesus) told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds," [The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Others, such as the orchid seed, are smaller.]

- Mark 16:18 "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Christians so bothered by the falsehood of this verse due to the many fatalities they suffered because of it, that the Bible theologians insist on denying these verses by saying: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

- John 12:24 "I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds." That is scientifically false. The dead seed does not produce new seeds.

- Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicles 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)

GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

EX 17:14 God says that he will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek.
DT 25:19 "... you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget."
(That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible.)

Perhaps even more interesting, is the following video which may offer a perspective on just how deep the rabbit hole may go with regard to insertion of immoral texts into the Bible (though not so much the first 20 minutes), though the writer of this article cannot vouch for its accuracy:

The Spirit Of Truth Will Set You Free (FULL MOVIE)

The claim has also been made that "There is a visible, obvious, verifiable occult connection between nearly all major religions today, especially with Freemasonry"

So based on this (verifiable) claim, and everything else covered in this article, could it be that practically all religions on the face of the planet have been significantly infiltrated (if not created outright) by the money junkie Globalist Elites (who many say are Luciferians) or Illuminati/Freemasons who have been trying to create a so called "New World Order" ever since at least as far back as the days of the Tower of Babel? And if we cannot turn to organized religion for answers, where then can we turn?

Well, apparently the real truth is what has been termed "forbidden knowledge", something which fortunately IS researchable, as proven in the free online book "Earths Forbidden Secrets Part I" by Maxwell Igan:


The remainder of this Q/A item number 7 will be an excerpt from this book which gives some clues which no doubt will spark a great deal of interest, but before reading, the reader is cautioned not to fall for the claim (see item "1)" below) that if the Adam and Eve forbidden fruit story is false then the New Age movement (which is yet another false religion with Satanic/Luciferian ties) must then be valid; IT IS NOT:
1) Atheism Debunked : Every Atheist Should Watch This ! New Age False Religion, Lies & Deceptions

2) Law Of Attraction (The Secret) Debunked 101

3) The Secret Debunked 101 - Addendum

"It should by now be abundantly clear that not all in our history, or indeed in our world, is what it appears to be and certainly is not what is perpetually promoted to us as factual. Evidence proves
beyond any shadow of doubt that an ancient civilization even more advanced than ours did indeed once exist on this frail little ball in space that is our home. All evidence indicates that they existed
around circa 11.500 BC and then destroyed themselves in a nuclear holocaust of catastrophic proportions at around circa 2020 BC. The evidence tells us that the event took place in the Sinai Peninsula and that aerial battles were also fought over the Libyan Desert scalding the surface into the acres of strange yellow glass that still lies there today. Academics dispute the possibility of
this mainly due to the timeframe, flatly stating in no uncertain terms that at circa 2000 BC mankind was still hunters and gatherers.

But the answer to that is yes, indeed they were, and yet evidence irrefutably proves such a civilization did in fact exist. This in itself proves that man was not in fact responsible for the
civilization that we find so many traces of, which in turn indicates that it was built by someone other than man. The obvious conclusion is that it was built by exactly whom all the legends of old from all cultures say it was built by. It was built by the ‘Gods’ of ancient legend.

Those same beings were responsible for the enigmatic structures, devastating wars we are told of in great detail in Sumerian texts, and for the vitrified ruins and deserts that ensued. The gods
from ancient Sumer who were also well known in Egypt and Babylon, Greece, Rome and India; The Giants of South American legends who were also mentioned in the biblical texts as ‘giants’
and named in the Hebrew Bible as the Elohim and the Nephilim. ‘Those who from Heaven to Earth Came’ Those whom Sumerian texts call the Anunnaki. I have little doubt that the Adamu worker race the Sumerian texts tell us was created in the E.DIN was indeed the very story of the creation of the biblical Adam in Eden.

That the event was once common knowledge can be clearly seen in our modern medical symbol. Does it not seem strangely coincidental to you that the modern medical symbol consists of two intertwining serpents surmounted by a sphere and two wings. Here we see a perfect
representation of DNA, that has been in use for centuries and since long before the discovery of DNA. Yet it is quite obvious that the symbol does indeed represent the twisting nature of the human genome and its creator Enki who was always signified by the symbol of the Serpent. I believe the modern medical symbol is probably even a representation that signifies the actual event, the very moment when man was created in the Anunnaki medical centre in the E.DIN that
has remained in a surprisingly consistent state and actually changed very little with the passage of time. From the Mesopotamian tree of life with the Winged disc representing the home of the creator of the tree - the planet Nibiru at the top (fig.164), to the Olmec tree of life (fig.165); to the Greek, Caduceus and the Staff of Asclepius (fig.166); and then through to the modern medical symbol (fig.167). All of these symbols, both ancient and modern, are a clear representation of what we now know to be the spiraling double helix form of human DNA (fig.168) many years and even centuries before it was discovered. The inclusion of a winged object at the crest is also

The Sumerian tales speak of how the great pyramid was constructed by the son of the great lord Enki who had created man with the aid of his half-sister Ninmah.

Enki had six sons. One of these sons was the Sumerian god Ningishzidda, known in Egypt as Thoth, the great Master of Science and numbers, in South America as Quetzalcoatl the Great Benefactor and bestower of knowledge, and in Greek myths as Hermes the Master of Science and Mathematics.

Legends throughout all mythologies recall Thoth as one of the wisest and most benevolent Gods of all. Thoth is said to have created countless wonders. It was Thoth who was always consulted in the construction and astronomical lines of the temples, it was Thoth who added the leaves of knowing to mans tree of life, it was Thoth who gave Ka-in his mark. Thoth inseminated Isis with the seed of her murdered husband Osiris resulting in the birth of Horus, and it was Thoth who designed and constructed the miracle that is the great pyramid. Several mathematical and astronomical similarities between Egypt and the enigmatic structures at Stonehenge also strongly
suggest that Thoth may have had a hand in the construction of that site too.

Legends tell us of Thoth writing a secret book containing all the information and knowledge he had learned from his father Enki and all the knowledge he had acquired himself when the Anunnaki left Earth. Thoth is said to have then hidden it in a secret and secure underground location and to have then inscribed information pertaining to the book and maybe more on a pillar or possibly even two pillars.

These pillars or obelisks were known to the Greeks and the Phoenicians as the Pillars of Hercules. The Egyptian historian Manetho mentions the existence of two such pillars and tells us
that Thoth inscribed the pillars with hieroglyphs containing all of the ancient wisdom. A golden pillar inscribed with hieroglyphics was also described by Plato. Alexander the Great is reported to have inspected large pillars of gold bearing unusual hieroglyph markings. Proclus mentioned that Crantor visited ‘Sais’ in Egypt and had been shown a golden pillar inscribed with hieroglyphics."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


I think that must be a record number of negative votes on any article I have seen here at DP! The Bible implies the world is round when it mentioned our sin is "as far as the east is from the west". Keep going east or west and you will do nothing but moving in a continuous circle around our orange shaped planet. Otherwise, by picking and choosing the scripture you choose to believe, and using questionable sources for that scripture, you completely invalidate the arguments directed towards the audience you choose to subvert! The Jehovah's Witness and Mormons have beet you to it!

So Apparently Jesus Thought The World Was Flat Too!

If the consequences of sin is eternal (or if the point is to show just how great is sin in man), then it would be more fitting to apply the flat earth model to these words from Jesus. In the spherical earth model, traveling from where east becomes west is a finite distance. Whereas in the flat earth model, east and west span an infinite distance.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Nope! Not at all!

Jesus realized if one traveled west, he would continue to travel west, without stopping. The north and south travel would be limited by the extremes at the poles. He could have, easily, used that direction, without the knowledge of a spherical world! IMHO, anyway.

The quote was referring how far man's sin was from him, when it had been forgiven. I don't see it as your, mistaken, interpretation of how bad man's sin was.

If I had been kept in the dark . . .

I would not be on DP.

Yes, all religions have been hijacked/sabotaged/infiltrated, but that doesn't make them useless. A person who participates just needs to realize that things aren't what they appear.

Most humans need some kind of faith community.

I believe in Jesus Christ, but I believe the Old Testament is not reliable.

I have gone through so many arguments about diet in my lifetime that I could write a book.

I became a vegetarian and became ill, and I was a whole foods (whole grain) vegetarian, low dairy. Followed the Diet for a Small Planet.

I was counselled by an alternative health care practitioner who had earned my respect to eat meat daily or even more than once/day--(grass fed beef/free range poultry/organic)--

and could not sustain it. I now eat meat (small quantities, mostly poultry, some fish) 3 days/week, vegetarian 3 days/week, eggs one day/week.

I was more violent during my vegetarian phase. Tended to be more aggressive.

I was just desperate eating meat; I hated it in such large quantities, but I did get healthier.

This is just one person's experience, but the other half of 1988vote, while not getting sick in the same way, also experienced health problems and has followed the same diet, or quite close.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Regarding Vegetarian Health

A raw/vegan/organic doctor I know would not advise people to eat more than a handful of nuts/seeds, or grains each day. Also, for the first several months of being vegetarian people oftentimes detoxify perhaps at too fast a rate, which can cause headaches and make people edgy.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

While I agree the way we process meat is barbaric...

I could not live without it. I did the vegan thing and after 9-months, I was weaker than I had ever felt in my life. Once I started eating animal protein, I felt much better. At least twice a week, I will eat nothing but meat the whole day. I've lost weight and have strength like I never had before. I went from vegan to paleo and paleo is the diet for me.

I totally eliminated grains, most dairy, eggs are OK and heavy cream in my coffee, no processed or fast food, no starches, just meat, fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds. I drink well water only.

Look great, feel great and a much happier person for it.

right and wrong

Your arguments have merit in your world of experience. If it makes you feel better to think that. However, should you use more logic and objective reasoning? You can rationalize just about anyone into a world that you would consider ideal. The only layers of the onion you have pealed away are your own.

Who gives anyone the "right" to say what is right and wrong? The god of agreement??? The god of reason ??? The god of logic??? My friend, right and wrong are human inventions that are the tip of the iceberg. A more enlightened understanding of the existence of morality is requisite for a fair treatment of the subject in question.

I am in the camp that believes all morals are neither rooted in logic nor reason nor most certainly agreement. The so called moral fabric of civility is an instinctive feeling, a sentiment, an emotion.

Try as you may to passionately convince the world otherwise.

and then you die

I Wish To Know More Clearly Where You Are Coming From

Do we (humans) not all know evil when we see it, as it knowingly causes undue/disproportionate pain and suffering and/or loss for its victims? Granted the elites have tried at times to rationalize a 'noble cause' even for going to war, but time/scrutiny always seems to reveal their true intentions as having been evil.

I am sorry, but I honestly do not see where the point of confusion is here with regard to deciphering 'what is evil?'. 'Evil' is trying to gain disproportionately at the expense of others. To be taxing towards other sentient beings can only be deemed as 'good' or 'acceptable' if there is consent from those being taxed, with the possible exception being where a 'clear case' can be made that the sentient beings were mentally incapable of comprehending/expressing what truly would be in their own best interest (but unfortunately this could easily be a very slippery slope, and so I emphasize the words 'clear case').

Can you identify ANYTHING I have tried to present in my article which you somehow feel is not noble/true/good? If so, in what context? Please explain.

Is your motive to get creator gods off the hook as they potentially exist in a separate reality which cannot sense physical pain?

In order for me to understand where you are truly coming from, you will need to be more specific, as from what you wrote I really have very little to go on.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Are you from a ideal form of government that is here to help?

The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty; and, by proper representations of the deformity of vice and beauty of virtue, beget correspondent habits, and engage us to avoid the one, and embrace the other. But is this ever to be expected from inferences and conclusions of the understanding, which of themselves have no hold of the affections or set in motion the active powers of men? They discover truths: but where the truths which they discover are indifferent, and beget no desire or aversion, they can have no influence on conduct and behavior. What is honorable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible, what is evident, what is probable, what is true, procures only the cool assent of the understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to our researches.

Extinguish all the warm feelings and prepossessions in favor of virtue, and all disgust or aversion to vice: render men totally indifferent towards these distinctions; and morality is no longer a practical study, nor has any tendency to regulate our lives and actions.

Title: An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals

Author: David Hume

In answer to your question, scroll down to and read section 1 in this
link. That is where I am coming from.

Hope this helps.

and then you die

phh religion as a

phh religion

as a libertarian i support freedom. even others freedom to embrace this self delusion ... as long as not force fed to others or me for that fact.
where is the evidence to any religion being the one true religion?
when I press people to state why they chose this religion or that religion. almost universally it is either " you must have faith" OR "I was raised this way".

not much of a argument or any real leg to stand on... to say the least.
the exact same thing could be said of Santa and his elves, the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy
"only by faith" shall you see them!

OF all forms of control. THIS is the smoothest form.
and the most widely accepted.

I do believe in a deity. a supreme creator.
but fully understand god created the universe
while man created religion.

I ask all these religious types to search out the true history of the church.
what you will find will very much surprise you.
and maybe you will see the huge deception you so willing embrace.

Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers

"I ask all these religious

"I ask all these religious types to search out the true history of the church.. what you will find will very much surprise you.
and maybe you will see the huge deception you so willing embrace."

Sooo true, but most likely none of them will do the research. Perhaps more effective would be to provide them with a short powerful seed, like the following from my article:

[Many Christians believe that Christianity/Christians have been guided ultimately through the work of a noble "Holy Spirit" for the purpose of evangelism. However, history shows us that Christianity in actuality came into popularity through force, in the form of government/church threat of torture and murder):

"As we have seen, real systematic persecutions of the early Christians by the authorities happened within a timeframe of only five years in the first three centuries. [However...] When the Church itself rose to power and became an authority, it has been merciless persecuting thousands of people, both non-Christians and Christians alike, more or less constantly, for seventeen hundred years. They have started wars, crusades, the Inquisition, burned people as heretics and witches [naturopathic healers], they’ve [been] killing Jews since the very beginning, slaughtered Indians in the New World, and most of their "martyrs" are lies." [So apparently the Bible's claim of the workings of a noble God "Holy Spirit" is fallacious, and consequently, also the church's concept of the "Holy Trinity"/triune, and "Holy Spirit" prayer.]

- ]

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Wolves in sheeps clothing..

Just because someone proclaims to be a Christian, doesn't mean they are a follower of Jesus. Jesus gave specific examples how to recognize one of his followers and warned against false teachers/prophets. The same goes for any Church or religious organization. Give them the litmus test to find out who they really are.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

God knows who the false prophets are.

Matt 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

You Seem To be Overlooking The Point Made In The Article...

... That point being that the Bible commands Christians to behave like wolves, and so how can there be a litmus test as you say?:

[Many Christians believe their God is one of love, peace, and religious freedom of choice, yet the Bible instructs the Christian to:

1. Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10
2. Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16
3. Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7.]

[There are some noteworthy parts of the Bible which seem anomalous with the Christian view of the Bible as having been authored by a 'loving' God. As anyone who has read the old testament knows, God (of peace?) ordered the abduction of women for purpose of sexual enjoyment, and even commands that rapists are to be punished/rewarded (depending on your point of view) by taking the rape victims as their wives:

"Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27)" - ...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NLT) "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her".

For better details on all this see

"The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9)."

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Old Testament vs New Testament

Those things you mentioned were done in the Old Testament. No one would have been considered a Christian then. Christianity came along after Jesus' time on earth. Notice the contrasting difference between the Testaments:

Matt 5:38-39 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Jesus teaches his followers to love.

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

You seem to be overlooking the New Testament.


Someone has posted a manifesto on the DP.

Watch out! LOL



it is !!!!!!

Liberalism: Moochers Electing Looters to Steal from Producers

Yes - And It's Still Growing/Improving!

In fact I think I have made 5 or 6 additions to the "manifesto" in the past week alone.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi


but i skimmed it.

Are you trying to say that we shouldn't kill animals and that the bible is wrong because it condones killing animals among other things?

a slimmed down condensed paragraph or 2 would greatly help me understand what you are ultimately trying to convey.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

Hope This Helps

Regarding a summary, I came up with the following:

This article peels back many layers of the onion exposing where elusive truth apparently resides on interrelated subject matters most people would find very difficult to approach, and is a treasure trove packed with golden nuggets of information and useful links. Topics include:

1) A pervasive misconception of the golden rule - A Universal law revealed.

2) Eating meat will soon be illegal - Not a joke.

3) An overlooked, critical link between culture and violence.

4) Understanding how religion stealthily reinforces a culture of violence.

5) What church leaders are not telling you but probably should.

6) Forbidden knowledge.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

There is absolutely no way I can respond to all of that.

I doubt anyone has time to read the whole thing, plus explore the links. You might would have better success if you broke this up in at least seven separate posts.

Here's what I believe: God created man in a perfect, sinless, peaceful condition with the free-will choice to be satisfied in that state by obeying God, or, falling from that state by rebelling and disobeying God. Both the woman and man that God created chose the latter and as a result we have wars because of the sin in mankind's heart. There CAN'T be peace on earth as long as sinful mankind runs things.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

mankind has a heart?

"we have wars because of the sin in mankind's heart"
-Do you think mankind has a shared heart
-I have not participated in any wars, have you?

Each individual is utterly unique and responsible for his own actions.

People Do Go Through Heart Changes In Life

For example, like when a person becomes a Christian. So we know hearts can be influenced. If anyone has any tips on how to effectively influence a persons heart through the art of public writing, please share.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

thanks for your reply

can I ask how you saw it relating to my comment?

Also, this is a video I wrote and directed a number of years ago. If you like the script, I am happy to talk with you about any tips you want.
My understanding of civics has changed since creating this piece and I would not say the same things.

Think of the Heart of Mankind as the Pulse of Mankind

Many people, for example, have likely argued how mankind in general was more civilized in say the 1980's, than in the dark ages. It is my view that mankind still has a long way to go. I see world peace as a noble goal for anyone in humanity, regardless of how far-fetched that goal may seem.

Anyway, I watched your (3 min.) video and thought it was top notch, as evidenced further with its 34 up votes v.s. only 4 down votes (like WOW ... all Americans should watch this!!) Perhaps you are your own worst/best critic.

Heck, I would be pleased if my article could receive only one up-vote for every down-vote it receives. So yes, apparently I really could use help in the area of civics.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Funny that someone gave you a downvote for this reply

It fascinates me how a genuine and vulnerable statement can get a downvote.
Sure we can talk civics, or writing, or whatever you wish.
This would be a good thread to have that conversation on:

this post is nothing more

this post is nothing more than mental masturbation.

OK, I'll Give You A Pun For That One ...

... afterall, the article's purpose IS to plant seeds of knowledge.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us:
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Lets strike up the band

and gather around the flesh pots. Pass the bbq sauce!

Stop bumping

the troll.

Holy Shit!