JESUS BOOT CAMP

In a first for me, I'll let the following video clip speak for itself. From the documentary "Jesus Camp".

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=249328211d&p=1

Sick mother fuckers!

Google "jesus camp" at http://video.google.com for more sickening clips.

THE BAFFLING MYTH OF BELIEF

How is it that that vast majority subscribes to beliefs that have absolutely no basis in fact, much less science? How is it, knowing what I know, that I find myself in such a small minority? How can an intelligent and educated group of people abdicate what their senses and their intellect tell them and believe in a concept that is in irrefutable conflict with provable realities?

How can that same majority believe in a premise based on ancient writings that are rife with conflicts, inconsistencies, half-truths and outright distortions of the truth? At least science is self-correcting. But religion and belief in a God, is a distorted exercise of constant confusion and wild interpretations that continuously circle around upon themselves, leading to endless conflict. It is anything but self-correcting.

How is it we give such importance to emanations from people that lived over two and three thousand years ago and yet ignore what provable facts, scientific observations, undisputed theories and “truths” tell us? Why were religions created between 1,500 to 3,000 years ago? Why not now?

Why did the Catholic Church spend 1,500 years vigorously squelching scientific discoveries, under the punishment of death or banishment for the perpetrators? Why now is the Catholic Church reeling under a large segment of the priesthood who have fallen from grace by committing violent, illegal acts against children, all the while being covered up by bishops, cardinals and the Pope? Why indeed? Could it be that the basic premise is flawed?

For those third-world civilizations that lack education and even the bare necessities of life, it is wholly understandable that they would grasp on to “something” if that “something” promises them “light” in a medieval darkness and is told to them by an authority that they will not or dare not question. And maybe this is exactly how ancient civilizations were convinced. But for well-educated individuals to buy into the same archaic myth is undeniably baffling.

All religions have a few common tenets. Primarily the most important tenet is to get people to behave in a prescribed way, which changes over time. The method to extract compliance is fear and intimidation; namely fear of reprisals from God, fear of not ascending into Heaven at death and fear of the “Fire and Brimstone” of Hell. All three fears are the fears of apparitions with no provable evidence of their reality. Pray tell what could God do to us that random acts of fate don’t do to us almost every day of our lives. Millions of people have died in wars, pestilence and famine perpetrated by small-minded despots exercising dictatorial control over un-educated and naïve populations.

Secondly, only one person has supposedly returned from Heaven and the evidence for such an extraordinary event is only hearsay and very old. And finally, the only Hell that exists no doubt is the one we experience here on this Earth.

Three of the five major religions believe in a “one god”, whether God’s name be “God”, “Jehovah” or “Allah”. The Hindu religion believes in thousands of gods. The Buddhist religion has no known deity attached to it at all, but rather believes that there are eight “right” ways to help people behave in the “right” way. Only now the monks tend to worship the statue of Buddha as a God.

So what is truly the “right” way? Are the Hindus right? Are the Muslims right? Are the Christians right? Are the Jews right? Are the Buddhists right? And if there is in fact a God, what possible dimensions and characteristics could we prescribe to that God. I am totally convinced by evidence that we are very far from knowing if there is a God, much less what characteristics we can subscribe to him, her or it, just as we are very far from unraveling the secrets and dimensions of our Universe. The difference is that we can measure the dimensions of the Universe with instruments of science, but there is no scientific way to measure the dimensions of a God that won't speak directly to us or give us specific signs that we can measure.

I suppose one could say that God is dimensionless and un-definable. Someone called this “the square that is not there”. If such is the case, then why would we put so much stock in something that is dimensionless, un-definable and unknowable? We don’t bow to the Universe as we learn its dimensions. We don’t give homage to the Sun for the very reason we can define it in many terms. The ancients did, but they didn't know any better. The Sun is a mystery no longer in most respects. Someday, we may know and define the dimensions of the Universe and remove its mystery. Someday we may even find a link between the Universe and some Intelligence that finally presents itself by some measurable manifestation. And then again, we may find just the opposite. We may find that the Universe is completely definable and there is no link whatsoever to a deity, just as we have found that the Sun is not a deity and nothing more than a nuclear furnace that heats our home.

Unfortunately, like all tenets of any religion, they are subject to interpretation by every individual that reads them and that’s wherein lies the basic problem. My interpretation of the so-called sacred writings may conflict so badly with yours that I may go to war to prove to you that my interpretation is right, especially if I possess a greater power than you. In other words, drive it down your throat, whether you like it or not. History is replete with such wars. The next problem comes when we try to translate those sacred writings from one language to another. So much gets lost in the translation by the ineptness and biases of the translator. The Bible was written first in Hebrew, then Greek and finally English. The possibilities for translation errors, is almost infinite. What value does the ancient writings have, if the translations induce significant errors?

And then comes religion’s ritual and liturgy. Each religion has its customary rituals that are practiced routinely when those of the same faith gather together. The Catholics are still waiving a little tin cup around with smoking incense rising into the rafters. Muslims must bow towards Mecca five times a day. And have you observed a Jewish ceremony? It's almost tribal. But why should that be so surprising when life during ancient times, which these ceremonies mirror, was mostly feudal and tribal. You were either rich or poor then. There was no in between. No middle class. And the rich and privileged, lorded over the poor.

All religions are steeped in tradition, cultural idiosyncrasies and liturgy. Over time these traditions change, sometimes drastically. And what do these rituals accomplish, scientifically? Is there something magical about incense smoke and why bow towards Mecca five times a day? Why not 2 or 10 times? And why the Crusades? And why the Witch Hunts of post Medieval Europe and the New World?

Thousands of years ago, men sacrificed a young virgin to appease the Gods. Or they laid dead animals at some alter. In fact, what did these rituals accomplish? Absolutely nothing, except in the distorted, naive minds of their perpetrators and the crowds that gathered around to witness them. Most of these ceremonies were founded on fear, intimidation and uncontrolled emotions.

Now, fanatical members of the Islamic religion want Americans and Israelis to die because we live decadent lives and practice Satanism in violation of their interpretation of a book called the Qur’an, written over 1,500 years ago by a man who decreed that men should only have four wives, (he had ten) and that “men are in charge of women”. After the fanatics attack the U.S. with an unprecedented loss of life, many Americans attempt to find solace in their own religions that are based on 2 to 3 thousand year-old emanations from ancient peoples who had absolutely no perception of today’s reality.

The provable reality is that we are but a very young and successful species on the third planet from a common star, in a garden-variety galaxy among billions of similar galaxies, in a Universe, the dimensions of which are not yet fully known. This reality does not make us small and unimportant. On the contrary, it makes us aware of who and where we are and the great potential for discoveries that lie ahead of us as we wonder about and explore our emerging Universe.

This reality does not make us immoral. It allows us to explore the solid reasons why morality among people is an absolute necessity if we are to live in peace with one another and raise our children in love, strength and provable truths. Morality is pragmatic, not deity created. When will we finally grow out of antiquity and quit fighting over apparitions? f there is a God, he already gave us the tools, our minds. If everyone had the same knowledge, one person or group could not “lord” over another. Only education in provable facts and the eradication of non-truths will allow us to continue as a very successful species.

***************************************************************
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/baffling_myth_of_belief.html

RELIGION LEADS TO EMOTIONAL ILLNESS

If we want to look at the problems of human disturbance a little differently, we may ask ourselves, “What are the irrational ideas which people believe and through which they drive themselves into severe states of emotional sickness?”

Exploring the Question
After exploring this question for many years, and developing a new form of psychotherapy which is specifically directed at quickly unearthing and challenging the main irrational ideas which make people neurotic and psychotic, psychologists found that these ideas may be categorized under a few major headings. Here, for example, are five irrational notions, all or some of which are strongly held by practically every seriously disturbed person; here, along with these notions, are the connections between and commonly held religious beliefs.

Irrational idea No.1 is the idea that it is a dire necessity for an adult to be loved or approved of by all the significant figures in his life. This idea is bolstered by the religious philosophy that if you cannot get certain people to love or approve of you, you can always fall back on god’s love. The thought, however, that it is quite possible for you to live comfortably in the world whether or not other people accept you is quite foreign to both emotionally disturbed people and religionists.

Irrational idea No.2 is the idea that you must be thoroughly competent, adequate, and achieving in all possible respects, otherwise you are worthless. The religionists say that no, you need not be competent and achieving, and in fact can be thoroughly inadequate – as long as god loves you and you are a member in good standing of the church. But this means, of course, that you must be a competent and achieving religionist – else you are no damned good.

Irrational idea No.3 is the notion that certain people are bad, wicked, and villainous and that they should be severely blamed and punished for their sins. This is the ethical basis, of course, of virtually all true religions. The concepts of quilt, blaming, and sin are, in fact, almost synonymous with that of revealed religion.

Irrational idea No. 4 is the belief that it is horrible, terrible, and catastrophic when things are not going the way you would like them to go. This idea, again, is the very core of religiousity, since the religious person invariably believes that just because he cannot stand being frustrated, and just because he must keep worrying about things turning out badly, he needs a supreme deity to supervise his thoughts and deeds and to protect him from anxiety and frustrations.

Irrational idea No. 5 is the idea that human unhappiness is externally caused and that people have little or no ability to control their sorrows or rid themselves of their negative feelings. Once again, this notion is the essence of religion, since real religions invariably teach you that only by trusting in god and relying on praying to him will you be able to control your sorrows of counteract your negative emotions.

Similarly, if we had time to review all the other major irrational ideas that lead humans to become and to remain emotionally disturbed, we could quickly find that they are coextensive with, or are strongly encouraged by, religious tenets.

Religion goes hand in hand with the basic irrational beliefs of human beings. These keep them dependant, anxious, and hostile, and thereby create and maintain their neuroses and psychoses. What then is the role of psychotherapy in dealing with the religious views of disturbed patients? Obviously, the sane and effective psychotherapist should not – as many contemporary psychoanalytic Jungian, client-centered, and existentialist therapists have contended he should – go along with the patients’ religious orientation and try to help these patients live successfully with their religions, for this is equivalent to trying to help them live successfully with their emotional illness.

http://www.machineslikeus.com/articles/CaseAgainstReligion.html

HITLER'S POPE PIUS XII

On February 10, 1939, Pius XI died. Eugenio Pacelli was elected Pope on the eve of Hitler's march into Prague. Between his election and his coronation he held a crucial meeting with the German cardinals. Keen to affirm Hitler publicly, he showed them a letter of good wishes which began, "To the Illustrious Herr Adolf Hitler." He told the cardinals that Pius XI had said that keeping a papal nuncio in Berlin "conflicts with our honor." But his predecessor, he said, had been mistaken. He was going to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Hitler. The following month at Pacelli's express wish, the Archbishop of Berlin hosted a gala reception in honor of Hitler's 50th birthday. A birthday greeting to the Führer from the bishops of Germany would become an annual tradition until the war's end.

Pacelli's coronation was the most triumphant in a hundred years. His style of papacy was unprecedentedly pompous. He always ate alone. Vatican bureaucrats were obliged to take phone calls from him on their knees. When he took his afternoon walk, the gardeners had to hide in the bushes. Senior officials were not allowed to ask him questions or present a point of view.

As Europe plunged toward war Pacelli cast himself in the role of judge of judges. But he continued to seek to appease Hitler by attempting to persuade the Poles to make concessions over Germany's territorial claims. After Hitler's invasion of Poland, he declined to condemn Germany, to the bafflement of the Allies. His first public statement, the encyclical known in the English-speaking world as Darkness over the Earth, was full of papal rhetoric and equivocations.

Pacelli's first wartime act of reticence in failing to speak out against Fascist brutality occurred in the summer of 1941, following Hitler's invasion of Yugoslavia and the formation of the Catholic and Fascist state of Croatia. In a wave of appalling ethnic cleansing, the Croat Fascist separatists (Ustashe) embarked on a campaign of enforced conversions, deportations, and mass extermination targeting a population of 2.2 million Serb Orthodox Christians and a smaller number of Jews and Gypsies. The victims were forced to dig their own graves before being hacked to death with axes. The local priest was forced to recite the prayers for the dying while his son was chopped to pieces before his eyes. Then the priest was tortured. His hair and beard were torn off, his eves were gouged out. Finally he was skinned alive. The very next month Pacelli greeted the Croat leader at the Vatican.

Throughout the war, the Croat atrocities continued. Despite a close relationship between the Ustashe regime and the Catholic bishops, and a constant flow of information about the massacres, Pacelli said and did nothing. In fact, he continued to extend warm wishes to the Ustashe leadership. Pacelli's silence was due to his perception of Croatia as a Catholic bridgehead into the East. The Vatican approved of mass conversion in Croatia (even though it was the result of fear rather than conviction), because they believed that this could spell the beginning of a return of the Orthodox Christians there to papal allegiance. Pacelli chose to turn a blind eye on Ustashe atrocities rather than hinder a unique opportunity to extend the power of the papacy.

Pacelli came to learn of the Nazi plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe shortly after they were laid in January 1942. The deportations to the death camps had begun in December 1941 and would continue through 1944. All during 1942, Pacelli received reliable information on the details of the Final Solution. Representatives of Jewish organizations sent a memorandum to Pacelli, cataloguing violent anti-Semitic measures in Germany and in its allied and conquered territories. Their plea focused attention on Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, and unoccupied France, where, they believed, the Pope's intervention might yet be effective. Apart from an intervention in the case of Slovakia, where the president was Monsignor Tiso, a Catholic priest, no papal initiatives resulted.

Pacelli was diverting himself, ostrichlike, into purely religious concerns and that the moral authority won for the papacy by Pius XI was being eroded. The London Daily Telegraph announced that more than a million Jews had been killed in Europe and that it was the aim of the Nazis "to wipe the race from the European continent." In the following weeks the British, American representatives to the Vatican tried to persuade Pacelli to speak out against the Nazi atrocities. But still he said nothing. In September 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt sent his personal representative to plead with PaceIli. Still Pacelli refused to speak. Pacelli's excuse was that he must rise above the belligerent parties. Britain's envoy delivered a dossier replete with information on the Jewish deportations and mass killings in hopes that the Pope would denounce the Nazi regime in a Christmas message.

On December 24, 1942, having made draft after draft, Pacelli at last said something. In his Christmas Eve broadcast to the world on Vatican Radio, he said that men of goodwill owed a vow to bring society "back to its immovable center of gravity in divine law." He went on: "Humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality and race, are marked for death or gradual extinction."

That was the strongest public denunciation of the Final Solution that Pacelli would make in the whole course of the war.

Clearly the choice of ambiguous wording was intended to placate those who urged him to protest, while avoiding offense to the Nazi regime. But these considerations are over-shadowed by the implicit denial and trivialization. He had scaled down the doomed millions to "hundreds of thousands" without uttering the word "Jews," while making the pointed qualification "sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race." Nowhere was the term "Nazi'' mentioned. Hitler himself could not have wished for a more convoluted and innocuous reaction from
the Vicar of Christ to the greatest crime in history.

But what was Pacelli's principal motivation for this trivialization and denial? The Allies' diplomats in the Vatican believed that he was remaining impartial in order to earn a crucial role in future peace negotiations. In this there was clearly a degree of truth. But evidence gathered shows that Pacelli saw the Jews as alien and undeserving of his respect and compassion. He felt no sense of moral outrage at their plight. The documents show that:

1. He had nourished a striking antipathy toward the Jews as early as 1917 in Germany, which contradicts later claims that his omissions were performed in good faith and that he "loved" the Jews and respected their religion.

2. From the end of the First World War to the lost encyclical of 1938, Pacelli betrayed a fear and contempt of Judaism based on his belief that the Jews were behind the Bolshevik plot to destroy Christendom.

3. Pacelli acknowledged to representatives of the Third Reich that the regime's anti-Semitic policies were a matter of Germany's internal politics. The Reich Concordat between Hitler and the Vatican, as Hitler was quick to grasp, created an ideal climate for Jewish persecution.

4. Pacelli failed to sanction protest by German Catholic bishops against anti-Semitism, and he did not attempt to intervene in the process by which Catholic clergy collaborated in racial certification to identify Jews.

5. After Pius XI's Mit Brennender Sorge, denouncing the Nazi regime (although not by name), Pacelli attempted to mitigate the effect of the encyclical by giving private diplomatic reassurances to Berlin despite his awareness of widespread Nazi persecution of Jews.

6. Pacelli was convinced that the Jews had brought misfortune on their own heads: intervention on their behalf could only draw the church into alliances with forces inimical to Catholicism. Pacelli's failure to utter a candid word on the Final Solution proclaimed to the world that the Vicar of Christ was not roused to pity or anger. From this point of view, he was the ideal Pope for Hitler's unspeakable plan. His denial and minimization of the Holocaust were all the more scandalous in that they were uttered from a seemingly impartial moral high ground.

There was another, more immediate indication of Pacelli's moral dislocation. It occurred before the liberation of Rome, when he was the sole Italian authority in the city. On October 16, 1943, SS troops entered the Roman ghetto area and rounded up more than 1,000 Jews, imprisoning them in the very shadow of the Vatican. On the morning of the roundup, which had been prompted by AdoIf Eichmann, in charge of the Final Solution, the Rome's German ambassador pleaded with the Vatican to issue a public protest. By this stage of the war, Mussolini had been deposed and rescued by AdoIf Hitler to run the puppet regime in the North of Italy. The German authorities in Rome, both diplomats and military commanders, fearing a backlash of the Italian populace, hoped that an immediate and vigorous papal denunciation might stop the SS in their tracks and prevent further arrests. Pacelli refused.

Pacelli that day was anxious that the "Communist" Partisans would take advantage of a cycle of papal protest, followed by SS reprisals, followed by a civilian backlash. As a consequence, he was not inclined to lift a finger for the Jewish deportees, who were now traveling in cattle cars bound for Auschwitz.

Pacelli was concerned that a protest by him would benefit only the Communists. His silence on the deportation of Rome's Jews, in other words, was not an act of cowardice or fear of the Germans. He wanted to maintain the Nazi-occupation status quo until such time as the city could be liberated by the Allies. But what of the deported Jews? Five days after the train had set off, an estimated 1,060 had been gassed at Auschwitz and Birkenau.

But there was a more profound failure than Pacelli's unwillingness to help the Jews of Rome rounded up on October 16. Pacelli's reticence was not just a diplomatic silence. It was a stunning religious and ritualistic silence. There is no record of a single public papal prayer, lit votive candle, psalm, lamentation, or Mass celebrated in solidarity with the Jews of Rome either during their terrible ordeal or after their deaths. This spiritual silence in the face of an atrocity committed at the heart of Christendom. This silence proclaims that Pacelli had no genuine spiritual sympathy even for the Jews of Rome, who were members of the community of his birth. And yet, on learning of the death of AdoIf Hitler, Archbishop Adolf Bertram of Berlin ordered all the priests of his archdiocese "to hold a solemn Requiem in memory of the Führer."

Settimia Spizzichino, the sole Roman Jewish woman survivor from the death camps. Speaking in a BBC interview in 1995 she said. "I came back from Auschwitz on my own. I lost my mother, two sisters and one brother. Pius XII could have warned us about what was going to happen. We might have escaped from Rome and joined the partisans. He played right into the Germans' hands. It all happened right under his nose. But he was an anti-Semitic pope, a pro-German pope. He didn't take a single risk. And when they say the Pope is like Jesus Christ, it is not true. He did not save a single child."

The saddest ironies of Pacelli's papacy centers on the implications of his own pastoral self-image. At the beginning of a promotional film he commissioned about himself during the war, called The Angelic Pastor, the camera frequently focuses on the statue of the Good Shepherd in the Vatican gardens. The parable of the good shepherd tells of the pastor who so loves each of his sheep that he will do all, risk all, go to any pains, to save one member of his flock that is lost or in danger. To his everlasting shame, and to the shame of the Catholic Church, Pacelli disdained to recognize the Jews of Rome as members of his Roman flock, even though they had dwelled in the Eternal City since before the birth of Christ. And yet there was still something worse.

After the liberation of Rome, when every perception of restraint on his freedom was lifted, he claimed retrospective moral superiority for having spoken and acted on behalf of the Jews. Addressing a Palestinian group on August 3, 1946, he said, "We disapprove of all recourse to force...Just as we condemned on various occasions in the past the persecutions that a fanatical anti-Semitism inflicted on the Hebrew people." His grandiloquent self-exculpation a year after the war had ended showed him to be not only an ideal pope for the Nazis Final Solution but also a hypocrite.

***********************************************************
condensed from: http://www.reformation.org/hitler_pope.html

HYPOCRISY RULES THE ROOST

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

Almost everyday you can read about a scandal involving one denomination or the other. Of course the higher ups condemn the behaviour, ask forgiveness, slip a few bucks to the family, and back to business as usual. That hasn't changed since religion was invented. Yet the ignorant still blindly follow without question. HYPOCRITES EVERYONE. Below is just a sampling of various 'sins' the bible preaches against yet the leaders feel exempt.

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL
"Embezzlement seen in 85% of Catholic dioceses" Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jan 5, 2007 by Laurie Goodstein.
A survey by researchers at Villanova University has found that a surprising 85 percent of Roman Catholic dioceses that responded had discovered embezzlement of church funds in the past five years, with 11 percent reporting that more than $500,000 had been stolen. The Catholic Church has some of the most rigorous financial guidelines of any denomination, specialists in church ethics said, but the survey found that the guidelines are often ignored in parishes. And when no one is looking, the cash that goes into the collection plate does not always get deposited into the church's bank account. One church insider had this to say "As a faith-based organization, we place a lot of trust in our folks, We think if you work for a church -- you're a volunteer or a priest -- the last thing on your mind is to do something dishonest, But people are people, and there's a lot of temptation there, and with the cash-based aspect of how churches operate, it's pretty easy." So much for Thou Shall Not Steal. Hypocrite. (WWJD? Drive a BMW of course!)

NO SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE
"Although religious denominations do not audit clerical infidelity (or divorce), outside sources do. In 1993 The Journal of Pastoral Care reported a survey of Southern Baptist pastors in which 14 percent acknowledged that they had engaged in "sexual behavior inappropriate to a minister." More startling, 70 percent said that they had counseled at least one woman who had had intercourse with another minister. In 1988, a survey of nearly 1,000 Protestant clergy by Leadership magazine found that 12 percent admitted to sexual intercourse outside marriage. Seventeen percent of these affairs occurred with people they were counseling, and 52 percent involved members, ministers or other leaders of their own congregation. An additional 18 percent disclosed that they had kissed, fondled or masturbated with someone other than their spouse. When asked what consequences they had suffered—in their marriages or their careers—as a result of their sexual adventures, only 6 percent said that they had lost their jobs. And nearly a third reported no adverse consequences of any kind. Hypocrites. (Guess it's better than molesting little boys)

DIVORCE IS A SIN
June 28, 1997, Newsweek reported:
"Although he wasn’t married himself, Jesus had some rather clear teachings on the subject. Adultery was sin, he declared, and that included even lustful looks at another woman. He was tough on divorce, too, saying that anyone who divorces and marries another also commits adultery. But the authority of Scripture isn’t what it used to be — even of those who preach it from the pulpit. In recent years the divorce rate for Protestant clergy has risen to match the general population’s.

"Born-again" Christians are more likely to go through a marital split than are non-Christians, according to a new study by the Barna Research Group. Using statistics drawn from a nationwide survey, the Barna data show 11 percent of the adult population currently is divorced but that 25 percent of all adults have experienced at least one divorce. Among "born-again" Christians, 27 percent currently are divorced or previously have been divorced, compared with 24 percent among adults who are not "born again." Surprisingly, the Barna report said, the Christian group whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. The only group to surpass Baptists were Christians associated with non-denominational Protestant churches. Hypocrites. (Newt's on his 3rd, I'm sure #4 is in the works)

THALL SHALT NOT COVET A NEIGHBORS WIFE
"Children fathered by priest settle suit" By Michael S. Rosenwald, Globe Staff, 1/30/2004
The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston reached a settlement yesterday in the case of a priest who fathered two children with one of his parishioners, a Needham woman, and then fled her home the night she died of a drug overdose. Church officials announced an agreement with the family of Rita Perry, who died in 1973, in the case against the Rev. James Foley. The priest acknowledged having a lengthy affair with Perry, and paternity tests eventually proved he was the father of two of her four children, Emily and James Perry. The archdiocese issued a strongly worded statement in which Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley condemned sexual relationships between priests and parishioners.

Oooo a strongly worded statement! Hello the woman OVERDOSED on drugs while partying with his holiness!!! Let alone fathered two kids. Hypocrite. (It's ok, their hetero)

THALL SHALT NOT KILL
Catholic priest convicted of nun's 1980 murder By Harriet Ryan, Court TV, TOLEDO, Ohio
A jury in this heavily Catholic community convicted a priest Thursday of murdering a nun 26 years ago in the sacristy of a hospital chapel. The panel deliberated six hours before finding the Rev. Gerald Robinson guilty of a single count of murder in the Easter eve killing of Sr. Margaret Ann Pahl. Judge Thomas Osowik immediately sentenced Robinson, 68, to a sentence of 15 years to life in prison. Prosecutors contend Robinson murdered the 71-year-old nun because he was frustrated with his assignment at the hospital, which was run by her order, and disliked what the priest called her "dominant personality." She was stabbed 31 times, including nine times through an altar cloth in the shape of an inverted cross.

Get that? a 71 year-old nun, stabbed 31 times, 9 times in the shape of an inverted cross!! Hypocrite. (Holy pissed off Batman!)

THALL SHALT NOT LIE
"Priest Is Charged In Van Bulow Case" By JONATHAN FRIENDLY, NEW YORK TIMES, June 1985
An indictment unsealed here today charges that a Roman Catholic priest lied in a sworn statement he gave in 1983 to help Claus von Bulow get a new trial on charges of trying to kill his wife with insulin injections. Thall shalt not lie nor bare false witness, a Double Whammy! Hypocrite. (I crossed my fingers while swearing on the bible!)

WAKE UP ALL YE FAITHFUL YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.

HAPPY EASTER SATURDAY & GOOD WEDNESDAY TO YOU!

Believe It Or Not The RESURRECTION was NOT on Sunday!

IT is commonly supposed, today, Jesus was crucified on FRIDAY, and that the resurrection occurred about sunrise on Easter Sunday morning. It would seem that no one, ever thought to question or to PROVE this "Good Friday Easter" tradition. Yet the Bible tells you to PROVE all things. As usual the church conveniently ignores the clues in order to make their religion palatable to pagan 'converts'. The Easter the west celebrates today is the Spring equinox (pagan) and hence the Easter bunny and all those eggs. Jokes on them.

Was Jesus three days and three nights in the grave, as He said in Matthew 12:40? Can you figure three days and three nights between sunset "Good Friday" and sunrise Easter Sunday?

Tradition No Evidence
There were no eye witnesses to the resurrection. Even so called "apostolic fathers" had no source of information save that record which is today available to us. Tradition, then, must be dismissed. What are the recorded facts? The doubting Pharisees were asking Jesus for a SIGN a supernatural evidence in proof of His Messiahship. Jesus answered: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12:38)

Now consider, the tremendous import the overwhelming significance of Jesus' statement! He expressly declared that the ONLY SIGN He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the rock hewn sepulchre in "the heart of the earth." These Christ rejecting Pharisees demanded PROOF. Jesus offered but one evidence. That evidence was not the fact of the resurrection itself, it was the LENGTH OF TIME He would repose in His grave. Jesus staked His claim to being your Saviour upon remaining exactly THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the tomb. IF He remained just three days and three nights inside the earth, He would PROVE Himself the Saviour if He failed in this sign, He must be rejected as an impostor!

The Dilemma of the Higher Critics
This one and only supernatural PROOF ever given by Jesus for His Messiahship has greatly bothered the commentators and the higher critics.

Their attempts to explain away this sole proof for Christ's divinity are ludicrous in the extreme. For explain this away they must, or their "Good Friday Easter" tradition collapses! One commentator says, "Of course we know that Jesus was actually in the tomb only half as long as He thought He would be!" Some expositors impose upon our credulity to the extent of asking us to believe that "in the GREEK language, in which the New Testament was written, the expression 'three days and three nights' means three PERIODS, either of day or of night!" Jesus, they say, was placed in the tomb shortly before sunset FRIDAY, and rose at sunrise Sunday morning two nights and one day.

The BIBLE Definition
But the BIBLE definition of the duration of "nights and days" is simple. Even these same higher critics admit that in the HEBREW language, in which the book of Jonah was written, the expression "three days and three nights" means a period of 72 hours three twelve hour days and three twelve hour nights.

Notice Jonah 1: 17: "And Jonah was in the belly of the fish THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS!" This, they admit was a period of 72 hours. And Jesus distinctly said that AS Jonah was three days and three nights in the great fish's belly, SO He would be the same length of time in His grave!

Notice the BIBLE DEFINITION of the expression, "THE THIRD DAY."
In Genesis 1:4 God "divided the LIGHT from the DARKNESS. And God called the LIGHT Day, and the DARKNESS He called Night. And the evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were the FIRST DAY ... and the evening (darkness) and the morning (light) were THE SECOND DAY and the evening (now three periods of darkness called NIGHT three nights) and the morning (now three periods of light called DAY three days) were THE THIRD DAY." (Gen. 1:4 13)

Here we have the ONLY BIBLE DEFINITION which explains and COUNTS UP the amount of time involved in the expression "THE THIRD DAY." It includes three dark periods called NIGHT, and three light periods called DAY three days and three nights, and Jesus said they contained TWELVE HOURS for each period a total of 72 hours! That ought to be conclusive! Any seven year old, near the end of the second grade, could figure it easily.

What Is Wrong?
What is wrong with these plain, simple words of Jesus? How do these wise and prudent theologians KNOW Jesus was crucified "Good Friday" and rose "Easter Sunday?" The simple answer is, THEY DO NOT KNOW IT for IT IS NOT TRUE! It is merely Tradition, a tradition we have been taught from childhood, and carelessly ASSUMED! Jesus warns against making "the Word of God of none effect through your TRADITION."

"And He began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and AFTER three days rise again." Our young second grader can figure this. IF Jesus had been killed on Friday, and then AFTER one day He had risen, the resurrection would have occurred on Saturday evening. IF AFTER TWO DAYS, it would have occurred Sunday evening, and if AFTER THREE DAYS, it would have occurred MONDAY EVENING!

Examine this text carefully. You cannot, by any process of arithmetic, figure any less than a full 72 hours three days and three nights in a resurrection which occurred three days AFTER the crucifixion! If Jesus was in the grave only from Friday sunset to Sunday sunrise, then this text too, must be torn out of your Bible or else you must reject Jesus Christ as your Saviour! If He rose AFTER THREE DAYS, it might have been more than 72 hours, but it could not have been a second less!

The TIME OF DAY of Resurrection
Now notice carefully this fact: In order to be three days and three nights-72 hours-in the tomb, Jesus had to be resurrected at exactly THE SAME TIME OF DAY that His body was buried in the tomb! Let us realize that very vital fact. If we can find the TIME OF DAY of the burial, then we have found the TIME OF DAY of the resurrection! If the burial, for instance, was at sunrise, then in order to be left an even three days and three nights in the tomb, the resurrection likewise had to occur at sunrise, three days later. If the burial were at noon, the resurrection was at noon. If the burial was at sunset, the resurrection was at sunset, three days later.

Jesus cried on the cross soon after "the ninth hour" or three o'clock in the afternoon. (Matt. 27:46-50) The crucifixion day was called "the preparation," or day before "the sabbath." (27:62). This day ended at sunset, according to Bible reckoning (Lev. 23:32). Yet Jesus was buried before this same day ended,before sunset. (27:57 He died shortly after 3 p.m. Therefore-notice carefully!-the BURIAL OF CHRIST'S BODY WAS IN THE LATE AFTERNOON! It was between 3 p.m. and sunset.

And since the RESURRECTION had to occur at the SAME TIME OF DAY, three days later, THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OCCURRED, not at sunrise, but IN THE LATE AFTERNOON, near sunset! If Jesus rose at any other time of day, He could not have been three days and three nights in His grave. If He rose at any other time of day, He failed to prove, by the only sign He gave that He was the true Messiah, the Son of the living Creator! Either He rose near the END of a day near sunset, or else He is not the Christ! He staked His claim on that one and only sign! So a time-honored tradition must be shattered!

What Day Was the Resurrection?
Now which DAY OF THE WEEK was the resurrection day? The first investigators, Mary Magdalene and her companions, came to the sepulchre on the first day of the week (Sunday) very early, while it was yet dark, as the sun was beginning to rise, at dawn. (Mark 16:2).Now here are the texts most people have SUPPOSED stated the resurrection was at sunrise Sunday morning. But they do not say that! When the women arrived, the tomb was already OPEN! At that time Sunday morning while it was yet dark-JESUS WAS NOT THERE! The angel says "HE IS NOT HERE. BUT IS RISEN!" (Mark 16:6) Jesus was ALREADY RISEN at sunrise Sunday morning! Of course He was. He rose from the grave IN THE LATE AFTERNOON, near SUNSET! And since we know the resurrection was just shortly prior to that Sunday morning, and that it occurred in the late afternoon of the day, we now may know THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OCCURRED LATE SATURDAY AFTERNOON. The Sabbath day ended at sunset. It was late on that day, before the beginning of the first day of the week. It was not, then, a Sunday resurrection at all it was a Sabbath resurrection!

Did Christ Fulfill His Sign?
Now all this is based on the supposition that Jesus did fulfill His only SIGN of being three days and three nights in the grave. All our evidence is based on the claims of Jesus BEFORE His crucifixion. THE ANGEL gives this testimony "He is not here: for He is risen, AS HE SAID." And He certainly did not rise unless He rose at the precise TIME that He had said! So we have the proof of the ANGEL, recorded that Jesus did fulfill His sign-He was three days and three nights in the earth-He did rise Sabbath afternoon, and not Sunday morning! The THIRD DAY following His Wednesday burial was the Sabbath; THREE FULL DAYS spent in the grave ended Saturday afternoon just prior to sunset, not Sunday morning.

Which Day Was the Crucifixion?
It is not difficult now to determine the day on which Jesus was crucified. Counting back three days from the Sabbath when He rose, we come to Wednesday, the fourth or very middle day of the week. Jesus was crucified on WEDNESDAY, the middle day of the week, He died on the cross shortly after 3 p.m. that afternoon, was buried before sunset Wednesday evening. Now COUNT the THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS. His body was Wednesday, Thursday and Friday NIGHTS in the grave THREE NIGHTS. It also was there through the daylight part of Thursday, Friday and Saturday THREE DAYS. He rose Saturday-the Sabbath late afternoon, shortly before sunset, at the same TIME OF DAY that He was buried! And Sunday morning at sunrise He was NOT THERE-HE WAS ALREADY RISEN!

WHAT Sabbath Followed the Crucifixion?
Now we come to an objection some may raise, yet the very point which PROVES this truth! Perhaps you have noticed that the Scriptures say the day AFTER the crucifixion was a SABBATH! Hence, for centuries, people have blindly assumed the crucifixion was on Friday! Now we have shown that the crucifixion day-Wednesday-was called "the preparation." The preparation day for THE SABBATH.

Just what is a "HIGH DAY"? Ask any Jew! He will tell you it is one of the annual holydays, or feast days. The Israelites observed seven of these every year-every one called SABBATHS! Annual Sabbaths, falling on certain annual calendar dates, and on different days of the week in different years, just like the Roman holidays now observed. These Sabbaths might fall on Monday, on Thursday, or on Sunday.

And what was THE PASSOVER? It was the ancient day of Israel commemorating their deliverance from Egypt, and picturing to them the crucifixion of Christ and their deliverance from sin. In the twelfth chapter of Exodus you will find the story of the original Passover.

The children of Israel killed the lambs, and struck the blood over the doorposts and on the side-posts of their houses, and wherever the blood had thus been applied the Lord PASSED OVER that house, sparing it from death. Following the Passover, was a holy convocation or annual Sabbath. Observe the dates: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is THE PASSOVER of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the FEAST." (Num. 28:16-17)

The Passover lamb, killed every year on the 14th of the first month called "Abib, JESUS WAS SLAIN ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE PASSOVER HAD BEEN SLAIN EVERY YEAR! He was crucified on the 14th of Abib, the first Hebrew month of the year! And this day, the PASSOVER, was the day before, and the preparation for, THE FEAST day, or annual highday Sabbath, which occurred on the 15th of Abib. THIS Sabbath might occur on ANY day of the week. And the Hebrew calendar shows that in the year Jesus was crucified, the 14th of Abib, Passover day, the day Jesus was crucified, was WEDNESDAY. And the annual Sabbath was THURSDAY. This was the Sabbath that drew on as Joseph of Arimathea hastened to bury the body of Jesus late that Wednesday afternoon. THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE SABBATHS THAT WEEK!

So now do you STILL believe everything the church tells you as truth? as infallible? Question authority, think for yourselves. Easter is just a pagan tradition transformed into a messiah myth. They don't even use their own timetables as written in the Bible. You are being lied to. Celebrate spring.